JR Ewing

Watch for this to do nothing but grow and grow over the years as GMs seem to *finally* be figuring out that defensive defensemen without a shred of ability to move the puck whether by pass or skate aren't the great item they were thought to be for so long. Misery is a D-man whose biggest asset is "off the glass and out".

I agree with much of what TFG is saying re: Schultz. -Calm feet -Almost no real offensive ability. -A ton of miles on him, and the downhill side is getting to be very steep. -Has never once in his career been a guy that helps move the puck north. Never, which is generally my issue with defense-only players. They don't prevent as many goals as a better player can help create, and there is tremendous defensive benefit to being able to move the puck out of your end. That's an ability Schultz never had.

Zack Stortini, otherwise known as Huggy Bear. He played 255 games for the Edmonton Oilers from 2007 thru 2011, and only 1 NHL game since leaving the organization.There's everything you need to know. If he's playing games for your club, there's roster issues.

That, and isn't the cap expected to increase next year a fair bit, too?

Joe Thornton an Oiler? LOL... I needed that. MacT gave a lengthy interview to Jim Matheson last week which indicated that he was looking at having Gagner play the wing, which is where he should have been playing for years. Purcell is an actual NHL player, which is a far finer return than many thought Gagner would fetch. Wow: now, look at that. Yzerman then flips Gagner to the Coyotes right away, according to Bob McKenzie.

I *do* like Kesler. Really. He plays very tough minutes and under difficult circumstances. But man... That's a really heavy price to pay.

Not only that, but I don't get the comparison in PPG between Blake (0.61) and Bourque (0.98). Not even close to the same. Two players each playing 1,000 games with those rates will have one of them with 610 points and the other 980. Not even in the same realm.

Here's the cool thing: the use of this process isn't limited to baseball/hockey Hall of Fame discussions. It can be modified and used to discuss musicians, film makers, politicians, etc, and pretty much anything which you could think of

A couple of things: -I think that things are, perhaps, a bit different with college players. In that case, you're not dealing with teenagers, but players that are 22, 23, etc, years old, and are much closer to finished products. Elite players skip college, and opt for junior and earlier pro money, but college players can be quite refined. This can cut down on the need for AHL apprenticeship, imo. -As it pertains to Justin Schultz, he spent time in the AHL during the lockout, and was thoroughly dominant. He won the Eddie Shore award as the league's top defenseman, and despite playing the rest of the year in the NHL, still led all defensemen in scoring. This would be a case of being a good time to promote a young player to the NHL. I think he could have rounded out his defensive game, but it will never be the hallmark of his career. -Schultz HAS been running the Oilers PP, but doesn't have a big shot or, a least, doesn't opt to one-time the puck very much. His offense certainly wasn't earth shattering last year, though he had the 19th best Pts/60 among defensemen, and in 2013, he finished 13th among D in scoring as a rookie. There's some offense to be had, but he's more of a rover than a defenseman. Cheats ALL over the ice.

Good questions. My personal opinions: -I do not think the Oilers will be competitive next year. Improved, but outside of the playoffs. The west is BRUTAL. -Given that answer, then why not let Nurse and Klefbom learn on the go? a] Generally speaking, I prefer a model which challenges young players to demonstrate that they've learned much of what there is to be taught at a given level before moving them up to the next one, unless they clearly show the apprenticeship isn't required. Using Nurse as an example, he has demonstrated that he can excel at junior. Next up: AHL. Let him go there, play against quality pros until he demonstrates that he handle that level. Once he does that, move him on up to the NHL. For every Drew Doughty, who can play in the NHL at 19, there are huge numbers of kids that just aren't up to the task, and I think there's a risk at bringing them up when they're clearly not ready. b] That said, if they come to camp and outplay the men on the roster, at least give them a try. Last pre-season, Nurse looked very good for a player of his age, and he had a great year in the OHL to follow it up. He specifically said that being cut and told what to work on helped him as a player, and gave him some perspective he'd not had before. He could be ready; I don't know. My point is that I don't want it handed it to him. So, it's not that I want roadblocks put up before them. If they can play, let them play. But if there's clear learning which is needed, let them learn it at a level which challenges them, yet doesn't crucify them. Also, ELC deals, etc, etc, etc.

