Discussion in 'Edmonton Oilers' started by DasDrai, Jan 29, 2018.
and lose the much needed defensive aspects of his game?
I thought that scoring goals (especially on the PP) was the biggest problem for the Oilers this past season. Maybe Larsson for a guy like Barrie could change those fortunes?
was a problem sure, but not the problem
a PP QB would be a luxary, but not a necessity
this team needs more defenders, not less
Not sure if your joking or not. Goals against were far and away more of a problem than goal scoring in general. Barrie's defensive game is so bad trading Larsson for him would pretty much put the team back into last place again next year. Yes I know plus minus isnt great but it certainly paints a horrifying picture for Barrie's actual effectiveness to a team despite how good he is offensively.
Preventing goals is just as important as scoring them. Larsson is going no where, he is legit the only D man we can play against other teams top lines. The rest get their faces caved in. As much as we need a PPQB it will in no way be at the cost of Larsson.
Stats wise he might be able to be Vlasic level, but puck moving wise I cant see it. Vlasic is a very good puck mover in all 3 zones. It doesnt manifest itself in points alot of the time, but he is often the primary source of break outs. Larsson, while solid at puck moving, is often the secondary puck mover. Hes deferred alot of the puck moving to Greene or Klefbom. Not sure if thats a coaching choice or not, but in any event, his puck moving is not at Vlasics level (imo)
And this was when Larsson was coming fresh off a poor season that saw him relegated to the AHL and Eberle was a 65 point+, 25+ goal scorer. IIRC HFOil wasnt to hot on the deal but I had a man crush on Larsson. Thought his offense would take off. Either way, I dont think it really has. But whos to say it cant
Bit of a stretch. Id say he gets his face caved in less than the other D. But I would not say he can neutralize another teams top line, at least not what he showed this year. The only time he did show this ability was when Klefbom was healthy and both were at the top of their games. So independently he cant, but with a good partner he could
Do you not understand how to watch defencemen?
You must not. Larsson has fabulous positioning, gap control, and boardwork with his stickwork and reaction times a notch below in quality to the first three skills.
Anybody with eyeballs who knows what they're looking at with Larsson would have seen three things last season:
1) he had games where he showed difficulty skating, winning battles and throwing hits...which all coincided with his back injury;
2) he didn't play up to par for the first 15 games, which was a prelude to the first point and follows into the third point; and
3) he spent a lot of time trying to cover for Klefbom, who was a disaster for much of the season.
Last season was the worst that I had ever seen Klefbom play.
Its silly season here where any stuff gets stated and I'm trying to stay away from it but reading fiction like this is too much.
1) This is the classic Larsson was fabulous except for when injured and without even a qualifier of when he was injured, how, what extent. No, the post would have you believe that Larsson injury explains away any section of games in which he didn't play well. Suffice though, and important to note that the point is not substantiated in anycase.
2) At least citing 15 games at start is a better point but still not citing when the injury occurred, what it was, etc. But I do like how all of 1-3 could be one point and reference each other.
3) The Klefbom factor. Look carefully at what Panda Bear is saying here. He is attributing Larssons struggle to Klefbom. Saying that a lot of the struggle is "trying to cover for Klefbom"
The last bit annoys me. Because not only is it lazy (the poster didn't even run numbers or check on ice stats) Its simply a lie.
Heres the truth. Larsson and Klefbom played 214EV minutes together last season. A small proportion of the minutes played. The bigger story is Klefbom played 536EV minutes with Benning (a brutal assignment) and even played more EV minutes with Russell, than with Larsson.
So that Larsson played over 1200EV minutes last season, only 214 of them with Klefbom, but the fictional attribution posted by Panda is that Larssons struggle was due to "trying to cover for Klefbom"
Was that on Xbox or PlayStation?
I would expect, or hope, that a poster who on the same page replied "your post is absolute bilge" would share more accurate assessments than the quoted.
Lmao, this is why I love actual stats and facts so much. They dont lie and can expose people in a second. The myth that Klefbom and Larsson played alot together this season needs to stop as that is obviously, and factually incorrect. The myth that Klefbom "dragged" Larsson down also needs to stop, as it appears it was the reverse that is true
Whats even more interesting is that Larssons numbers declined steeply away from Klefbom (Klefboms decreased as well, but not by as much). The other interesting thing is that more often than not, players did better with Klefbom, than away. Most notably, McDavid, Draisaitl and Maroon did alot better with him.
In regards to Larsson: Players oftne did do better with him, but not to the degree they did with Klefbom
^Thanks @Aceboogie , I wish they would clean up those graphs a bit or find a better way to present the information graphically. Its a bit noisy depiction of the numbers and not intuitive.
As you know I'm not big on advanced stats but I do at least subscribe to toi or wowy kinds of counting numbers so it was easy to spot the misattribution by Panda. Worse that the error is purposeful and designed to excuse Larsson at Klefs expense. The interesting story last season is the Oilers tried to find a #1 pair in Nurse/Larsson and threw Klef in with Benning or Russell. A tough assignment as anybody with Benning or Russell struggled last season.
Some questions though that frustrates me about Natural Stat Trick as a source.
1) Why do the WOWY numbers not add up to show the whole toi? That way one could easily see what proportion played with each player etc.
2) With and without columns do not add up. i.e. one would expect Klefbom with Larsson, or without Larsson totals to add up to his total EV toi. They do not.
3) Why oh why are players listed on first name instead of last name basis. lol.
