Proposal: Rangers - Ducks

[aufheben]

I like how you tried to pretend you observed this first hand from Fowler, but then when the bold came up I knew you just googled his analytics like everyone else. Fail.

It's a fair point. Why would an elite puck-mover have bad possession numbers?

 

[Cassano]

Fowler is trash. No thank you, unless the Rangers are getting him on a Phaneuf to Toronto type deal.

 

[WhatTheDuck]

So he is the worst of the bunch in other words?

I have no idea how you could manage to pull that from what I said. How would he be our most valuable trade piece if he's the worst of the bunch?

Fowler is obviously a better player than Despres/Manson etc, hence why those guys wouldn't fetch as big of a return.

 

[WhatTheDuck]

It's a fair point. Why would an elite puck-mover have bad possession numbers?

That's how he's used. He plays against top competition alongside an inferior partner. He's out there to weather the storm, skate/pass us out of trouble and exit the ice. 9/10 when you see Fowler carrying the puck, he dumps it in and heads off the ice. His role doesn't set him up to have good possession numbers.

 

[aufheben]

Tanev plays on a terrible team and he manages just fine.

 

[WhatTheDuck]

Tanev plays on a terrible team and he manages just fine.

It's entirely possible that Tanev is better than Fowler defensively and would be more suited for carrying a top pairing. We don't know for sure, because he spends the majority of his time playing with Edler, which is a far cry from Bieksa.

 

[Juxtaposer]

With all due respect, your post history suggests you are biased against Fowler. I'm not sure why you'd try to deny that. You don't think fans of other teams can be biased against individual players? Of course they can. Just like they can be biased for players. If you can have favorites on other teams, you can have players you dislike more. That's a terrible argument on your part.

As for "actual great players", that kind of says it all, doesn't it? Moving forward, Rakell and Vatanen might make more sense for Anaheim, but there is little argument that they are currently better. They might become better, but currently? No. They are not better players. Not when you actually consider the roles they play. Lindholm is comparable. Better defensively, worse in the puck moving department, but with more upside. I'm very excited about his future, but currently, he and Fowler are pretty close. They're just better at different things, and I'm hoping Lindholm becomes that #1 defenseman Anaheim has been looking for.

The bottom line is Anaheim fans see the good and bad of these players far more than you do. Our team's success is in our best interest. Fowler made us a better team. He'd likely to continue to make us a better team heading into this upcoming season, and in an ideal world they'd be able to keep him. That just may not be in the cards. Anaheim has some needs to address, and Fowler will be a UFA in two years.

Has it iccured to you that I'm "biased" against Fowler because I've been watching him for years and I just don't think he's nearly as good as the average fan thinks? It's not like I just randomly decided "hey, this Fowler guy seems dumb so I'll just go into every thread and cause trouble" but then go to bat for Lindholm, Vatanen, Rakell, Theodore, Silfverberg, you name it in any other thread?

I strongly believe Lindholm is a true #1D right now. Why? I've seen it. His composure with the puck, his elite hockey IQ, his skating and decision-making and puck-handling ability makes me think so. I strongly believe Vatanen is a passable #2 defenseman (and better than Fowler). He's extremely talented with the puck and quite solid defensively. On Rakell? Maybe you have a point there; he is one of my favorite players because every time I watch him, I'm just blown away. Maybe it's too small a sample size; I haven't been watching him since 2010 like Fowler. But Rakell falls into that Kevin Hayes category for me where when I watch him you're shocked that he doesn't put up more points than he does. Personally, I'd take him over Fowler right now, although on that one im happy to compromise and say agree to disagree.

No one, especially me, thinks that Fowler is bad. If I were simply going off stats, I would call him a #5D and be done with it. Obviously he's not that because of his skill at moving the puck. But to me he's nothing more than a solid 3-4 and never has been more. Just because Boudreau played him in tough defensive situations does not mean that he's a top defensive player.

I'm not saying that opposing fans can't be biased. I'm just suggesting that based on my posting history, I've shown I can be objective and even overly complimentary of Ducks players.

