Was Kane Party Thread, Now Turned To Bolland For Selke Debates.

[DMelt36]

Could Bolland be considered for the Selke? No.
Should he based on what the Selke actually rewards? Maybe.

It's supposed to be the best defensive forward in the league, but it's turned into who has the most takeaways and is the best two-way forward.

Since that's how the award is selecte now, no way Bolland gets it.

Weird that it would be mentioned after he had one of his worst seasons offensively. The argument could've been better made last year I believe.

He missed a quarter of last season with an injury though, only played 61 games.

You're pretty much right on your stats now, but you forgot to add in faceoffs. And that is one big knock on Bolland--he doesn't win enough faceoffs. I thought someone was going to throw that argument out there, since it's an argument that cannot be refuted.

But if you dive deeper into the hockey geek statistics, there's a real good argument that guys like Thompson, Sutter, and Bolland are every bit as good--if not better--at the two-way game than the names you always hear.

 

[DMelt36]

Just do this, Dewey.

Show me a statistical argument that indicates that Dave Bolland did not have the best performance as a defensive forward on the Blackhawks last season. I gave you three statistics that came from an NHL stats consultant that make my argument.

Don't just tell me Player X is better. Show me with stats. If Serious or Fisch or anyone else can do the same, be my guest.

 

[TheChicagoFan]

He missed a quarter of last season with an injury though, only played 61 games.

You're pretty much right on your stats now, but you forgot to add in faceoffs. And that is one big knock on Bolland--he doesn't win enough faceoffs. I thought someone was going to throw that argument out there, since it's an argument that cannot be refuted.

But if you dive deeper into the hockey geek statistics, there's a real good argument that guys like Thompson, Sutter, and Bolland are every bit as good--if not better--at the two-way game than the names you always hear.

Well I'm not a hockey geek. Mainly a casual fan which is why I'm not very smart about the team and whatever.

All I know is that Datsyuk, Toews, Kesler, etc. all score more goals than Bolland. And I think that's the difference. Nobody talks about Bolland-type players because they don't have the same offensive ability as those other guys.

 

[DewsSox79]

I have no idea how you can compare defense in hockey and baseball. There's nothing in common there.

Also, there were three different stats compared on that chart. You're talking like there's only one.

You've taken this thing in such a ridiculous direction I can't even remember what you're initial gripe was with the article, if you had one.

direction? you're the one that brought this all up and tried to justify that horrible article to self reassure yourself that bolland is good. most hawk fans that have a clue hope he is dealt.


Sent from the report me wharehouse using Tapatalk

 

[DMelt36]

direction? you're the one that brought this all up and tried to justify that horrible article to self reassure yourself that bolland is good. most hawk fans that have a clue hope he is dealt.


Sent from the report me wharehouse using Tapatalk

:shrug:

Just do this, Dewey.

Show me a statistical argument that indicates that Dave Bolland did not have the best performance as a defensive forward on the Blackhawks last season. I gave you three statistics that came from an NHL stats consultant that make my argument.

Don't just tell me Player X is better. Show me with stats. If Serious or Fisch or anyone else can do the same, be my guest.

 

[nwfisch]

Just do this, Dewey.

Show me a statistical argument that indicates that Dave Bolland did not have the best performance as a defensive forward on the Blackhawks last season. I gave you three statistics that came from an NHL stats consultant that make my argument.

Don't just tell me Player X is better. Show me with stats. If Serious or Fisch or anyone else can do the same, be my guest.

What "stats" do you want?

I just think its interesting that Bolland is a shutdown guy, yet can't even amass a positive +/-?

If there's this much doubt that Bolland is the best defensive forward on the Blackhawks, how can we name him the best defensive forward in the NHL?

 

[DMelt36]

Well I'm not a hockey geek. Mainly a casual fan which is why I'm not very smart about the team and whatever.

All I know is that Datsyuk, Toews, Kesler, etc. all score more goals than Bolland. And I think that's the difference. Nobody talks about Bolland-type players because they don't have the same offensive ability as those other guys.

Agreed.

 

[DMelt36]

What "stats" do you want?

I'm not picky. Whatever you want. Anytime I've tried to use arguments based off of my opinion, I'm told that I'm wrong because I don't have stats to back them up. Now I've got stats for my argument. So I'm looking for some other stats to prove me wrong.

I just think its interesting that Bolland is a shutdown guy, yet can't even amass a positive +/-?

If there's this much doubt that Bolland is the best defensive forward on the Blackhawks, how can we name him the best defensive forward in the NHL?

That's a fair argument. And my response to that would be that it's not his defensive problems that caused his +/- to be even this year, it's his offensive deficiencies.

You must also keep in mind that he was consistently facing the other team's top line (a statistical fact). Scoring wasn't his biggest priority, shutting them down was.

His +/- should've been higher, though.

See this right here? It's called a debate. I presented an argument, I responded, then I did too. Thought that was how this thing was supposed to work. There were 3 or 4 pages of real good discussion on the article I posted before it turned into stupid shit.

 

[DewsSox79]

I'm not picky. Whatever you want. Anytime I've tried to use arguments based off of my opinion, I'm told that I'm wrong because I don't have stats to back them up. Now I've got stats for my argument. So I'm looking for some other stats to prove me wrong.




