Maybe You Can Quantify Defense After All

by Joe Dunman on Feb 15, 2008 10:54 AM MST in NHL News

Most of us would agree that it's pretty tough to quantify how well a defenseman plays, especially a stay-at-home, defense-only kind of player. Plus/minus has been shown time and time again to mean more or less nothing in the grand scheme of things.

Well, James Mirtle, Bloggologist, has given it a try. He calls it the "Rod Langway Award" after the last defenseman to win the Norris Trophy with fewer than 50 points. His methodology can be found here.

He ranks the top 20 defensive defensmen in the league so far this season. The top five are Henrik Tallinder, Nicklas Lidstrom, Adam Foote, Chris Pronger and Derek Morris.

Interestingly, but not surprisingly, there isn't an Avalanche d-man anywhere to be found in his top 20. But it's not all bad, because he lists the bottom ten and there aren't any Avalanche players there, either. Dion Phaneuf is in the bottom ten, but no Colorado boys.

I'd like to know where the Avs who qualify for the rankings actually fall. And really, I'm pretty shocked that Scott Hannan isn't down at the bottom of the list. Maybe he's eleventh-worst.

UPDATE: HA! I was right. Says Mirtle:

Hannan's 11th worst, right after Beauchemin. Brett Clark's in the middle somewhere.

Tweet Comment 8 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Is it any wonder our D sucks?

3 ex-Avs in the top 8. Two of them lost in the Vaanaanaanaenen and Gratton trade. Man was that trade ever horrible.

by Bob in Boulder on Feb 15, 2008 11:15 AM MST reply actions

Re: Is it any wonder

Just one of many.

by Joe Dunman on Feb 15, 2008 11:50 AM MST up reply actions

Yeah, because...

Yeah, because we didn't get our best player in that trade or anything.

rolls eyes

Sorry, but some short-sighted, contrived, meaningless ranking by a blogger doesn't change the fact that Morris was ass in Colorado that year, and we got freaking Paul Stastny in the deal.

Would I want Ballard on this Avs team? Enh.
Would I want Morris on this Avs team? Enh.
Would I give up Stastny to get both of them? Hell no.

by Thomas @ Mile High Hockey on Feb 15, 2008 12:15 PM MST up reply actions

So we couldn't have gotten Stastny with ..

one of our other 3 2nd round choices that year? Thomas, I understand your argument, but the fact is we traded Morris and Ballard for Vaa...., Gratton (look up "floater" in the NHL dictionary and there is his picture) and a 2nd round draft pick. Luckily that particular 2nd round pick turned out to be Stastny, but that part of the trade is just that, pure luck. It was a horrible trade.

by Bob in Boulder on Feb 15, 2008 12:26 PM MST up reply actions

Umm...

...no. The pick wasn't luck. The Avs selected the guy they had targeted. Acquiring that pick allowed them to get Stastny. You arguing that they could have gotten him with another pick is just your way of trying to ignore the fact that we acquired our best player for an average two-way DMan and a young DMan who is developing into an average two-way DMan. Sorry, I'm not biting.

It was a good trade. Morris and Ballard are looked at the same way Drury and Forsberg are by Avs fans. You think of them as being more than they are because the Avs made moves involving them. Morris was shit in Colorado, and only blossomed into an average DMan in Phoenix. Ballard was a good prospect, but he's nothing too terribly special as an NHL player. You just see them as Norris winners because you're so dead set that this was an awful trade.

by Thomas @ Mile High Hockey on Feb 15, 2008 1:28 PM MST up reply actions

So by this logic ...

if Detroit takes Stastny at 42 in that draft, and the Avs end up taking someone who doesn't pan out at 44, does that particular trade then become crap?

Also, how have the Avs done against Morris, Ballard and the 'yotes this season? 0-1-2. Notsogood.

by Bob in Boulder on Feb 15, 2008 1:41 PM MST up reply actions

Well...

...you're judging the trade by hindsight. So yes, if the guy they took with that pick doesn't turn out, then the trade was bad.

Look, you can't have it both ways. You're looking back at the trade from a current perspective and saying it was bad because of what we gave up. If you're not going to look at the trade from the perspective of what it was at the time (an Avs team looking toward the playoffs gave up an underachieving DMan and a prospect for a big, tough young defensive DMan, a big rock solid two-way 3rd line center and a relatively high draft pick), then you have to look at BOTH what we gave up and what we got.

We got Stastny. We gave up a couple average DMen.

by Thomas @ Mile High Hockey on Feb 15, 2008 1:57 PM MST up reply actions

so you're saying that

the trade wasn't for Vaananen, Gratton, and a second, it was for Vaananen, Gratton and Stastny. that it wasn't a pick, there wasn't any variability to it at all. like bob says, what if stastny was taken by someone else? if we knew Stastny was so awesome, why not take him with a higher pick (assuming we had one that year)?

Fact is, we didn't know when the deal was made. We happened to make a good pick. If (as was far more likely at the time of the trade) the pick was average for a second rounder, we got smoked in the deal. As is, it was a fair trade. But only because we got lucky with a second.

Personally, I wish they'd have drafted Stastny without that deal (an option that was certainly available), because then we'd still have 2 pretty good Dmen in Ballard and Morris, instead of, say, Skrastins and Liles.

by thedoctor on Feb 15, 2008 1:54 PM MST up reply actions