Jump to content
The Official Site of the Carolina Hurricanes
Sign in to follow this  
LakeLivin

Poll: Would You Trade Justin Faulk?

Would you trade Justin Faulk?  

42 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you trade Justin Faulk for either Matt Duchene or Leon Draisaitl??

    • Strong Yes
      6
    • Yes
      10
    • Not Sure
      6
    • No
      12
    • Strong No
      8


Recommended Posts

Just stop with the plus/minus thing. :rolleyes: The last time I looked, which admittedly was a couple of weeks before the season ended, over half of the top defenseman in points were minus.

 

Oh forget it, I'm done here.

Edited by coastal_caniac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just stop with the plus/minus thing. :rolleyes: The last time I looked, which admittedly was a couple of weeks before the season ended, over half of the top defenseman in points were minus.

Oh forget it, I'm done here.

+/- stat, to me, is a nearly worthless stat, especially for Dmen, and especially for Dmen like Faulk. Top pairing Dmen play 10+ minutes more per game than the top forwards. And so many things factor into individual +/- that players have no control over:

Quality of goaltending

Quality of partners

Scoring ability of the forwards

Defensive ability of the forwards

Coaching

Plus minus is just as much of an offensive stat as defensive. If you're playing the most minutes on a team with scoring deficiencies, those numbers aren't going to look good. You got to remember, Faulk plays with all four lines, and in all situations.

And as far as defensive leadership being mentioned from our young players, of course they're going to say Hainsey and Liles. Liles played most of his minutes with Pesce, Slavin played most of his minutes with Hainsey. These guys never played with Faulk, so they haven't needed to look to him for guidance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm guessing that if so it would be protected. I just can't see any GM putting himself on the hook for trading away a likely truly elite player.

But you did make me think of another nice possibility: each of the 1st 3 picks are subject to the lottery this year, no? So even if when we don't get Matthews, we still have a shot at either Puljujarvi or Laine, right?

I think the mentality there is they've had enough top picks without success. Also, they're already got their #1 in McDavid, and they're already two years in developing Draisitl. The person rumored to be available in Edmonton is Nugent-Hopkins, which isn't much of an upgrade over what we got, and isn't a #1. I think they'd trade the pick and develop what they got instead of starting over with Matthews.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like those lines for the most part. First, if you believe Rask is going to center the first line, you shouldn't waste Faulk or any other resources trading for Duchene or Draisaitl as they are centers more than wings. I don't think Rask is a first line center, so I'd slide him back to the third to center Aho and Lindholm. The second line is good, so I'd keep that intact. The fourth line I'd have McClement center Nash and PDG. Finally, on the first line had have Skinner on the left, sign a UFA right like Okposo, and make the Faulk trade for one of the centers discussed, with my preference being Draisaitl.

Just so we're clear, I don't see a need to trade Faulk unless we can't get what we need up front via the draft or Free Agency. 

 

As for centers more than wings, meh, they are whatever we need them to be. That said, I'm in full agreement re Okposo, provided we can get both someone like him AND Draisaitl. I'm just not sure that happens ALONG WITH a #1 keeper. If I'm right (if it doesn't happen), I think a Skinner-Rask-Okposo line could still be killer.

 

As for Lindholm, a point I've made previously: What matters is not where we'd play him, but where the org thinks he belongs, and the steady PR coming from the org has been that they want him at center. They spotted him there throughout the second half on the first line. (Which is not to suggest he should be slotted any higher, next season, than the third.) 

 

But don't get me wrong. If we CAN get everything we need - two top-six forwards and a #1 keeper - without breaking the bank or hurting the "earn your spot" ethos that BP has cultivated, I'm totally down with making Faulk a piece of those deals. 

Edited by top-shelf-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really this is a good discussion because there are valid points on both sides of the debate, and people are keeping it to the facts and opinions. The thing I like most about polls is that they allow a broad measure of the pulse of the board rather than just the few of us posting, and in this case it seems to be letting us know that really there is a split on this issue. Right now the vote is 11-9 for trading him with a slight intensity favoring trade. Pretty close.

 

I would suspect that those voting yes, are just not seeing us come up with that 75 + point forward any other way. If the poll were, "if Francis were to sign Okposo and Stamkos in UFA would you favor trading Faulk?" it would be unanimous against.

 

Count me as one who would love to see us get that guy some other way, and as one who would not underestimate what Francis might pull off, but outside of that, am having trouble figuring out how he does it. Okposo is pretty close to that guy on the wing I guess, though feeding Tavares helps his numbers. But can we get him? As to the draft, we aren't drafting in elite-ville unless we pull off a move up. 