That's a fair argument. And my response to that would be that it's not his defensive problems that caused his +/- to be even this year, it's his offensive deficiencies.

You must also keep in mind that he was consistently facing the other team's top line (a statistical fact). Scoring wasn't his biggest priority, shutting them down was.

His +/- should've been higher, though.

See this right here? It's called a debate. I presented an argument, I responded, then I did too. Thought that was how this thing was supposed to work. There were 3 or 4 pages of real good discussion on the article I posted before it turned into stupid shit.

that really isnt statistical based just an fyi


Sent from the report me wharehouse using Tapatalk

 

[DMelt36]

that really isnt statistical based just an fyi


Sent from the report me wharehouse using Tapatalk

What isn't? The +/- or the original article?

 

[DewsSox79]

I'm not picky. Whatever you want. Anytime I've tried to use arguments based off of my opinion, I'm told that I'm wrong because I don't have stats to back them up. Now I've got stats for my argument. So I'm looking for some other stats to prove me wrong.




That's a fair argument. And my response to that would be that it's not his defensive problems that caused his +/- to be even this year, it's his offensive deficiencies.

You must also keep in mind that he was consistently facing the other team's top line (a statistical fact). Scoring wasn't his biggest priority, shutting them down was.

His +/- should've been higher, though.

See this right here? It's called a debate. I presented an argument, I responded, then I did too. Thought that was how this thing was supposed to work. There were 3 or 4 pages of real good discussion on the article I posted before it turned into stupid shit.

stupid shit? you are bringing up a non stat to back up your view on bolland. you did this because your butt got hurt because someone thinks he might get traded and thats when you started to reach. there is no debate here, he isnt a selke candidate and never will be. you brought this on yourself with even mentioning bolland and selke in the same sentence.


Sent from the report me wharehouse using Tapatalk

 

[DewsSox79]

What isn't? The +/- or the original article?

the article. way too many holes in that chart. plus minus is a real stat in theory but shouldnt be used as a positive or negative accolade when evaluating a single player. its more of a team stat


Sent from the report me wharehouse using Tapatalk

 

[DMelt36]

You wanna disagree with the chart, fine.

But the three statistics that are referenced on those charts say this:

Bolland faced tougher competition than any other forward on the Hawks.
He started in the defensive zone more than any other Hawk forward.
He shifted the puck from the defensive zone into the offensive zone during his shifts at a better rate than any other Hawk forward.

And another stat not listed, he did this with the 2nd lowest quality of linemates on the team. (Mayers was last).

 

[TheChicagoFan]

What "stats" do you want?

I just think its interesting that Bolland is a shutdown guy, yet can't even amass a positive +/-?

If there's this much doubt that Bolland is the best defensive forward on the Blackhawks, how can we name him the best defensive forward in the NHL?

+/- is a wonky stat. Isn't always truly accurate on a player's performance.

 

[DMelt36]

+/- is a wonky stat. Isn't always truly accurate on a player's performance.

You may have done the impossible and posted something every one agrees with. Congrats.

 

[TheChicagoFan]

You may have done the impossible and posted something every one agrees with. Congrats.

Didn't mean to be stating the obvious, but using +/- to say whether Bolland deserved an award or not is a little dumb.

 

[nwfisch]

Didn't mean to be stating the obvious, but using +/- to say whether Bolland deserved an award or not is a little dumb.

That's just it. I'm not likely to give Bolland the Selke because he's a good defensive forward.

I'm more willing to give it to a two way player, like Toews or Hossa.


That's not saying Bolland is bad at defense (he's not, he's very good perhaps elite) I'm just saying that dismissing players for the Selke because they have two roles on a team is a little silly to me, especially when there is a player on the Blackhawks who is asked to score and shutdown. Toews is a good scorer and a good defender. I'm willing to reward the guy on two ends over one.

 

[Capt. Serious]

That's just it. I'm not likely to give Bolland the Selke because he's a good defensive forward.

I'm more willing to give it to a two way player, like Toews or Hossa.


That's not saying Bolland is bad at defense (he's not, he's very good perhaps elite) I'm just saying that dismissing players for the Selke because they have two roles on a team is a little silly to me, especially when there is a player on the Blackhawks who is asked to score and shutdown. Toews is a good scorer and a good defender. I'm willing to reward the guy on two ends over one.

little bold there son.

 

[ClydeLee]

That's just it. I'm not likely to give Bolland the Selke because he's a good defensive forward.

I'm more willing to give it to a two way player, like Toews or Hossa.


That's not saying Bolland is bad at defense (he's not, he's very good perhaps elite) I'm just saying that dismissing players for the Selke because they have two roles on a team is a little silly to me, especially when there is a player on the Blackhawks who is asked to score and shutdown. Toews is a good scorer and a good defender. I'm willing to reward the guy on two ends over one.

Yet what your saying is the opposite side of the spectrum of that which is also silly. I think the whole eliminating a player if he has more offensive zone draws from that article is overgunning it, but I don't see why a two-way player deserves any more credit for that specific award.

The Selke is for the forward who best excels at the defense side of the game. Because a player, such as Bolland or others, focus their role mainly on defense shouldn't hurt them. That is all that ought to be evaluated and the players offensive production should mean minimal outside of ideas such aspuck possession considering in aiding the defensive aspects.

 

[inactiveuser1]

Fisch knows hockey now? :thinking: