How will Erik Karlsson be remembered?

[ChiTownPhilly]

Karlsson gained a nice -11 from playing on the power play this year a new career high.

Yikes.

Well, I had to look up and find Leo Boivin and his -212. Karlsson at -103.

I'm not gonna say Boivin's a great HoF induction... but I DO have to point out that the first eight years of Boivin's career are outside of the +/- measuring stick. So- does that mean that if they were available, then Boivin's total would be even worse? Not so fast- the teams on which Boivin played were (ever-so-slightly) over .500 during those first 400+ games of Boivin's career.

It'd be more germane to find the HoF "minus" leader among players for whom the measurement was available for the player's entire career. That would be Bernie Federko, at -131. Very well within reach for Karlsson. He bids fair to get there as soon as next season.

 

[Golden_Jet]

Granted, saying Housley is the equal of Karlsson is not the popular choice and I wouldn't really say Housley was better. But mostly I was taking some offence at the "rich man's Housley" statement and noting that Karlsson, while universally praised as a legend, and Housley. almost always ridiculed as a horrible HOF selection, that Housley does have some strong points. You just don't put up 1232 points in any era as a D-man without skill. I mean Karlsson has some runway left but he'd have to put up five more seasons like this one at age 33-34-35-36-37 to catch Housley in points.

BTW, Phil played forward maybe 35 games in his career. And even in those, he played point on the PP.

My Best-Carey

Having watched both careers, never thought once Housley was the better player.

 

[frisco]

Housley's best ten leaguewide rankings in points among defensemen:
1-2-2-4-4-4-5-5-5-5

Same for Karlsson:
1- 1-1-1-1-3-6-17-18-18

I mean Karlsson has the big #1 finishes, but Housley was a little less up and down on offense as shown by his multiple top 5 finishes while EK had some dud years. It's not a runaway.

My Best-Carey

 

[seventieslord]

I mean Karlsson has the big #1 finishes, but Housley was a little less up and down on offense as shown by his multiple top 5 finishes while EK had some dud years. It's not a runaway.

My Best-Carey

Is there a reason you're ignoring their vsx scores and focusing on strict rankings among defenseman which are easier to poke holes in if you like to use the quality of competition angle?

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

I mean Karlsson has the big #1 finishes, but Housley was a little less up and down on offense as shown by his multiple top 5 finishes while EK had some dud years. It's not a runaway.

My Best-Carey

That and Karlsson doesn't have any competition in the same realm as Housley going against a prime Coffey

 

[seventieslord]

award finishes, 3-5-5-5-9, versus 5-8-9-9.

Which is better, I'd say the first one, wouldn't you?

Of course it is. But that's Housley's list of finishes in Norris voting compared to Karlsson's in Hart voting.

 

[Moose Head]

In answer to the thread title, Better than Housley. Not as good as Coffey.

 

[frisco]

award finishes, 3-5-5-5-9, versus 5-8-9-9.

Which is better, I'd say the first one, wouldn't you?

Of course it is. But that's Housley's list of finishes in Norris voting compared to Karlsson's in Hart voting.

I'm just looking at offensive production. Not awards or accolades.

My Best-Carey

 

[frisco]

Is there a reason you're ignoring their vsx scores and focusing on strict rankings among defenseman which are easier to poke holes in if you like to use the quality of competition angle?

I'm not sold on vsx. I'd rather use adjusted points. But, I think the rankings are an objective way to look at their numbers. If one wants to make a mental adjustment that EK is competing with Letang, Hedman, Burns, Klingberg, while Housley is up against Bourque, Coffey, Potvin, MacInnis that's fine...

My Best-Carey

 

[Michael Farkas]

I'd also want to make a mental adjustment for the fact Housley could walk into a league fresh out of American high school and get Norris consideration as a teenager. While another American high school teen won the Vezina. Yet, neither (among many), really notably progressed as players over their careers.

Housley might have been going against some really good defensemen. Karlsson was going against a much more well rounded league...

 

[MCR74]

well when only 1 in the conversation is a defenseman, then yeah it kinda matters

Karlsson racking up points was a function of "someone's gotta score the goals on a bad team" as much as it was about his skill level. Karlsson went to SJ and his elite production disappeared.

But his bad defense didn't.

 

[jigglysquishy]

I'm not sold on vsx. I'd rather use adjusted points. But, I think the rankings are an objective way to look at their numbers. If one wants to make a mental adjustment that EK is competing with Letang, Hedman, Burns, Klingberg, while Housley is up against Bourque, Coffey, Potvin, MacInnis that's fine...

My Best-Carey

I abhore the Hockey Reference adjusted stats. But if you want to use them

Karlsson
96-92-86-82-78-73-63

Housley
79-76-75-68-68-64-62

Karlsson has the four highest seasons

If you order them
Karlsson 96
Karlsson 92

Karlsson 86
Karlsson 82

Housley 79
Karlsson 78
Housley 76
Housley 75
Karlsson 73

Housley 68
Housley 68
Housley 64
Karlsson 63
Housley 62

 

[Golden_Jet]

I'm not sold on vsx. I'd rather use adjusted points. But, I think the rankings are an objective way to look at their numbers. If one wants to make a mental adjustment that EK is competing with Letang, Hedman, Burns, Klingberg, while Housley is up against Bourque, Coffey, Potvin, MacInnis that's fine...

My Best-Carey

Doughty and Shea Weber, also.

 

[seventieslord]

I'm just looking at offensive production. Not awards or accolades.