 

Guys that can put up 70 points are about 1/20 NHL forwards. They are rarely available on the cheap.

 

Anyway, I hope we can get one somehow without losing Faulk. But if the deals proffered are there? I still take them.

 

 

As an aside, Edmonton just seems to sit there ripe as any fruit can be. Overloaded with #1 and close to #1 picks and yet another top shot at a high pick. Just seems we could work something out. RNH plus their #1 for....... just seems like something is there..

Edited by remkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record, I agree that there are limitations and quirks with the +- stat.  I still think it can be useful as a rough indicator if viewed over a long enough time frame and taking other relevant factors into account in conjunction with it (which I try to do).  But each of us account for things differently.  I'm explaining my views, not trying to change any one else's.  If you want to completely discount +-, so be it.  I just felt better using an actual stat, even one that needs to be taken into context, instead of just saying that although he's been great offensively I don't think Faulk has been particularly good defensively over the past 3 years that I've been closely following the Canes . . .

Edited by LakeLivin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest issue I have with +/- is that it is an "individual" metric that is soooo dependent on overall team performance. There's a straight-line correlation between goal differential (a team stat) and plus-minus, and another between special teams effectiveness and the perceived plus-minus of the guys on those special teams. (Though +/- doesn't apply to PP/PK situations, PP scoring or good work on the PK isn't reflected in the number.)

 

A couple examples of how team quality slants +/-:

 

Of the 28 guys who skated in a game for the Caps, just five finished the regular season in minus territory--and except for Richards (-2, 39 games played), none of them played more than 10 games. Still, tell me the following guys, INDIVIDUALLY, are as stellar as their +/- number suggests:

 

Kuznetsov +27

Ovi +21

Nate Schmidt +12

 

Now look at Edmonton. Of 33 players, only six guys weren't in minus land. And some that stand out, i.e., guys known to be better than this:

 

Eberle: 47 points, -12

Sekera: 30 points, -15

RNH: 34 points, -9

Letestu, 25 points, -21

 

Even McDavid finished -1.

 

Plus-minus is a useful stat only when considered with the rest of the picture, i.e., whether your team wins hockey games. 

Edited by top-shelf-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lake, nobody completely discounted plus minus, so that's just not reflective of the discussion

 

People discounted the idea that plus-minus was germane without any context.

 

If you want to compare defenseman of similar age and experience, in similar roles, with similar ice time against similar competition after considering the players (offensive and defensive) they are surrounded by, then fine. 

Edited by coastal_caniac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've opined on this before, but anyways. I think plus minus is a useful stat, but since the player is one of 12 on the ice at any moment, it has to be taken over long stretches of time and in comparison with other line mates and team mates, and then adjusted for the competition faced and if the player has a disproportionate number of ozone or dzone starts.

 

I tend to look at a player's ranking on his team over 2-3 years. Then, if I can find advanced stats that show at least Dzone starts and competition level, try to factor those in.

 

But if you have a guy, like Eric Staal was a couple of years ago, putting up 55 points and -24, then when he's on the ice the guy is involved with giving back all of his goals and then 24 more. And he's getting more O zone starts and is much more protected than Jordan who is taking on the top lines. Then you look at his actual linemates, and they are no where near that bad, and then he finishes near the bottom of the team in plus minus 2 years in a row, that is saying something.

 

Then you have a guy like Jordan Staal, who plays against the best opposition, starts disproportionately in the dzone, and finishes #1 on the team in plus minus, that is also saying something. Another example is Skinner. We know that he is playing better defense and back checking harder this year. And sure enough, his plus minus was -2, and in the top half of the team. Last year he was -24 at the bottom of the team (dead last).

 

I think looking relative to the team, linemates, long stretches (1-3 years), and ideally weighing competition and d zone starts if they are outliers, one can still find useful info from the +/- stat, but it is a blunt instrument. Still, if you want some kind of stat that looks at a player's tendency to get back, play defense, block shots, etc. it is a stat that at least shows a shadowy outline of that.

Edited by remkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If nothing else with all the speculation, the upside is that for the first time in years the Canes hands aren't tied by multiple silly big contracts/underperforming players and a newer GM who thinks outside the box (Bill Peters) where JR didn't at the end. I could kick him for that goofy Semin contract however.  We have $$$$ to spend and I think, a decent GM who has done well to date.  We will find a couple more pieces to the puzzle this off season and go from there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If nothing else with all the speculation, the upside is that for the first time in years the Canes hands aren't tied by multiple silly big contracts/underperforming players and a newer GM who thinks outside the box (Bill Peters) where JR didn't at the end. I could kick him for that goofy Semin contract however.  We have $$$$ to spend and I think, a decent GM who has done well to date.  We will find a couple more pieces to the puzzle this off season and go from there.

