Kesler puts Detroit on a list of teams he'd like to be traded to | UPD: Kesler to ANA

[ArGarBarGar]

Well, if I thought Miller was another version of Howard, that wouldn't make much sense, would it? I think he's better. That's why I'd want him here. I like upgrades. Ultimately, though, I wouldn't worry too much about it. The odds the Wings can both move Howard and sign Miller are quite slim. I just like talking about it during a slow part of the year.

As for Mrazek, it's going to take more than 400 minutes for me to anoint him an NHL starter. I've seen plenty of top goalie prospects not pan out. He's on track, no question, but it's not a sure thing. And Miller is at an age where he wouldn't block Mrazek forever...

Mrazek fans should really be hoping trade talks for Howard start to develop, because Howard is signed until 2019. Mrazek will turn 27 when Howard's contract runs out.

If Vancouver could trade two #1 goaltenders, then we can trade one.

 

[JmanWingsFan]

If you are expecting your forwards to compensate for a poor defensive unit, you are doing it wrong.

Actually... That works. Since defense is more of a team concept, having skilled two-way players can compensate for a poor defensive unit (Even though, as I keep saying, defense wasn't a problem last year. Puckmoving and goaltending was our issue).

 

[SoupNazi]

Actually... That works. Since defense is more of a team concept, having skilled two-way players can compensate for a poor defensive unit (Even though, as I keep saying, defense wasn't a problem last year. Puckmoving and goaltending was our issue).

And that starts on the back end, which is why people are arguing that defense was a problem last year.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

Actually... That works. Since defense is more of a team concept, having skilled two-way players can compensate for a poor defensive unit (Even though, as I keep saying, defense wasn't a problem last year. Puckmoving and goaltending was our issue).

Since when?

 

[JmanWingsFan]

And that starts on the back end, which is why people are arguing that defense was a problem last year.

Defense=/=puckmoving. You can specify the difference.

 

[JmanWingsFan]

Since when?

I dunno. I'm not interested in going all the way back to 2007 to find this out. You don't have to go very far, though, than the Red Wings to see a team that plays defense well while lacking a decent Dcorps (they've done it the last two years).

 

[ArGarBarGar]

I dunno. I'm not interested in going all the way back to 2007 to find this out. You don't have to go very far, though, than the Red Wings to see a team that plays defense well while lacking a decent Dcorps (they've done it the last two years).

A 7th seed and 2nd wildcard seed are not "playing defense well". If your end goal is to just make the playoffs and never become a contender, then I can understand your position. If not, what we have simply is not good enough.

 

[JmanWingsFan]

A 7th seed and 2nd wildcard seed are not "playing defense well". If your end goal is to just make the playoffs and never become a contender, then I can understand your position. If not, what we have simply is not good enough.

That's fine, except, they were a top five team in limiting shooting events against competition. Top five in the entire league. That's good. That's really good. The defense did their job. You also need to generate offense and have good goaltending. The Red Wings had neither of those this year. The Defense was never an issue.

 

[SoupNazi]

Defense=/=puckmoving. You can specify the difference.

Odd. Must be why PMDs (puck-moving defensemen) aren't a valuable commodity at all. You don't think our defense and our puck-moving would get better with a better defenseman or two?

 

[SoupNazi]

That's fine, except, they were a top five team in limiting shooting events against competition. Top five in the entire league. That's good. That's really good. The defense did their job. You also need to generate offense and have good goaltending. The Red Wings had neither of those this year. The Defense was never an issue.

And most nights, despite what the advanced stats say, that wasn't true via the eye test.

 

[Johnz96*]

And most nights, despite what the advanced stats say, that wasn't true via the eye test.

Eye tests are distorted by emotions.

 

[SoupNazi]

Eye tests are distorted by emotions.

Not necessarily. Eye tests are used to confirm or reject what these so-called advanced stats say.

 

[WingedWheel1987]

If the defense was never an issue, wtf was I watching?

Defense was a massive issue.

Defenseman unable to beat an aggressive forecheck, which results in turnovers in your own zone and more scoring opportunities and more time being spent in your own zone.

Ever heard of a puck moving defenseman? Wings only had one PMD last season. Notice how the absolute best Wings teams had more than one PMD?

The biggest problem with the Detroit Red Wings was the mostly abysmal play by their defenseman.

To say that the defense wasn't ever an issue, is just a complete lie.

Poor defense was the root cause for all the other problems the team had.

If advanced statistics are telling you that the defense was never an issue, those advanced statistics are completely wrong.


Although I do think that bringing in Kesler would help improve the defense if he can improve puck possession in the offensive zone. Ten extra seconds of being in the offensive zone, means ten less seconds of time spent in your own zone.

 

[JmanWingsFan]

Not necessarily. Eye tests are used to confirm or reject what these so-called advanced stats say.

No. They never refute anything. The eye test is entirely subjective based on what one wants to see as opposed to what the record of events that occurred on the ice actually reported. They are easily swayed by emotions and bias. There is really no known way to actually QUANTIFY what one sees based on the eye-test. Other than an opinion, which isn't even objective, you really have no objective evidence in favor of the eye test.