 

[dracom]

If your cap or internal spending is botched up or you have too many guys with NMC's and you truly think he is one of your better defensemen, wouldn't it make sense to make sure you make that room to insure this guy stays on your team....or, he is just overvalued as I have said all along.

If we buyout Bieksa, we can protect Lindholm, Vats, Manson. The reason we would protect Manson over Fowler is Manson being cheaper (budget team remember?) and his play style is much different than everyone else in our d-core. Fowler would also be a UFA the next year and most likely we could afford him. So, trading him while he still has value would be the obvious choice to try and help our forward core.

With the expansion draft looming, who are you protecting, surely someone can be moved to make space for your #2 or #3?

Lindholm,Vats, Manson

But as it stands, Fowler is a LHD, the Rangers need RHD. There is likely no real fit here especially if you refuse to take back contract.

That's totally fair. If only Rangers fans stuck with this instead of the "Fowler is trash" comments.

Just an observation but it seems rather odd that some of the posters here in these various Fowler threads claim he is the best defenseman they have but discredit his negative stats and production. Interesting though that to them stats matter when they cite Nash is washed up despite being a season removed from a 42 goal campaign or is terrible in the post season....despite good playoff production the past 28ish games or so and obviously not watching him actually play.

Our disinterest in Nash is no where the same as your disinterest in Fowler. Rangers fans use fancy stats as a way to discredit Fowler, we use actual stats like point totals as a reason we don't want Nash. That doesn't include his age, contract, injury history as other reasons we don't want him. Fowler doesn't have any of those problems. The only legitimate reasons the Rangers would want Fowler is not having a spot for him on the left side. We discredit the bad fancy stats arguments because there's no context used, and people use them as a way to just easily say Fowler sucks. Without realizing that the Ducks are one of the best defensive teams and Fowler has been playing on the top pairing. Fowler can't be trash and us still be one of the best defensive teams with him playing top pairing minutes against teams top players.

Response in bold.

 

[Sojourn]

It's a fair point. Why would an elite puck-mover have bad possession numbers?

Because they don't measure his possession numbers. They don't measure possession at all, actually. They assume possession, but that's another discussion entirely. What they measure is the team's shot differential. This is just another example of how stats are misused.

There are four other Anaheim Ducks on the ice out there with him. Five, if you want to include the goaltender. If you want to measure how Fowler possesses the puck, you're using the wrong statistic. There is only so much a player can control. Possessing the puck in the defensive zone involves the entire team. When Fowler has the puck on his stick, he's a damn good bet to get it out of the zone, and with control. The same applies in the neutral zone. When he has the puck, it's going where it needs to go. But what about the times he doesn't have the puck on his stick, and it's someone else on the Ducks? Is that measuring his possession? No, it isn't. It also isn't measuring his ability to possess the puck when an opposing player has it, and Fowler is somewhere else because that's his area of responsibility.

 

[WhatTheDuck]

Has it iccured to you that I'm "biased" against Fowler because I've been watching him for years and I just don't think he's nearly as good as the average fan thinks? It's not like I just randomly decided "hey, this Fowler guy seems dumb so I'll just go into every thread and cause trouble" but then go to bat for Lindholm, Vatanen, Rakell, Theodore, Silfverberg, you name it in any other thread?

I strongly believe Lindholm is a true #1D right now. Why? I've seen it. His composure with the puck, his elite hockey IQ, his skating and decision-making and puck-handling ability makes me think so. I strongly believe Vatanen is a passable #2 defenseman (and better than Fowler). He's extremely talented with the puck and quite solid defensively. On Rakell? Maybe you have a point there; he is one of my favorite players because every time I watch him, I'm just blown away. Maybe it's too small a sample size; I haven't been watching him since 2010 like Fowler. But Rakell falls into that Kevin Hayes category for me where when I watch him you're shocked that he doesn't put up more points than he does. Personally, I'd take him over Fowler right now, although on that one im happy to compromise and say agree to disagree.

