Alex Edler - Part II

[kanucks25]

yeah you definitely weren't the only one defending him.

Now that he's playing much better, pretty much everybody says they were defending him last year.

 

[NuxFan09]

The people who absolutely **** on Edler last year know who they are and are feeling pretty stupid this year.

That's good enough for me.

 

[arsmaster*]

I don't feel that stupid, and crapping on Edler last year was justified. He was the epitome of HFCanucks new favourite term "hot garbage".

He was dog **** last year. He's improved his level a lot, and IMO, that's the biggest reason for this teams turnaround this season, but to just slough off his season last year would be foolish.

Wish he stil contributed offensively, but I'll take this years Edler over last years anytime.

 

[Barney Gumble]

He was dog **** last year.

It was hardly his first **** year as well.

Now that he's playing much better, pretty much everybody says they were defending him last year.

Nope.

 

[Pip]

He sucked last year

 

[NuxFan09]

It's not just about people criticizing his play last year. That would be justified. It's about the fact that some people were making sweeping judgments on him as a player, ignoring his complete body of work, and suggesting that he sucks and should be bought out.

Those people should feel shame, and not even because of his play this year! He already showed he was a very good defenseman in years past. That's what gets me. His performance shouldn't be shocking anyone. It's embarrassing that from time to time some Canucks fans can't freaking see what's right in front of their eyes on their own team (although this isn't just a Canucks fanbase thing, it happens among other fanbases) and it makes me question how much they really know about hockey.

Leave the player evaluations to smarter people.

 

[Dissonance]

The people who absolutely **** on Edler last year know who they are and are feeling pretty stupid this year.

That's good enough for me.

I'm pretty sure I a) was adamantly against trading Edler before his NTC kicked in back in 2013 but then also b) thought we should jettison Edler for scraps in the 2014 offseason. Both were wrong! So now I don't even know what to believe and am going to predict he'll win the Norris in 2016.

 

[Shareefruck]

I thought he played about as poor hockey as you possibly can last season, and still think that-- Didn't buy that it was statistical misrepresentation.

However, while I was okay with trading him, I wanted to keep him because his value was so low, and every year I suggest this-- "Every year, Bieksa and Edler alternate back and forth between one of them being brilliant and one of them being god-awful."

It's happening again this year. Would not be surprised if it happened again next year (with Bieksa being great and Edler being disappointing

 

[MS]

It's not just about people criticizing his play last year. That would be justified. It's about the fact that some people were making sweeping judgments on him as a player, ignoring his complete body of work, and suggesting that he sucks and should be bought out.

Those people should feel shame, and not even because of his play this year! He already showed he was a very good defenseman in years past. That's what gets me. His performance shouldn't be shocking anyone. It's embarrassing that from time to time some Canucks fans can't freaking see what's right in front of their eyes on their own team (although this isn't just a Canucks fanbase thing, it happens among other fanbases) and it makes me question how much they really know about hockey.

Leave the player evaluations to smarter people.

Don't feel any shame at all.

He was horrible last year, and worse, he was lazy, not competing, and quitting on plays. His effort level and mental preparedness to play was embarrassing. The amount of odd-man rushes he was bleeding was frankly astonishing. Was the worst player in the NHL in terms of negative impact to his team.

And it was the third consecutive year where he was poor and had trended down to outright awful.

I didn't think he would rebound. I was wrong about that. I wasn't wrong at all about his play.

I had been one of his biggest fans through his first few years in the league. I knew he had been good. But some players just lose it (Ballard) and it looked like he was going that direction. Very happy that isn't the case.

 

[Just A Bit Outside]

I'd still trade him in the right deal.

 

[Verviticus]

I didn't think he would rebound. I was wrong about that. I wasn't wrong at all about his play.

I had been one of his biggest fans through his first few years in the league. I knew he had been good. But some players just lose it (Ballard) and it looked like he was going that direction. Very happy that isn't the case.

ya but the evidence that he had to rebound or literally be the unluckiest player in nhl history should have been screaming "maybe i've got something wrong here"

 

[MS]

ya but the evidence that he had to rebound or literally be the unluckiest player in nhl history should have been screaming "maybe i've got something wrong here"

His GF/60 was probably unlucky.

His GA/60 and on-ice shooting % against weren't. I've never seen a player bleed odd-man rushes at the rate Edler was last season.

Nobody criticizing him got anything wrong. He was absolutely freaking awful.

 

[tc 23]

His GF/60 was probably unlucky.

His GA/60 and on-ice shooting % against weren't. I've never seen a player bleed odd-man rushes at the rate Edler was last season.

Nobody criticizing him got anything wrong. He was absolutely freaking awful.