 

[SoupNazi]

No. They never refute anything. The eye test is entirely subjective based on what one wants to see as opposed to what the record of events that occurred on the ice actually reported. They are easily swayed by emotions and bias. There is really no known way to actually QUANTIFY what one sees based on the eye-test. Other than an opinion, which isn't even objective, you really have no objective evidence in favor of the eye test.

So because your stats say our defense is fine, we should just accept that we can get away icing a defensive group featuring such future HOFers as Brian Lashoff and Jakub Kindl? We should bring back Quincey because a statistic says he was part of a unit that was "a top five team in limiting shooting events against competition?" We shouldn't try to upgrade on this elite defensive group?

 

[JmanWingsFan]

So because your stats say our defense is fine, we should just accept that we can get away icing a defensive group featuring such future HOFers as Brian Lashoff and Jakub Kindl? We should bring back Quincey because a statistic says he was part of a unit that was "a top five team in limiting shooting events against competition?" We shouldn't try to upgrade on this elite defensive group?

If you'll knock it off with the strawmen, maybe I'll consider this conversation worth having. Instead, I'll keep posting this link until people read it and understand their errors in thinking.

Oh, and since we are doubting Advanced Statistics' abilities to analyze and predict, keep this in mind: Of the 14 playoff series this year, fancystats were able to predict 10 of the 14 outcomes so far this year. That's a whopping 71% success rate. In fact, the same method pretty much has had a similar success rate for all playoff series since fancystats began being tracked in the 2007-2008 season.

 

[Winger98]

If the defense was never an issue, wtf was I watching?

Defense was a massive issue.

Defenseman unable to beat an aggressive forecheck, which results in turnovers in your own zone and more scoring opportunities and more time being spent in your own zone.

Ever heard of a puck moving defenseman? Wings only had one PMD last season. Notice how the absolute best Wings teams had more than one PMD?

The biggest problem with the Detroit Red Wings was the mostly abysmal play by their defenseman.

To say that the defense wasn't ever an issue, is just a complete lie.

Poor defense was the root cause for all the other problems the team had.

If advanced statistics are telling you that the defense was never an issue, those advanced statistics are completely wrong.


Although I do think that bringing in Kesler would help improve the defense if he can improve puck possession in the offensive zone. Ten extra seconds of being in the offensive zone, means ten less seconds of time spent in your own zone.

Pretty much. Howard being shaky didn't help, but our blueline was lousy this past season.

 

[SoupNazi]

If you'll knock it off with the strawmen, maybe I'll consider this conversation worth having. Instead, I'll keep posting this link until people read it and understand their errors in thinking.

Oh, and since we are doubting Advanced Statistics' abilities to analyze and predict, keep this in mind: Of the 14 playoff series this year, fancystats were able to predict 10 of the 14 outcomes so far this year. That's a whopping 71% success rate. In fact, the same method pretty much has had a similar success rate for all playoff series since fancystats began being tracked in the 2007-2008 season.

It's not a strawman. I asked you a legitimate question: should the Red Wings bother looking for an upgrade of Kindl and Lashoff? Would an upgrade not make us a better team?

 

[Frk It]

 

[ArGarBarGar]

Although I do think that bringing in Kesler would help improve the defense if he can improve puck possession in the offensive zone. Ten extra seconds of being in the offensive zone, means ten less seconds of time spent in your own zone.

On the flip-side, ten extra seconds of being in the defensive zone means ten fewer seconds of time spent in the offensive zone.

 

[detredWINgs]

Good lord. Might as well eliminate the scouts. No need for human assessment when we've got stats!!

Pretty sure I heard Holland say "we'd like to add a top 4 defenseman to bolster our defense. Or another two-way forward. We think they're equal to the task of improving our defense."

 

[WingedWheel1987]

I love advanced stats, but any statistic that says defense was not even an issue for the 2013-2014 Detroit Red Wings, is wrong.

If the majority of the mistakes are being made by your defenseman, and those mistakes are being made when it falls within the purview of a defenseman's role, well surprise surprise, your defense is bad.

If the defense is blameless, who or what should take the credit? A random solar flare, or maybe a miniature black hole altering the trajectory of a clearing pass right to an opposing forwards stick?

 

[JmanWingsFan]

It's not a strawman. I asked you a legitimate question: should the Red Wings bother looking for an upgrade of Kindl and Lashoff? Would an upgrade not make us a better team?

It is a strawman. You're trying to argue that I'm saying we don't need to improve our defense because of fancystats, when I have insinuated nothing of the sort.

 

[SoupNazi]

It is a strawman. You're trying to argue that I'm saying we don't need to improve our defense because of fancystats, when I have insinuated nothing of the sort.

I'm sorry, did you not say that defense is not a problem?

 

[JmanWingsFan]

I'm sorry, did you not say that defense is not a problem?

If your objective is to improve defense to improve goal prevention, that's pointless because it already did a good job this year. If you'd actually read what I actually said, my objective is to improve the team's puck possession by replacing Brian Lashoff and Jakub Kindl with much better puck possession Dmen. In that regard, the Dcorps can be improved.

In this regard, you are building up strawmen to knock down against fancystats.