Player Discussion Kevin Shattenkirk

[darko]

It makes a whole lot more sense than the way stat people view defense.
I get the whole concept and in theory all seems fine but in reality it's very far fetched.
You have to find that happy medium and that can't happen until you actually watch what's going on and use your big brain IMO

Offense/defense is 50/50 split or thereabouts. Not sure how you are getting this 5/1.

 

[Filthy Dangles]

Actually, I think Carlson is what HF thinks Shattenkirk is, and vice versa.

Carlson is a PP specialist, and a damn good one, but isn't an effective player in any other game state.

Is the implication that Shattenkirk is more impactful at Even Strength?

 

[NYR]

Offense/defense is 50/50 split or thereabouts. Not sure how you are getting this 5/1.

See..Thus my point.
Read what I'm typing and you'll realize that it's just a joke rather than just looking at the 5/1

 

[Machinehead]

Is the implication that Shattenkirk is more impactful at Even Strength?

I think so.

Carlson scores more 5v5 but Shattenkirk is on the ice for a lot less damage against.

And Carlson takes marshmallow usage so you can't even bring up the usual criticism of Shattenkirk, which is usage.

 

[Zibanejbread]

Regardless what any of you say, I'm a fan of Shattenkirk and I don't care who knows it.

 

[darko]

Regardless what any of you say, I'm a fan of Shattenkirk and I don't care who knows it.

You are lying otherwise your username would be Shattenbae.

 

[PlamsUnlimited]

It's a poorly constructed stat. 5-on-5 goal differential is a lot more meaningful.

I mean I didn't say it wasn't poorly constructed, but you / fans / I need to know other stats context behind it otherwise it's not good standalone.

I relate it to how we track numbers at my work in a way. Moving parts behind it make it a little bit better to think about but by itself doesn't mean much

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

John Carlson or Kevin Shattenkirk. Asking for a friend.

Shattenkirk easily.

Carlson is wildly overrated. Third best defenseman on his team.

 

[Machinehead]

Regardless what any of you say, I'm a fan of Shattenkirk and I don't care who knows it.

GOAT movie

 

[haveandare]

Regardless what any of you say, I'm a fan of Shattenkirk and I don't care who knows it.

I’m there with you. He’s an exciting player and he seems to want to actually be a ranger more than anyone save for Hank.

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

bolts getting rekt

 

[Thirty One]

I mean I didn't say it wasn't poorly constructed, but you / fans / I need to know other stats context behind it otherwise it's not good standalone.

I relate it to how we track numbers at my work in a way. Moving parts behind it make it a little bit better to think about but by itself doesn't mean much

I guess what I was trying to say is that what I think it's designed to capture is worth capturing, but there's too much nonsense in there for it to be useful.

 

[PlamsUnlimited]

I guess what I was trying to say is that what I think it's designed to capture is worth capturing, but there's too much nonsense in there for it to be useful.

I think almost the same thing but think you can still get something out of it if used with more of the stuff we can find and track now, like there's too many moving parts for just +/- to stand on its own

 

[Synergy27]

In Shattenkirk's 8 NHL seasons, he's been positive relative to the team in 5v5 GF% 5 times, and negative 3 times. Including playing last season with a busted knee.

So my reaction to this data point is to simply question how or why this is happening. Watch the goals for and against to understand his real impact on how the stats accrued. Measure his TOI 5v5 relative to the guys he's being compared to and obviously the quality of competition during those minutes.

You guys are looking at the number, which is completely inconsistent with the eye test, and taking it as gospel. Like it or not, there is a real possibility that something other than "he's actually great at defense despite looking pretty bad at it" is going on here. These calculations do not describe every case perfectly and should not be relied on as the sole source for decision making.

 

[NYR]

Shattenkirk easily.

Carlson is wildly overrated. Third best defenseman on his team.

Shattenkirk couldn't play to the level in which Carlson plays.
Not even close..

 

[Machinehead]

Shattenkirk couldn't play to the level in which Carlson plays.
Not even close..

He does because they take similar (soft) usage.

 

[True Blue]

You guys are looking at the number, which is completely inconsistent with the eye test, and taking it as gospel. Like it or not, there is a real possibility that something other than "he's actually great at defense despite looking pretty bad at it" is going on here. These calculations do not describe every case perfectly and should not be relied on as the sole source for decision making.

Which is the problem of many of the so-called advanced stats proponents. They tend to use these numbers as the sole source of evidence of a debate. There is no room for the belief that the statistics do not tell everything and are very capable of skewing evaluation to advance an argument. This one is a pretty good example.

 

[Irishguy42]

Which is the problem of many of the so-called advanced stats proponents. They tend to use these numbers as the sole source of evidence of a debate. There is no room for the belief that the statistics do not tell everything and are very capable of skewing evaluation to advance an argument. This one is a pretty good example.