Well said, exactly right, and exactly why I believe trading Faulk should (and will) be an absolute last resort this off-season at least, and very possibly until his contract comes up.

 

Whatever we think about his spotty D play, he's a two-time All-Star who's still very young--and as Rem pointed out, if he can bring his shut-down ability consistently, his potential upside is unlimited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest issue I have with +/- is that it is an "individual" metric that is soooo dependent on overall team performance. There's a straight-line correlation between goal differential (a team stat) and plus-minus, and another between special teams effectiveness and the perceived plus-minus of the guys on those special teams. (Though +/- doesn't apply to PP/PK situations, PP scoring or good work on the PK isn't reflected in the number.)

 

A couple examples of how team quality slants +/-:

 

Of the 28 guys who skated in a game for the Caps, just five finished the regular season in minus territory--and except for Richards (-2, 39 games played), none of them played more than 10 games. Still, tell me the following guys, INDIVIDUALLY, are as stellar as their +/- number suggests:

 

Kuznetsov +27

Ovi +21

Nate Schmidt +12

 

Now look at Edmonton. Of 33 players, only six guys weren't in minus land. And some that stand out, i.e., guys known to be better than this:

 

Eberle: 47 points, -12

Sekera: 30 points, -15

RNH: 34 points, -9

Letestu, 25 points, -21

 

Even McDavid finished -1.

 

Plus-minus is a useful stat only when considered with the rest of the picture, i.e., whether your team wins hockey games. 

 

A huge factor in the Capitals numbers is guys aren't overslotted, and they had a goalie who put up a save % of .922 and 2.20GA in 66 games.  The Hurricanes are a bottom 5 offensive team in the NHL, so you're going to have a lot more minus players than plus.  Of the 3 teams ranked below Carolina in goals per game, Vancouver only had one plus Dman, NJ only had 2, and Toronto didn't have any.  Gotta think of how low NJ's Dmen would be if they didn't have one of the league's best goalies.  

 

I didn't mean to start a plus/minus debate, I just don't think it measures a player's efficiency.  Like Coastal stated, 45% of the top 20 dmen were minus players, including the one that scored 82pts.  I don't want to make accusations, I just feel that some may look at that stat as the factor in determining his defensive abilities.  I know Faulk has made some mistakes, but he is not a liability defensively.  He's still the best defensive player on our blueline, and with the super-shallow UFA list on defense (Yandle is the only good one), and the difficulty in acquiring defense in the league, we're not going to do better than him.  

 

And someone questioned Faulk's assist totals, that is more on the fact that this team doesn't have finishers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lake, nobody completely discounted plus minus, so that's just not reflective of the discussion

 

People discounted the idea that plus-minus was germane without any context.

 

If you want to compare defenseman of similar age and experience, in similar roles, with similar ice time against similar competition after considering the players (offensive and defensive) they are surrounded by, then fine. 

 

Well, this is what PK said:  "+/- stat, to me, is a nearly worthless stat, especially for Dmen, and especially for Dmen like Faulk."  That's pretty close to completely discounting the +- stat.  Which is fine; like I said, we all use different things to arrive at our individual opinions.

 

I'm in agreement with you about the need to consider +- in context.  And I'm mostly in agreement with rem with respect to the factors he mentions above in his consideration of the stat, especially the part about looking at it over time and looking at within team comparisons.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A huge factor in the Capitals numbers is guys aren't overslotted, and they had a goalie who put up a save % of .922 and 2.20GA in 66 games.  The Hurricanes are a bottom 5 offensive team in the NHL, so you're going to have a lot more minus players than plus.  Of the 3 teams ranked below Carolina in goals per game, Vancouver only had one plus Dman, NJ only had 2, and Toronto didn't have any.  Gotta think of how low NJ's Dmen would be if they didn't have one of the league's best goalies.  

 

I didn't mean to start a plus/minus debate, I just don't think it measures a player's efficiency.  Like Coastal stated, 45% of the top 20 dmen were minus players, including the one that scored 82pts.  I don't want to make accusations, I just feel that some may look at that stat as the factor in determining his defensive abilities.  I know Faulk has made some mistakes, but he is not a liability defensively.  He's still the best defensive player on our blueline, and with the super-shallow UFA list on defense (Yandle is the only good one), and the difficulty in acquiring defense in the league, we're not going to do better than him.  