Mike Gartner is my go-to guy in hockey for this player type. Never great, but kept his legs and was able to keep popping a respectable number of goals. It also greatly helped him to play in the bubble hockey era of offense. Baseball? Yeah, Baines was exactly one of those. Other guys who come to mind: Tony Perez, Rusty Staub, Chili Davis, Don Baylor.

Said a bunch of it in the shoutbox, but I'll re-cap my impressions here. -The contract is about where I figured it would be. He's in the $3.5M/yr range on most teams, but when you figure in UFA season coming up as well as the premium Edmonton has to pay free agents, $4.5M is right where you end up. -That said, the hit is a little high for a player in his class. I'm much less scared by this because I think the term of two years is right. -This pushes Andrew Ference down the depth chart, and keeps like Mark Fraser off the roster entirely. -This allows the team to bridge the time between now and the NHL-readiness of Oscar Klefbom and Darnell Nurse. Defense at the pro level is incredibly difficult to learn, and you should be having AHL experience before being flung into the deep end of the NHL. Klefbom performed very well for a rookie with brutal zone starts (and still had positive possession numbers) but why do that to kids that are barely shaving? -The gives the Oilers another real live NHL player on their blueline (gasp!) -This helps create internal competition for jobs rather than handing them over by right of succession, which has been happening for too long. -I'm hoping this isn't the big addition of the needed puck mover MacTavish was talking about. It's not enough. -Forgot: this give the Oilers something they were badly lacking: a PP point shot. Justin Schultz has a terrific wrist shot, but they didn't have a heavy shot on the point.

Players spend the first 8-10 of their career building their HOF case, then the rest of it padding the numbers. Sometimes, guys with long non-dominant careers look better than they really were, creating an impression of their qualifications which is greater than the whole of its parts.

I read that one, too. Great book. There are very few athletes who (IMO) had a presence so destructive and distracting, that they were a detriment to their team. Dick Allen would be one. I remember in Jame's "New Historical Baseball Abstract", he referred to Allen as perhaps the most selfish and immature player in history. Ouch. As far as Lindros goes, I don't know as I'd really put him in that groups of guys. You obviously have strong ideas about that aspect of his life, and that's fine. Carl Lindros WAS a pain in the ass, but I'm also left with the fact that the Flyers organization DID treat Eric poorly, regarding the head injuries. I dunno... I'm not really for keeping players out of the HOF for things which happen outside of the purview of the sport itself. Gambling would be a reason, and I could probably think of a few others given the time.

Ack! Thanks for letting me know.