I don't think it was wrong for people to criticize Edler's performance last season, but I believe his struggles were overblown.

His on-ice shooting % absolutely was the result of bad luck. 3.63% on-ice shooting % puts up 226th out of 227 dmen who played 300+ minutes last season, ahead of only Chad Ruhwedel of Buffalo who played 21 games. There's basically zero chance that was sustainable. His GA/60 wasn't even that bad, putting him 155th of 227 dmen who played 300+ minutes, ahead of guys like Letang, Keith, Subban, Weber.

The way I saw it, Edler, for me last year, was a player who:

• Started off playing well
• Got an asinine suspension, which hurt his confidence
• Came back and had poor luck, further hurting his confidence
• Played very poorly because he had zero confidence in his game

 

[Verviticus]

His GF/60 was probably unlucky.

His GA/60 and on-ice shooting % against weren't. I've never seen a player bleed odd-man rushes at the rate Edler was last season.

Nobody criticizing him got anything wrong. He was absolutely freaking awful.

you predicted he was worth waiving and you got that wrong. somewhere there's a fault in what you saw and what actually was and it led you to a result that would have been a catastrophic loss of assets if you had control. can you identify where that is?

 

[MS]

I don't think it was wrong for people to criticize Edler's performance last season, but I believe his struggles were overblown.

His on-ice shooting % absolutely was the result of bad luck. 3.63% on-ice shooting % puts up 226th out of 227 dmen who played 300+ minutes last season, ahead of only Chad Ruhwedel of Buffalo who played 21 games. There's basically zero chance that was sustainable. His GA/60 wasn't even that bad, putting him 155th of 227 dmen who played 300+ minutes, ahead of guys like Letang, Keith, Subban, Weber.

The way I saw it, Edler, for me last year, was a player who:

• Started off playing well
• Got an asinine suspension, which hurt his confidence
• Came back and had poor luck, further hurting his confidence
• Played very poorly because he had zero confidence in his game

I have him at 154th of 174 players who played 50+ games, ahead of pretty much only guys who were on godawful Edmonton/Florida/Toronto/Buffalo teams.

Agreed that his on-ice shooting percentage was unsustainable, and I said as much at the time.

you predicted he was worth waiving and you got that wrong. somewhere there's a fault in what you saw and what actually was and it led you to a result that would have been a catastrophic loss of assets if you had control. can you identify where that is?

First off, I said I would waive him to clear the $5 million in contract space so it could be re-invested into another player, only because he couldn't be traded. I was always specific that I thought he would have some trade value if he didn't have the NTC, so in no way was I saying he was 'waiver material' in the traditional sense.

Second, what I saw last year was a guy who simply wasn't competing, and watching his effort level frankly made me sick. He was a guy in a downward spiral, and no, I didn't have confidence that he could pull out of it after 3 poor years. 4 more years at $20 million for a guy playing as horribly as Edler was last year was not a good scenario.

I was wrong about the effect that Desjardins would have, and have admitted it several times, and listed it as WD's biggest accomplishment.

 

[tc 23]

I have him at 155/227 of dmen with 300+ minutes played and 87/123 of dmen with 1000+ minutes played.

Source

 

[Verviticus]

you dont find it the least bit odd that your vision test narrative coincided with an insanely unlucky and ridiculous season? i mean you can say "ah yes, this was unsustainable blah blah" and then turn right around and say stuff like "I saw last year was a guy who simply wasn't competing, and watching his effort level frankly made me sick" with no dissonance?

i didn't see that. i dont think wisp saw that. im sure plenty of other people didn't see that. why did you see that?

should i link this again? http://nhlnumbers.com/2015/3/1/the-limits-of-observation

edit2: scratch that one for now

 

[MS]

I have him at 155/227 of dmen with 300+ minutes played and 87/123 of dmen with 1000+ minutes played.

Source

My numbers are completely different:

http://www.behindthenet.ca/nhl_stat...34+45+46+63+67+21+22+23+24+25+26+27+28#snip=f

you dont find it the least bit odd that your vision test narrative coincided with an insanely unlucky and ridiculous season? i mean you can say "ah yes, this was unsustainable blah blah" and then turn right around and say stuff like "I saw last year was a guy who simply wasn't competing, and watching his effort level frankly made me sick" with no dissonance?

i didn't see that. i dont think wisp saw that. im sure plenty of other people didn't see that. why did you see that?

should i link this again? http://nhlnumbers.com/2015/3/1/the-limits-of-observation

edit2: scratch that one for now

a) it wasn't just one season. He was bleeding goals for 3 straight years, but it was masked by how good the team around him was.

b) the on-ice shooting % was obviously unsustainable. It was ridiculously low. But the GA/60 and opposing shooting % lined up exactly with what I was watching on the ice - a player who was mentally checked out and bleeding odd-man rushes and goals at an incredible rate.