No one, especially me, thinks that Fowler is bad. If I were simply going off stats, I would call him a #5D and be done with it. Obviously he's not that because of his skill at moving the puck and good stick work. But to me he's nothing more than a solid 3-4 and never had been more. Just because Boudreau played him in tough defensive situations does not mean that he's a top defensive player.

I'm not saying that opposing fans can't be biased. I'm just suggesting that based on my posting history, I've shown I can be objective and even overly complimentary of Ducks players.

Lindholm only has a sample size of about three months in his entire career where he's shown he can successfully handle the same role Fowler has been playing for the past three years. Sure Lindholm has more upside, we all see it, but in terms of what they've actually proven? You need to keep in mind that Lindholm has had the luxury of playing lesser competition alongside a better partner than Fowler.

Fowler has taken on the **** role that allows Vatanen and Lindholm to succeed with lesser responsibility, and I think that goes largely unnoticed around here. You can bet the house on Lindholm's advanced stats taking a hit if we trade Fowler.

Go back and watch some games from January when Fowler was out and Vatanen had to step in his role with a Bieksa. He created absolutely zero offense, removed all the risk from his game and was less assertive than we had seen him in his entire career. I believe that speaks volumes about the way the pairing was utilized by Bruce.

 

[aufheben]

Anyway the Rangers already have McDonagh-Staal-Skjei down the left side. Staal is not very good but I don't see AV relegating him. The area of weakness for the Rangers is on the right side.

 

[One Winged Angel]

This question has already been asked and addressed several times in this thread. The Ducks have arguably yhe best group of U25 defenseman in the league. We can't protect all of them. Fowler represents the most valuable trade piece that we could perhaps afford to part with in order to add a much needed impact forward. Maybe you're just taken aback by a fan base on HF actually realizing that we need to give to get.

1. I didn't read the entire thread. It was late and I was browsing. Thanks for the clarification.

2. I'm not taken back by anything, you would know this if you didn't just jump to a conclusion about me.

3. I'd just stop with the Fowler to Rangers stuff, honestly. He's not really a fit unless Marc Staal goes back the other way, which is probably a no-go and I personally think the Rangers plan all along has been to sign Shattenkirk next July. It makes too much sense when you consider the events that have transpired.

 

[xxreact9]

Fowler is trash. No thank you, unless the Rangers are getting him on a Phaneuf to Toronto type deal.

Fowler just led the Ducks in time on ice, and they were the best defensive team in the NHL: 1st in Goals against, 4th in shots against, 6th in shot attempts against. Only the LA kings had comparable results defensively but they have Jonathan Quick whereas Anaheim didn't even have a clear starting goaltender, and surely no one as good as Quick.

So how can you possibly dismiss such blatant evidence: the guy who played the most on the best defensive team? He has also played with a bad defensive partner for his entire career: Bieksa, Brookbank, Lovejoy,....

His corsi% and all players for that matter are meaningless unless contextualized. It's a stat that tends to indicate a result, but the result itself is a far more significant piece of evidence to evaluate Cam Fowler.

 

[Sojourn]

Has it iccured to you that I'm "biased" against Fowler because I've been watching him for years and I just don't think he's nearly as good as the average fan thinks? It's not like I just randomly decided "hey, this Fowler guy seems dumb so I'll just go into every thread and cause trouble" but then go to bat for Lindholm, Vatanen, Rakell, Theodore, Silfverberg, you name it in any other thread?

I strongly believe Lindholm is a true #1D right now. Why? I've seen it. His composure with the puck, his elite hockey IQ, his skating and decision-making and puck-handling ability makes me think so. I strongly believe Vatanen is a passable #2 defenseman (and better than Fowler). He's extremely talented with the puck and quite solid defensively. On Rakell? Maybe you have a point there; he is one of my favorite players because every time I watch him, I'm just blown away. Maybe it's too small a sample size; I haven't been watching him since 2010 like Fowler. But Rakell falls into that Kevin Hayes category for me where when I watch him you're shocked that he doesn't put up more points than he does. Personally, I'd take him over Fowler right now, although on that one im happy to compromise and say agree to disagree.