Another cherry picked non sense example of how Klefbom is the most overrated analytics player in ages. He’s not a good defensive player. He wasn’t this year he wasn’t last year. It was as noticeable last year because he was producing. Tracking shot attempts and using it as a primary evaluation tool has been dead for a while. Get with the times.
Lol, what are the times now? Making completely inaccurate and false claims of the number of minutes they played together? If people cant even use the eye test to even loosely estimate the number of minutes players played together, then I have no confidence they can accurately judge play and inter-player impacts
Are the times now just "say whatever you want to and hope no one uses stats to call you out"?
The scenarios you are referencing would have a bigger influence on the absolute +/- than it would on the numbers I quoted. Look through Larsson's game logs and match these to the scores in games. You would be looking for games where he ended up with a 0 but the Oilers scored and EN goal with him on the ice. There are very few possible examples of this. Looking at the two seasons with the Oilers I could not find any examples of this in either season. There may have been a few but I doubt there would be more than 1 or two per year.
On the flip side for guys who are on the ice when their own net is empty for this to matter there would have to be an EN goal scored against and they would have had to have been a 0 at that point. This is not going to be a very frequent occurrence. So it is highly unlikely that this matters in a relative sense.
And for what it is worth I agree that +/- in the absolute sense has little use without context. But there is context here. Across various scenarios and with different partners Larsson's pattern is that when he is on the ice his team comes out ahead or even more frequently than most elite defensemen. I don't claim this is definitive proof of anything by the way but it is evidence that he is effective in keeping the puck out of his net.
What do you use?
I never said he would neutralize it, but quite simply he is the only one of our D I would trust playing against the other teams top line. Even last year Klefbom was miles better defensively than he was this year but even then I would have trusted Larsson over Klefbom to take the tough assignment. Sekera was also fantastic last year and could take the tough assignments and do fine, this year not so much for obvious reasons.
Our D without Larsson is absolutely bottom of the barrel, hell we are still pretty close to it with him on there as well.
He had a tough year this year, as did our entire D group except Nurse for a good portion of the season, but I have full confidence that he will bounce back to the Larsson of last year who single handedly changed the dynamic of our D group. Before Larsson we were the softest buncha pansies on the back end. Now, players keep there heads up entering the zone because of Larsson and Nurse.
Klefbom isn't horrible defensive. Can actually be pretty good. Last year though he just had 2 or 3MASSIVE blunders a game. The kind you see on highlight reels for the guy who scored.
That's not something that shows up in stats however.
how does this show Klefbom is good at actually defending?
Herte was your original premise regarding TMac and helping players succeed......
So you start with a flawed nonsensical premise and then double down (and throw in some misdirection) instead of taking a step away from it.
Why would I continue to engage with this disingenuous perspective?
Believe what you want man.
Klefbom is more of an offensive guy who is going to take chances with the puck and pinch in the o-zone more than Larsson, which, when it goes wrong, is a much more visible mistake than blowing coverage, losing body position on your man or just failing to get the puck out.
First, these charts do not show anything statistically, since they are in essence a single data point (average for one season). The author needs to either show many seasons for this to be valuable (along with measures of variance), or needs to show the per game stats, again along with measures of variance. And that is assuming the metric being measured actually means what it is claimed it does (i.e. measures effectiveness). I get that it is very complicated to do so (and that or a lack of understanding for the need for it is why no one does it), but it is unfortunately actually an important thing when it comes to statistical analysis.
Second, playing with Larsson generally meant starting in the D-zone, while playing with Klefbom generally meant starting in the O-zone, making their WoWOY stats difficult to compare in any case, and would in fact suggest that if Larsson was making others better, while taking the tough matchups, and starting in the D-zone, that is actually pretty damn good. Now the problem with that, is there isn't a great way to throw all those factors (which all have their own variances, and whose weight would need to be decided) into a blender and get out a 'general effectiveness' metric (although I'm sure someone has tried to hack one together). All we really have to go by is usage, and usage suggests that Larsson was the most trusted D-man for the Oiler's this year.
Stats without relevance and context are useless
How on earth is there anything disingenuous about what I am writing?
Larsson had some difficulties last year associated with injury, a lack of form to start the year, and a partner for the first whack of the season that kept brainfarting.
The only games where he possibly looked like a bottom-pairing defencemen were ones where his back was clearly and significantly affecting him.
If you think he looked like a bottom-pairing player, then you don't understand what you're watching.
As for Todd discouraging Larsson to play a role beyond being a stay-at-home defenceman? Really?
Both Larsson and his Swedish NT coach literally talked to the media about how he got a more offensive role on Sweden than he did on Edmonton.
@Aceboogie: I'm a big Klefbom fan. He has a high baseline level of play and tilts the ice.
He also had issues throughout the year with tentative play along the boards and in front of the net, getting his shot off at his usual velocity, and maintaining his concentration throughout the game. He made more than his fair share of blunders last season.
Blunders don't show up well in statistical analyses that evaluate possession.
I put this down to shoulder issues and how injuries affect a player's mental state.
I don't think that TM kept Larsson back offensively because he doesn't understand or care that Larsson has some offensive ability that could still be unlocked, but I do think that he was basically the only Dman TM consistently trusted to handle the hard matchups. Especially given his injury, it would have been pretty tough to try and get him to both handle the role he was in, and expand it by trying to push things offensively as well. Hopefully Larsson's back issues are past him, Nurse continues to progress, and Klefbom sorts his stuff out, and then maybe Larsson can be given a bit more freedom (or he can be the defensive conscience for a someone more effective offensively, but less effective defensively, and as a pair they can produce well).