A lot of advanced stats folk watch the games to gain context/track to actually get the raw numbers.

Once again, the "watch the games, nerds!" crowd loses.

 

[silverfish]

I think I can safely say I watch more hockey than 95% of this forum.

But please, continue.

 

[True Blue]

Once again, the "watch the games, nerds!" crowd loses.

What does this even mean?

The current debate regarding Shattenkirk is being had as there are those that are using a single stat as the evidence that he is good defensively. Hence people poking holes in his shiny shot suppression stat.

 

[True Blue]

I think I can safely say I watch more hockey than 95% of this forum.

Pray tell how you can "safely" state this?

But please, continue.

No, no sir. The honor is all yours.

 

[silverfish]

What does this even mean?

The current debate regarding Shattenkirk is being had as there are those that are using a single stat as the evidence that he is good defensively. Hence people poking holes in his shiny shot suppression stat.

No one is using a single stat. There have been like 10 metrics used individually that all paint a larger story that you're ignoring because your eyes disagree.

Pray tell how you can "safely" state this?

No, no sir. The honor is all yours.

I'm pretty confident. In general, like Irish said, I think you'll find that a lot of the fancystat people generally watch more hockey than the eye-test people. Because the thing about the fancystat people is that we are trying very, very hard to understand hockey. And the way you do that is to study everything as much as you can. This includes watching lots of hockey, reading lots of articles, and keeping up to do date on new metrics, and their effectiveness.

All told, I probably watched 200 or so hockey games this year. And let me tell you, it's not enough.

 

[True Blue]

No one is using a single stat. There have been like 10 metrics used individually that all paint a larger story that you're ignoring because your eyes disagree.

Maybe I am reading wrong, but I see the same stat being pointed out and the same rebuttals.

I'm pretty confident. In general, like Irish said, I think you'll find that a lot of the fancystat people generally watch more hockey than the eye-test people. Because the thing about the fancystat people is that we are trying very, very hard to understand hockey. And the way you do that is to study everything as much as you can. This includes watching lots of hockey, reading lots of articles, and keeping up to do date on new metrics, and their effectiveness.

I think that you would be surprised at how many people understand the stats very well and watch the games. You seem to be lumping everyone as "eye test" who disagrees with what what the fancystat people are preaching. There are plenty of Shattenkirk detractors who are both. As for me, I know what I see. I also know what the stats say and mean. And I also fully understand the way the stats may not tell the whole story and may obfuscate some things. In this case, it is Shattenkirk being a pretty poor defensive player.

All told, I probably watched 200 or so hockey games this year. And let me tell you, it's not enough.

Once again, I am fairly sure you would be surprised at how many people watch how many games. There are also those who would argue that 200 or 100 may not make a difference as to understanding hockey.

And really not sure on what basis can one claim that "fancystats" watch more hockey then "eye-stats".

 

[silverfish]

Maybe I am reading wrong, but I see the same stat being pointed out and the same rebuttals.

I think that you would be surprised at how many people understand the stats very well and watch the games. You seem to be lumping everyone as "eye test" who disagrees with what what the fancystat people are preaching. There are plenty of Shattenkirk detractors who are both. As for me, I know what I see. I also know what the stats say and mean. And I also fully understand the way the stats may not tell the whole story and may obfuscate some things. In this case, it is Shattenkirk being a pretty poor defensive player.

Once again, I am fairly sure you would be surprised at how many people watch how many games. There are also those who would argue that 200 or 100 may not make a difference as to understanding hockey.

And really not sure on what basis can one claim that "fancystats" watch more hockey then "eye-stats".

Well, I had a response typed out, but it's not going to do anyone any good. So, as usual, let's just agree to disagree and move on with our lives.

 

[Ola]

Question (seriously here because I don't know the answer): did anyone on defense have good metrics over, say, the final 30 games, when everything was going to ****? Like I know Pionk's weren't good, but whose were? I assume based on the way we played pretty much everyone was ****, just focusing on something like Corsi of xGF% or something relatively simple. Was Pionk noticeably worse in that respect?

Last 11 games Pionk was at 42% and his partner Staal at 42.58%. They got the toughest minutes. Usage all season, Pionk is dark blue:..

Skjei-Sproul had 46/48% and O'Gara-Gilmour had 47/49%. Pionk averaged 23 minutes per game, most on the team. Gilmour had the least with 14 minutes.

I would not want to go out on a limb and claim that the difference between Pionk on one hand and Gilmour on the other -- isn't all usage.

I think advanced stats can be tremendously useful. But for a while at least there many had a very very firm opinion that unless proven wrong the data could be taken as truth. I just don't think that approach will lead you right. The noise is too loud. Hockey is a team sport. The game is a living organism. The system your coach use, your teammates, who lines are matched, etc etc etc play a big part. The data we have acts as proxies for something else.