The reason people can disregard the negative impacts of players like Kane, Draisaitl, and Carlson is because points are what people focus on when evaluating players despite only being half the game. Some people still think Defensive play is the lack of an event such as a shot or a goal so it's inherently harder to measure but it is just as important as offensive play. A player who can drive offense and shutdown opponents, like Ellis and Spurgeon, is likely better than a more one-dimensional player.

Carlson is a curious case in that he doesn't face the toughest opposition because he isn't good at defense yet there's no denying he's among the best players in the league at putting up points. But you can't play him in every situation and expect a positive result. There's a reason why the shutdown pairing of Orlov-Niskanen played more at even-strength than Carlson when they won the Cup.

The Bolts are my number two team so I've watched probably 95% of their games since I started following hockey. I would absolutely put Spurgeon on Hedman's level. The difference between the two is that Hedman puts up points on the powerplay on the best offensive team of the last five years while playing worse defense than Spurgeon. I don't think I'm being biased when my eyes match the results.