No one, especially me, thinks that Fowler is bad. If I were simply going off stats, I would call him a #5D and be done with it. Obviously he's not that because of his skill at moving the puck. But to me he's nothing more than a solid 3-4 and never has been more. Just because Boudreau played him in tough defensive situations does not mean that he's a top defensive player.

I'm not saying that opposing fans can't be biased. I'm just suggesting that based on my posting history, I've shown I can be objective and even overly complimentary of Ducks players.

Not really, no. You can be objective regarding some players, and completely lacking in objectivity regarding others. You're even doing a good job of making my point, when you discussed Rakell. Ditto for Lindholm and Vatanen. I doubt many Anaheim fans would label Lindholm as a true #1 right now, and there's a reason for that. He isn't one. Oh, there is the potential there to be that, and he's shown some signs, but calling him a true #1 right now is evidence that you're not seeing enough of him.

That goes a step further with Vatanen. A passable #2? For a defenseman who was force fed offensive opportunities, and relied on the least for the tough D zone play? Vatanen is an impressive young talent, but if you're calling him a current #2, you're doing it without an understanding of how he's been used.

Edit: If you want to talk about upside, well, that's another discussion. But in terms of where the players fall, you seem to be pretty heavily influenced by flash.

 

[xxreact9]

Because they don't measure his possession numbers. They don't measure possession at all, actually. They assume possession, but that's another discussion entirely. What they measure is the team's shot differential. This is just another example of how stats are misused.

There are four other Anaheim Ducks on the ice out there with him. Five, if you want to include the goaltender. If you want to measure how Fowler possesses the puck, you're using the wrong statistic. There is only so much a player can control. Possessing the puck in the defensive zone involves the entire team. When Fowler has the puck on his stick, he's a damn good bet to get it out of the zone, and with control. The same applies in the neutral zone. When he has the puck, it's going where it needs to go. But what about the times he doesn't have the puck on his stick, and it's someone else on the Ducks? Is that measuring his possession? No, it isn't. It also isn't measuring his ability to possess the puck when an opposing player has it, and Fowler is somewhere else because that's his area of responsibility.

Nice

Also, there's a stat out there measuring zone exit percentages and I'm pretty sure Fowler fares very well in it. Not sure why the OP was using corsi to measure how someone handles the puck rather than zone exit stats or simply watching the guy play.

Analytics are coming with a price.....

 

[Juxtaposer]

Lindholm only has a sample size of about three months in his entire career where he's shown he can successfully handle the same role Fowler has been playing for the past three years. Sure Lindholm has more upside, we all see it, but in terms of what they've actually proven? You need to keep in mind that Lindholm has had the luxury of playing lesser competition alongside a better partner than Fowler.

Fowler has taken on the **** role that allows Vatanen and Lindholm to succeed with lesser responsibility, and I think that goes largely unnoticed around here. You can bet the house on Lindholm's advanced stats taking a hit if we trade Fowler.

Lindholm had shown he can handle the role. Fowler has shown he can struggle in it. That's the difference.

Playing with a piece of garbage like Bieksa obviously hurts Fowler's advanced stats. But since I'm not making an argument based purely on advanced stats, I don't think it's as significant. However, you can't say that fowler is a top pairing defenseman while simultaneously saying that his possession numbers are bad because he plays a tough top pairing role. Real top pairing defensemen manage to have solid possession numbers while playing tough top pairing minutes.

 

[Group Chat Legend*]

cmon, he is not a top 2 defensemen... I have watched them a good amount and Lindholm and Vatanen are both better and Vatanen is a solid #3. Lindholm a great #2 or decent #1. Fowler is not anything special at all. Decent top 4. He also has bad possesion numbers and no matter how much you ducks fan say it doesnt matter, it does matter.

He would surely be #2 on the Rangers so you are arguing a moot point.