 

And someone questioned Faulk's assist totals, that is more on the fact that this team doesn't have finishers.

 

PK, I agree that you don't want to blindly compare across teams.  One thing I look for is outliers, especially within a team. 

 

As far as your take that Faulk is the best defensive player on our blueline, we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that one. :cheers:   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as your take that Faulk is the best defensive player on our blueline, we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that one. :cheers:   

 

 

Right there with you, Lake!  Best offensive player on our blueline, yes.  Best defensive player, well...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most people aren't using plus-minus anymore, because frankly, it's considered a useless stat, and was the main reason advanced analytics were created.  But hey, that's up to you if you want to be a dinosaur.

 

Take a read.  Note the stats presented don't include this season - you can do it yourself though.  War-on-ice is an easy tool to use if you haven't tried it. 

 

http://www.todaysslapshot.com/one-timers/using-advanced-stats-to-classify-nhl-defenseman-types/

 

If you plot Fenwick For/Against per 60 for 2015-16 Faulk moves just into the "elite" category for that comparison and group of defenseman.  (Fenwick Against/60 = 40.7; Fenwick For/60 = 42.6).

 

If you plot Scoring Chances For/Against per 60 for 2015-16 Faulk ranks out in the "average" category for that comparison and group of defenseman. (Scoring Chances For/60 = 25.9; Scoring Chances Against/60 = 26.5).

 

Looking at Usage vs. Deployment in 2015-16 Faulk ranks out in the "high scoring/tough deployment" category for that comparison and group of defenseman. (Points per 60 = 0.8; Fraction Offensive vs Defensive Zone Starts = -4.4)

 

So what does all that mean?  It means Faulk is close to moving into the "elite" category for defenseman (compared to his peers with >1100 minutes played) if he can show improvement limiting shots and scoring chances.  He's already playing the toughest minutes in the toughest situations (and I doubt that changes going forward) and producing.

 

Interestingly, it does validate (to varying degrees) what everyone here is "seeing" in an unbiased way, regardless of your opinion on Faulk as a "player", while taking the sucky plus-minus stat out of the equation.  Of course, you have to be on board with the fact the game is heavily leaning to offense from all skaters and it's not the 70's anymore when evaluating defenseman.

Edited by coastal_caniac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Right there with you, Lake!  Best offensive player on our blueline, yes.  Best defensive player, well...

 

My thoughts exactly, Realm. Most of the folks here aren't saying that Faulk is a lousy defenseman - he's very good, but has his moments when he's not as good.

 

<bunch of stuff snipped>

 

Interestingly, it does validate (to varying degrees) what everyone here is "seeing" in an unbiased way, regardless of your opinion on Faulk as a "player", while taking the sucky plus-minus stat out of the equation.  Of course, you have to be on board with the fact the game is heavily leaning to offense from all skaters and it's not the 70's anymore when evaluating defenseman.

 

Indeed. Faulk's analytics can be used for either argument in this case - 1) Faulk's too valuable to trade 'cause he's near-elite per the analytics, or 2) because his analytics are near-elite, he's a piece that's worth some return in a trade for a goal-scoring forward.

 

Me, I still say "if the Hurricanes can get a goal-scoring forward that fits with BP's system and will play here, but that player's team is mentioning Faulk in the trade package, I still think that RF, BP and staff ought to at least consider the possibility and decide whether it makes sense in the context of the rebuild. If the team thinks it makes sense, go for it."

Edited by JonKerfoot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+/- is a valuable stat if you are talking about height and +/- six feet tall.

 

I agree. Do you think someone is dumb enough to give us a bag of pucks for Aho? :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most people aren't using plus-minus anymore, because frankly, it's considered a useless stat, and was the main reason advanced analytics were created.  But hey, that's up to you if you want to be a dinosaur.

 

Take a read.  Note the stats presented don't include this season - you can do it yourself though.  War-on-ice is an easy tool to use if you haven't tried it. 

 

http://www.todaysslapshot.com/one-timers/using-advanced-stats-to-classify-nhl-defenseman-types/

 

If you plot Fenwick For/Against per 60 for 2015-16 Faulk moves just into the "elite" category for that comparison and group of defenseman.  (Fenwick Against/60 = 40.7; Fenwick For/60 = 42.6).

 

If you plot Scoring Chances For/Against per 60 for 2015-16 Faulk ranks out in the "average" category for that comparison and group of defenseman. (Scoring Chances For/60 = 25.9; Scoring Chances Against/60 = 26.5).