I'm a big fan of the work of baseball writer/thinker Bill James. Back when I was a kid, I bought and/or borrowed everything of his which I could get my hand, including the 1985 Baseball Abstract. In that book, for the first time, I came across The Keltner List, named after Ken Keltner. Keltner was the recipient of a post-career movement which saw some people suggest he would be a good Hall of Fame candidate. Jame took the opportunity to come up with a list of subjective questions you can ask a player's career which can help evaluate how worth he is of being the in HOF an, in reference to Keltner, called it the Keltner Test. By creating a list of common criteria, it helps frame the discussion and give it direction. There's no one single thing that make a player HOF worthy, and so the more relevant questions we ask about a player, the closer we come to having a better idea about him and how qualified he is. About 25 years ago, I adapted it for hockey, have always found it useful, and maybe others here will like it, too. 1. Was he ever commonly thought of as the best player in hockey while he played? 2. Was he ever commonly thought of as the best player at his position while he played? 3. Was he ever among the top 10 leaders in any key stats? (G, A, Pts, W, SO, etc) 4. Did the player ever lead the league in any key stats? (G, A, Pts, W, SO, etc) 5. Did he ever have an impact on a deep playoff run? 6. Was he a key member of a Stanley Cup winner? 7. Was he ever a team Captain? 8. Was he ever team Captain of a Stanley Cup winner? 9. Did many regard him to be an excellent defensive player? 10. Did many regard his physical play/hitting to be an intimidating factor? (NOTE: We're not looking for pests here) 11. Did he play alot/well after he passed his prime? 12. Was he ever elected to the 1st or 2nd All-Star team? 13. Are many any other players with similar statistics in the HHOF? 14. Did he win a Hart, Lindsay, Norris or Vezina Trophy? (NOTE for goalies: prior to 1982, use 1st All-Star selections) 15. Did he win a Conn Smythe Trophy? (pre-1965: see resources) 16. Is there any evidence to suggest (due to circumstances beyond his control) that he was significantly better than is indicated by his statistics? (NOTE: We're looking for things like time missed due to global conflict, world politics, league wars, etc... NOT INJURY!) 17. Did the player bring bring positive and intense focus on the game of hockey? 18. Was the player innovative, inspire a new style of play, or cause the league to change any of its rules as a result of the way he played? 13+ = Best of the best 11-12 = Unquestioned HOFer 9-10 = Great player 5-8 = Belongs in HOF 4 = Borderline 3 = Weak Argument 1-2 = Completely Unqualified Now, don't take me too literally here. If you run a player through it, and they end up with a 4, that doesn't mean he sucks and is clearly not a HOFer. What it does mean is that, relative to players with higher scores, there is a less effective argument to be made for him being in the HOF. The headings of "Weak Argument" are subjective; are meant to give an idea of his qualifications, and are not to be taken as absolutes. NOTE: this test is extremely difficult in which to score points. To even get one point shows that a player had a very strong career. To score two or three points and make it into the "weak argument" range is an immense accomplishment. SO... Eric Lindros: 1. Was he ever commonly thought of as the best player in hockey while he played? Yes, Lindros was commonly in that discussion. (1) 2. Was he ever commonly thought of as the best player at his position while he played? Yes, same as above. (2) 3. Was he ever among the top 10 leaders in any key stats? (G, A, Pts, W, SO, etc) Too many to list here. (3) 4. Did the player ever lead the league in any key stats? (G, A, Pts, W, SO, etc) Lindros led the league in scoring in 1995. (4) 5. Did he ever have an impact on a deep playoff run? Yes. Lindros led the playoffs in scoring during the Flyers 1996 Finals appearance. (5) 6. Was he a key member of a Stanley Cup winner? No. 7. Was he ever a team Captain? Yes, from 1994 to 2000. (6) 8. Was he ever team Captain of a Stanley Cup winner? No. 9. Did many regard him to be an excellent defensive player? Lindros had a very small handfull of Selke votes over the years, but no, he wasn't considered excellent by many. 10. Did many regard his physical play/hitting to be an intimidating factor? (NOTE: We're not looking for pests here) Absolutely. (7) 11. Did he play alot/well after he passed his prime? No, Lindros' concussion problems meant that he was finished as an impact player by the time he was 29. 12. Was he ever elected to the 1st or 2nd All-Star team? 1st AS in '95, 2nd AS in '96 (8) 13. Are many any other players with similar statistics in the HHOF? Of the ten most statistically similar players, 7 are in the HOF, and the three who aren't (Thornton, Iginla, St Louis) may well end up there. (9) 14. Did he win a Hart, Lindsay, Norris or Vezina Trophy? (NOTE for goalies: prior to 1982, use 1st All-Star selections) Won the Hart and Lindsay in 1995. (10) 15. Did he win a Conn Smythe Trophy? (pre-1965: see resources) No 16. Is there any evidence to suggest (due to circumstances beyond his control) that he was significantly better than is indicated by his statistics? (NOTE: We're looking for things like time missed due to global conflict, world politics, league wars, etc... NOT INJURY!) I see nothing to indicate a point here. 17. Did the player bring bring positive and intense focus on the game of hockey? I don't think so. If anything, controversy followed him everywhere, since before he was even a junior. 18. Was the player innovative, inspire a new style of play, or cause the league to change any of its rules as a result of the way he played? No, there was nothing new here. --- So, Lindros ends up with 10 points (as I see it) using this system, which is a very good case.

-Gagner was right there with Yakupov: -29. Eberle much less so with a -11, but he also played most of his time with th3 6th leading scorer in the league. That helps. -I think there's a problem too, and probably has more than a little to do with the team going through so many coaches in rapid order. Can you imagine being a teenager and transitioning to the NHL with a new coach and new tactics to learn every year? Must be difficult. To use Sam Gagner as an example, he's had 5 coaches in 7 seasons. That leads us to Dallas Eakins saying "I had to change the swarm. My mistake: I thought NHL players would have some grasp of defensive zone knowledge". He was rightfully frustrated. -Yakupov WAS the worst of the bunch. I agree with that. Definitely not the second coming of Bab Gainey.

As I said in an earlier post: it's fair to teach him responsibility. I'm not saying that he has nothing to learn, or that the Oilers should accept whatever defensive effort Yakupov feels like putting forward. My issue is not that Dallas Eakins is attempting to get Yakupov to play a more rounded game, but that he was the only player publicly punished with a benching for that crime while not close to being the only player guilty of it. Essentially, what he learned last year was that if your name is Jordan Eberle or Sam Gagner, it's quite alright to blow the zone early and hang out near centre ice or not even glance over your shoulder in your own end, but that if your name is Nail Yakupov and you do that, you'll be benched and called out. I won't even get into Justin Schultz. In that sense, the coach mis-handled the kid.

I think that's all fair, and I think he could be traded, provided the return is what they'd like. He's a phenomenal talent, and I think it would be a mistake to give up on him this quickly. Just two summers ago, he was seen as the best draft eligible prospect in the world, and a year later, he led rookies in goal scoring playing as the 3rd RW on the Oilers. There's a lot there to hold on to. He got a pretty rough ride from a new coach, who seem bound and determined to break Yakupov. He benched him, publicly citing a lack of willingness to play in his end when there is no shortage of Oilers players who could easily wear that label.

Much of what has been said about Yakupov in this thread is true, but players with his abilities can have tremendous impact if they're deployed properly. Unless he fills in his game, he'll never be playing with Hall who, since about 7 games into his NHL career, has been able to play against tough opposition. The role that Yakupov needs to occupy is one of a soft minutes killer with a lot of offensive zone starts and PP specialist. Where teams screw up is when they want to change a young player like him, who has some tremendous skill, and re-create him as a player type which he isn't. By all means, teach him responsibility, but don't attempt to completely alter him in a way which isn't in his DNA. It's no different than major league ball clubs, which get it into their heads to take a good young player and do a tiny little thing like completely changing his batting stance, swing, etc, and then wonder why he's having a hard time adjusting to the big leagues. Either way, I think the Oilers only trade Yakupov as part of a package for a clear number one star defenseman, and not the Braydon Coburn-type player. Coburn is a player, but not in that class. Until then, Yakupov has too much promise, and the Oilers aren't exactly brimming with RW depth with Hemsky gone, for them to go shipping him off unless the return is big. Who the hell cuts bait on a number 1 pick with only a little over 100 games under his belt?

Yeah, I'd be more worried if it was a recurring injury. In his case, one was a cut on his thigh from a skate which became badly infected. Not your run of the mill injury, that's for sure, and one I wouldn't worry about happening again. Your take on him is a good one. From Redline Report:

The Oilers are extremely high on Klefbom. He's a nice combination of size, speed and skill, can really skate, makes smart passes, and is considered to be well above defensively for his age (has been playing pro since he was 16). In his 17 NHL games last season, he had the toughest zone starts, and was still a +1 CorsiRel. That's huge for a 20 year old player, and is suggestive of a future. My big issue with Klefbom: he's been hurt nearly every year, always in some freaky way. Injuries are pretty much THE big thing that derail young careers. Nurse? I just can't see the club doing that, especially since MacTavish has already said he's quite prepared to let him remain in junior and then the AHL for as long as it takes to properly develop him. All that said, what's really in it for the Flyers to trade Coburn for Klefbom or Marincin? Klefbom IS a very nice prospect, and Marincin (even though he had an amazing rookie year) isn't a sure bet by any means? They would gain cap space and youth, but not much else.