 

[aufheben]

He would surely be #2 on the Rangers so you are arguing a moot point.

He wouldn't take Marc Staal's spot so no he wouldn't. Not that Staal is better but there's no room for Fowler on the roster. Also it's not a moot point to begin with. He is what he is regardless of what team he's on.

If the Rangers didn't have Staal's monstrous contract to bear, and also had more stability on the right side, Fowler would be an option to consider.

 

[WhatTheDuck]

1. I didn't read the entire thread. It was late and I was browsing. Thanks for the clarification.

2. I'm not taken back by anything, you would know this if you didn't just jump to a conclusion about me.

3. I'd just stop with the Fowler to Rangers stuff, honestly. He's not really a fit unless Marc Staal goes back the other way, which is probably a no-go and I personally think the Rangers plan all along has been to sign Shattenkirk next July. It makes too much sense when you consider the events that have transpired.

To be clear, this thread was started by a Leafs fan notorious for bad proposals. I dont think anyone is trying to argue that Fowler is a fit for the Rangers, I can clearly see why he isn't a target based on your depth chart.

That being said, there are multiple Rangers fans who routinely demonstrate an irrational hatrid for this player based on his advanced stats. That's why I was so surprised to see this very rational conversation take place on your boards yesterday - http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=2107933&page=7

It seems that in general, Rangers fans are completely aware that advanced stats mean very little without context. Yet when the name Cam Fowler comes up, the hate blinders come on and a lot of those same fans are completely dismissive of the context we provide.

There isn't one rational Ducks fan who will try to claim that Fowler is a #1 Dman. Yet the only statistical data we have for him over the past couple years, is him being employed as a #1, alongside bottom pairing types. The only real conclusion to be drawn from that data, is that Fowler has been used over his head in that role. Make him the complimentary guy on a top pairing (which is what we're saying he's suited for by referring to him as a #2) and his advanced stats would inevitability normalize.

 

[Juxtaposer]

Not really, no. You can be objective regarding some players, and completely lacking in objectivity regarding others. You're even doing a good job of making my point, when you discussed Rakell. Ditto for Lindholm and Vatanen. I doubt many Anaheim fans would label Lindholm as a true #1 right now, and there's a reason for that. He isn't one. Oh, there is the potential there to be that, and he's shown some signs, but calling him a true #1 right now is evidence that you're not seeing enough of him.

That goes a step further with Vatanen. A passable #2? For a defenseman who was force fed offensive opportunities, and relied on the least for the tough D zone play? Vatanen is an impressive young talent, but if you're calling him a current #2, you're doing it without an understanding of how he's been used.

Edit: If you want to talk about upside, well, that's another discussion. But in terms of where the players fall, you seem to be pretty heavily influenced by flash.

Yeah, the fan who has been championing Marc-Edouard Vlasic for years is heavily influenced by "flash". Would you honestly say that Lindholm is a flashier player than Fowler? I wouldn't. I would say that Lindholm is an extraordinarily unflashy player.

Anyway, my point is not that I'm right, necessarily. My point is that I am not incapable of setting aside my dislike for the Ducks for the purpose of discussion. That was my overall point. I'm aware that I'm higher on Lindholm than most. I'm aware than I'm higher on Vatanen and Rakell than most. That's not the point. The point is that I love those players and I go to bat for them all over this forum despite the fact that they play for one of my team's biggest rivals. The point of that is that I'm not simply dissing Fowler because he's a Duck, I'm doing it because my observations have led me to conclude that he isn't a top pairing defenseman. That's all.

 

[Sojourn]

Yeah, the fan who has been championing Marc-Edouard Vlasic for years is heavily influenced by "flash". Would you honestly say that Lindholm is a flashier player than Fowler? I wouldn't. I would say that Lindholm is an extraordinarily unflashy player.

Anyway, my point is not that I'm right, necessarily. My point is that I am not incapable of setting aside my dislike for the Ducks for the purpose of discussion. That was my overall point. I'm aware that I'm higher on Lindholm than most. I'm aware than I'm higher on Vatanen and Rakell than most. That's not the point. The point is that I love those players and I go to bat for them all over this forum despite the fact that that play for one of my team's biggest rivals. The point of that is that I'm not simply dissing Fowler because he's a Duck, I'm doing it because my observations have led me to conclude that he isn't a top pairing defenseman. That's all.

The difference is you have a vested interest in Vlasic's success. His success translates to San Jose's success.

Which should confuse you when Anaheim fans go to bat for Fowler. He's heavily used in Anaheim. If the majority of us felt he was holding the team back, don't you think we'd be tearing our hair out trying to get rid of him? We see the good and the bad with him, and believe me, no one thinks he's some perfect player without issues. That role he's used in? If he has a tough night, it hurts. Because it's not a forgiving one. Look at how we look at Bieksa. Notice the difference between our treatment of Bieksa and Fowler? There's a reason.

 

[WhatTheDuck]

Lindholm had shown he can handle the role. Fowler has shown he can struggle in it. That's the difference.

Playing with a piece of garbage like Bieksa obviously hurts Fowler's advanced stats. But since I'm not making an argument based purely on advanced stats, I don't think it's as significant. However, you can't say that fowler is a top pairing defenseman while simultaneously saying that his possession numbers are bad because he plays a tough top pairing role. Real top pairing defensemen manage to have solid possession numbers while playing tough top pairing minutes.

You're forgetting that there are two defensemen in a pair. We refer to Fowler as a #2 dman, which means he'd fit perfectly as a complimentary top pairing dman. Asking a #2 guy to lead your top pairing alongside a 5/6 is certainly putting him over his head.

Yes, over a small sample size at the end of this year, Lindholm had success in that role. It remains to be seen whether he can repeat that yet over a full season. No one is going to tell you he doesn't have more upside. That still doesn't refute what I said, Lindholm and Vatanen have benefited from lesser responsibility because Fowler has eaten up the tougher minutes.

 

[Juxtaposer]

The difference is you have a vested interest in Vlasic's success. His success translates to San Jose's success.

Which should confuse you when Anaheim fans go to bat for Fowler. He's heavily used in Anaheim. If the majority of us felt he was holding the team back, don't you think we'd be tearing our hair out trying to get rid of him? We see the good and the bad with him, and believe me, no one thinks he's some perfect player without issues. That role he's used in? If he has a tough night, it hurts. Because it's not a forgiving one. Look at how we look at Bieksa. Notice the difference between our treatment of Bieksa and Fowler? There's a reason.

You don't trade a #3-4 defenseman just because he can't succeed in a top pairing role. Obviously, it makes sense that you wouldn't be chomping at the bit to just get rid of him.

You're forgetting that there are two defensemen in a pair. We refer to Fowler as a #2 dman, which means he'd fit perfectly as a complimentary top pairing dman. Asking a #2 guy to lead your top pairing alongside a 5/6 is certainly putting him over his head.

Yes, over a small sample size at the end of this year, Lindholm had success in that role. It remains to be seen whether he can repeat that yet over a full season. No one is going to tell you he doesn't have more upside. That still doesn't refute what I said, Lindholm and Vatanen have benefited from lesser responsibility because Fowler has eaten up the tougher minutes.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this. Obviously neither of us is changing their mind.

 

[Sojourn]

You don't trade a #3-4 defenseman just because he can't succeed in a top pairing role. Obviously, it makes sense that you wouldn't be chomping at the bit to just get rid of him.

I think you missed the point there. Or tried to cleverly sidestep it.

 

[Juxtaposer]

I think you missed the point there. Or tried to cleverly sidestep it.

I think the problem is that we're arguing over a small margin. You think he's a solid #2D. I think he's a solid #3D. How exactly do you differentiate between those things in a way that everyone can accept? Not particularly easy, given the question marks Fowler has regarding his history of poor defensive partners. It's impossible to precisely extrapolate what Fowler would be like playing with a #1D since he never has played with a #1D.