 

[Wisp]

I have him at 154th of 174 players who played 50+ games, ahead of pretty much only guys who were on godawful Edmonton/Florida/Toronto/Buffalo teams.

Agreed that his on-ice shooting percentage was unsustainable, and I said as much at the time.



First off, I said I would waive him to clear the $5 million in contract space so it could be re-invested into another player, only because he couldn't be traded. I was always specific that I thought he would have some trade value if he didn't have the NTC, so in no way was I saying he was 'waiver material' in the traditional sense.

Second, what I saw last year was a guy who simply wasn't competing, and watching his effort level frankly made me sick. He was a guy in a downward spiral, and no, I didn't have confidence that he could pull out of it after 3 poor years. 4 more years at $20 million for a guy playing as horribly as Edler was last year was not a good scenario.

I was wrong about the effect that Desjardins would have, and have admitted it several times, and listed it as WD's biggest accomplishment.

i wonder where your head is at in the first place when one of those 'poor three years' was a 49 point season and the other was a 40 point pace during the lockout season. Edler last years was seriously upsetting for all of us, but you used the outlier to define the entire body of work.

expectations for Edler were always wack, though. even though the seasons were both objectively good - good counting stats and corsi - good wasn't enough: Edler had Norris expectations on him those years.

 

[Verviticus]

b) the on-ice shooting % was obviously unsustainable. It was ridiculously low. But the GA/60 and opposing shooting % lined up exactly with what I was watching on the ice - a player who was mentally checked out and bleeding odd-man rushes and goals at an incredible rate.

but b) isn't a repeatable skill/flaw. players that do that basically don't do that in the following year

http://www.broadstreethockey.com/2013/7/4/4487304/save-percentage-variability-regression-defense

 

[MS]

i wonder where your head is at in the first place when one of those 'poor three years' was a 49 point season and the other was a 40 point pace during the lockout season. Edler last years was seriously upsetting for all of us, but you used the outlier to define the entire body of work.

expectations for Edler were always wack, though. even though the seasons were both objectively good - good counting stats and corsi - good wasn't enough: Edler had Norris expectations on him those years.

He scored a bunch of PP points from 2011-2013 which made his numbers look good. He was not a very effective NHL defender at ES, especially considering he wasn't playing top-pairing/shutdown minutes.

 

[arsmaster*]

I hate the word "luck". Edler wasn't unlucky. He was bad.

He was as much a contributor to on ice save percentage as the goalie.

He chased a forward behind the net and left a man wide open at least once a game.

He was "lucky" to not get scored on more.

 

[Reverend Mayhem]

He scored a bunch of PP points from 2011-2013 which made his numbers look good. He was not a very effective NHL defender at ES, especially considering he wasn't playing top-pairing/shutdown minutes.

I think people are seeming to forget how ineffective was Edler in those years. The numbers went by the wayside during the Torts season and everyone thought it was just a bad year. Reality is, Torts correctly identified Edler as a player who needed to show better defensively at his first presser here. Which in turn was about the only thing he was right about Alex Edler all his time here.

Edler was a much better PP player that 2011-12 season. Makes me wonder why we are doing the shin-guard target practice all of a sudden instead of those pretty deft passes he made beforehand. Don't get me wrong though, Edler is pretty money lately from 5 feet out of those legs, though, so you know that the accuracy skill is still there.

 

[F A N]

I didn't fully back Edler last year nor did I attack him. I suggested that if the deal is right you trade him.

As good as Edler has been this year compared to last year, he isn't the same defenseman as he was when we were talking about his potential to develop into a true #1 defenseman. Edler's offensive game and production is nowhere near where it was before. This is partly because the Canucks aren't as good offensively as before, but you can see it in Edler's game. He isn't as dangerous offensively and he rarely shows his physical side. It's almost like Edler tries to play more like Tanev, just more of a quiet efficient game.

 

[tc 23]

I hate the word "luck". Edler wasn't unlucky. He was bad.

He was as much a contributor to on ice save percentage as the goalie.

He chased a forward behind the net and left a man wide open at least once a game.

He was "lucky" to not get scored on more.

How else would you explain Edler's on-ice shooting % last season, if not through luck?

Edler's own shooting % was fairly normal so unless Edler's presence on the ice somehow drastically affected the other four players on the ice with him for the worse for the majority of last season, I attribute his unsustainably low on-ice shooting % last year to luck.