I think that's a good idea, actually. Laymen's terms, then... Corsi - Put simply, it's the shot differential while a player is on the ice. It tells us which players are (and aren't) pushing the puck north while on the ice. This includes not only shots, but missed shots (including those which hit the post), and shots which are blocked. It's a proxy for possession, since the only way to accumulate these counter numbers is to have the puck. There is a consistent and strong link between teams having a high Corsi and a higher win%. You can buck the odds for awhile, even a whole season sometimes, but there's only so long it can last before you plummet back to earth. Fenwick - This is basically Corsi, but with blocked shots removed from the equation. I find it less instructive than Corsi. Yes, shot blocking is a skill, but it still means the other team possessed the puck. What would you rather your team did? Not possess the puck a lot, but block plenty of shots, or would you rather they had the puck a lot, press the play and get more shots blocked by way of it. I know what I'd prefer. Corsi For% - This is how many shot-attempts a team had relative to the total amount of shot-attempts generated by both teams in that game. So, if there were 100 shots attempts between both teams, with each club having 50 a piece, then each had a Corsi% of 50. Even 5 percentage points is a LOT here. GF% - This is the same idea as Cosi%, but applied to goals scored. Generally speaking, these two numbers should be somewhat close to each other, or else luck is playing into the equation more than anything else, usually. After all, picture a guy who doesn't really have the puck a lot, but his team scores a lot when he's on the ice. Let's use a player as an example: CF% - 46.9% GF% - 57.7% If you guessed Nathan MacKinnon, you were right. He's a hell of a prospect, but we still have a kid who spends majority of the time in his own end, yet the Avs cashed in for 57.7% of the goals while he was on the ice. Do we have some ideas as to why that is? Yeah, actually: Even-Strength Save% while MacKinnon was on the ice: .953 WHEN (not if) that freakish ES SV% comes back down to earth, the goals against will pile up, and the Avs will follow. For pool players: watch out for players whose GF% greatly exceeds their CF%: Look at those numbers fall the next year. On the flip-side finding players with GF% numbers much lower than their CF% represent a chance to buy low, as he'll probably see dramatic "improvement". Relative Corsi (CorsiRel) - Shows how a player did compared to his teammates. Even a horrible team can have some effective players, and vice versa. If you play for a powerhouse where most of your teammates have Corsi numbers well into the positives, and you're barely above zero, you've done poorly relative to them. But... We run into. Zone Starts - Which is really more accurately put it were called Offensive Zone Starts. This has a huge impact on a player's Corsi numbers. If you have a lot of offensive zone starts, you have a greater opportunity to pile up shot attempts compared to how many you may expect to have against you. The opposite holds true for those players who start next to their net a lot.

The stats also show that Braun had a brutal assignment: toughest Zone Starts as well as Quality of Competition. With the teams GF% only being half the CF% while he was on the ice, there's some bad luck there, too. When the Zone Shift Adjusted numbers come out, it would be fun to have a peek at them.

I don't know what the hell Steve Simmons is talking about here, and it's pretty clear that he doesn't either. Not a single stats man would offer such an answer, since it's completely non-sensical within the context of the story Simmons is sharing. It was one game! Again, "sample size" doesn't even make sense as a response within the context of the conversation. But, even more importantly, Simmons is grotesquely incorrect about the game in question. The Leafs Corsi numbers for the game he's moaning about: Sample size be damned, the numbers show that JVR was taken apart piece by piece at ES, but not as badly as Kessel. Yet, in Simmons' story, VanRiemsdyk and Kessel both had good Corsi numbers. Either Simmons is lying/making up ****, or he just has no idea what he's talking about. The most painful part of the article is where Simmons goes on at length, describing plays, with pucks bouncing, being cleared, all with no stats which can be clearly shown, yet all are things which happen and that players can affect. And there, where his (probably fictional) stats guy should be saying: SAMPLE SIZE! As the sample size increases, and given enough time, looking at which team drove the puck north more often and generated more shots while he was on the ice, where he started his shifts, and the competition he played against, these plays begin to coalesce into a better picture of his ability. That's my favorite part of the article right there, where he says that anybody could see the Leafs were a bad hockey team that would come down to earth. Certainly, Mr Simmons wasn't fooled by the amount they were winning against the house early on: https://twitter.com/simmonssteve/statuses/395375707821309952 Oops.