 

Looking at Usage vs. Deployment in 2015-16 Faulk ranks out in the "high scoring/tough deployment" category for that comparison and group of defenseman. (Points per 60 = 0.8; Fraction Offensive vs Defensive Zone Starts = -4.4)

 

So what does all that mean?  It means Faulk is close to moving into the "elite" category for defenseman (compared to his peers with >1100 minutes played) if he can show improvement limiting shots and scoring chances.  He's already playing the toughest minutes in the toughest situations (and I doubt that changes going forward) and producing.

 

Interestingly, it does validate (to varying degrees) what everyone here is "seeing" in an unbiased way, regardless of your opinion on Faulk as a "player", while taking the sucky plus-minus stat out of the equation.  Of course, you have to be on board with the fact the game is heavily leaning to offense from all skaters and it's not the 70's anymore when evaluating defenseman.

 

Thanks coastal, I took a look at the article and a quick look at some data at War on Ice.

 

The first graph from the article you linked showed that Faulk had the 6th best Fenwick For/ 60 and the 5th worst Fenwick Against/ 60 out of all the players listed. The author says he's trying to use Fenwick to gauge d-men contributions to winning.  I'm not so sure I buy into that premise; Fenwick and Corsi are usually used to gauge puck control, not scoring or defensive ability. For reference, Canes were 12th best in the NHL in Fenwick For % last year but 26th in Scoring Differential. 

 

Secondly, as you pointed out for +-, even Fenwick stats are going to be highly influenced by a number of other factors that would need to be considered before making valid cross-team comparisons of individual players.  The author doesn't do that at all.

 

And last, the author uses the term "Elite" to label the upper right hand quadrant of his graph.  That's just a label. A d-man who is very slightly above the average FF/60 and very slightly below the average FA/60 is pretty much an average d-man in my book, even though that does fall into the quadrant labeled as "elite".  If I'm using that graph to evaluate players, I prefer a guy who's way above average in one (as long as he's not way below average in the other) over someone who's only slightly above average in both.

 

I know that graph covers the 3 years prior to this season.  So I took a look at this season alone.  To simplify things, let's just look within the Canes:

 

                 Ff/60     Fa/60     Ff% 

Slavin       41.52    37.43    51.43

Liles         41.13    38.88    51.41

Hainsey    41.08    38.99    51.31

Faulk        42.61    40.74    51.12

 

Ff/60= Fenwick For/60 min played (higher is better)

Fa/60= Fenwick Against/60 min played (lower is better)

Ff% = Fenwick For % (greater than 50% means your team is shooting more than opponent when you're on the ice)

 

On the graph it looks like the league average Ff/60=41.4, average Fa/60=40.2

So, by those standards, Slavin is "elite",  Liles and Hainsey just barely miss on the low side of shots for, and Faulk just barely misses on the high side of shots against. 

 

But both of those league averages are from the 3 seasons prior to this one. Use this year's league median (no way to access the mean, but median makes more sense in this context anyways imo) of Ff=40.47 and Fa=39.95 and all 3 of Slavin, Liles, and Hainsey are elite!

 

I do agree that you've got a valid point about zone starts.  Didn't have time to look into that yet.

 

Oh, and doesn't your statement "Most people aren't using plus-minus anymore, because frankly, it's considered a useless stat, and was the main reason advanced analytics were created.  But hey, that's up to you if you want to be a dinosaur." kind of contradict your claim that you consider that +- might be germaine in the right context? 

 

Signed,

Lakeosaurus toomuchtext  :D

Edited by LakeLivin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You completely misrepresented what I posted, thanks.  :D

 

I never stated Faulk was an "elite" defenseman.  I used the term category in describing how Faulk fit with his peers (>1100 minutes played) in the author's analysis of Fenwick, Scoring Chances, and Usage vs. Deployment, and the term category to summarize what I think the author was saying in terms of categorizing Justin Faulk.

 

It's funny you poke holes by saying other mitigating factors weren't considered when 3 different metrics were used to avoid this, and then you didn't even consider one of the most important ones, Usage vs. Deployment.  It's probably why you keep comparing apples to oranges by comparing sheltered players to ones that face the toughest competition and play in all situations.  

 

And finally, no.  I don't think I'm contradicting myself or I wouldn't have gone to the trouble with all this. Ironically, you also left out the part where I said I think this validates what everyone is opining on.  You stated you wanted to use a stat and you chose plus-minus. There are other choices that provide way more context, at least I think they do.

Edited by coastal_caniac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...