My Best-Carey

That's fine. You don't have to take award voting as gospel. But if you're being intellectually honest, it might be worth considering why Karlsson was often valued among all players in the league, to the same degree that Housley was among defensemen exclusively, and then acknowledge that it just might be that it was because Karlsson was significantly better than Housley.

 

[seventieslord]

I'm not sold on vsx. I'd rather use adjusted points. But, I think the rankings are an objective way to look at their numbers. If one wants to make a mental adjustment that EK is competing with Letang, Hedman, Burns, Klingberg, while Housley is up against Bourque, Coffey, Potvin, MacInnis that's fine...

My Best-Carey

And also, You don't have to consider VsX for one second if you don't want to. I have my own issues with it too. But its purpose is to help put players from different scoring environments on a more even playing field and it does that. But you're right, so do adjusted points, and as long as we're talking about two post-expansion players, it does a pretty damn good job of it too.

But the problem is, you will look at a player with eight 60 adjusted point seasons and call him the equal of a player with six 80 adjusted point seasons because 480=480.

As @jigglysquishy has demonstrated, Karlsson's still a healthy 16% up on Housley in adjusted points across their respective best 7 seasons. But I know that's not good enough for you, because career numbers.

 

[Golden_Jet]

And also, You don't have to consider VsX for one second if you don't want to. I have my own issues with it too. But its purpose is to help put players from different scoring environments on a more even playing field and it does that. But you're right, so do adjusted points, and as long as we're talking about two post-expansion players, it does a pretty damn good job of it too.

But the problem is, you will look at a player with eight 60 adjusted point seasons and call him the equal of a player with six 80 adjusted point seasons because 480=480.

As @jigglysquishy has demonstrated, Karlsson's still a healthy 16% up on Housley in adjusted points across their respective best 7 seasons. But I know that's not good enough for you, because career numbers.

Great points

My Best-Carey.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Adjusted points are quite bad for many reasons. I do think that, despite the subjective adjustments that add the context that adjusted stats completely ignores, VsX is better.. but certainly nothing is perfect.

Karlsson is definitely better than Housley but I do think they are similar in that they are worse versions of Coffey in (almost?) all aspects.

 

[frisco]

I abhore the Hockey Reference adjusted stats. But if you want to use them

Karlsson
96-92-86-82-78-73-63

Housley
79-76-75-68-68-64-62

Probably the reason Housley is in the Hall isn't so much his top seven seasons it is that his 8th through 14th best seasons went (adjusted points):

61-60-57-57-55-55-53

That is some remarkably consistent high-level offensive production.

If we stretch EK out we get:

48-47-45-34-33-27-27

Which is great unless you compare it to Housley (or Coffey or Bourque). And yes, Karlsson should add a few more seasons of pretty good production yet. But my case that Housley is comparable to Karlsson offensively. Well, I'm going to stick by that.

Of course, this board arbitrarily has decided that, even though most stars NHL careers last 16-20 seasons, it is only the smaller sample of top seven that actually matter.

My Best-Carey

 

[frisco]

That's fine. You don't have to take award voting as gospel. But if you're being intellectually honest, it might be worth considering why Karlsson was often valued among all players in the league, to the same degree that Housley was among defensemen exclusively, and then acknowledge that it just might be that it was because Karlsson was significantly better than Housley.

My argument is purely from an offensive productivity perspective. EK will probably make the HOF on the first ballot on the strength of his offensive numbers. I'm trying to show Housley is not the joke selection a lot of people of made him out to be. He's at least comparable to EK on offense.

My Best-Carey

 

[Golden_Jet]

My argument is purely from an offensive productivity perspective. EK will probably make the HOF on the first ballot on the strength of his offensive numbers. I'm trying to show Housley is not the joke selection a lot of people of made him out to be. He's at least comparable to EK on offense.

My Best-Carey

There is no probably, when you have 3 Norris trophies and twice runner-up.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Probably the reason Housley is in the Hall isn't so much his top seven seasons it is that his 8th through 14th best seasons went (adjusted points):61-60-57-57-55-55-53That is some remarkably consistent high-level offensive production.If we stretch EK out we get:48-47-45-34-33-27-27Which is great unless you compare it to Housley (or Coffey or Bourque). And yes, Karlsson should add a few more seasons of pretty good production yet. But my case that Housley is comparable to Karlsson offensively. Well, I'm going to stick by that.Of course, this board arbitrarily has decided that, even though most stars NHL careers last 16-20 seasons, it is only the smaller sample of top seven that actually matter.

My Best-Carey

What gives you that impression?

 

[K Fleur]

Idk but I think most of the players that really belong in the HOF could have been inducted just off of their first 10 seasons.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Of course, this board arbitrarily has decided that, even though most stars NHL careers last 16-20 seasons, it is only the smaller sample of top seven that actually matter.

That isn’t true. The most common variant of VsX used here is the 7 year one for a couple of reasons: it is a common denominator for many stars across eras, as well as the fairly common “prime” years for modern stars. If someone is relying solely on VsX7 for modern players they are doing it wrong.

That said, obviously people value peak and longevity differently.

 

[Run the Gauntlet]

Karlsson has erratic career numbers.
He has positives but here are the negatives.
-Missed many games.
-Few powerplay goals.
-Does not kill penalties.
-Very few shorthanded points.
-Massive -103 on the plus minus.
-Goals per game is under .20 at .19.
-Very few playoff points.

 

[MXD]

... Very much in Brian Leetch territory : Super similar plaeyrs, quite, very quite comfortably HHOFers, roughly bottom of the first third, and both somewhat overrated in the general public due to their highs being very high. The perception should be the same, and pretty much only misplaced nostalgia and/or "world started in 2010" attitudes would explain otherwise.