Toggle sidebar

Does this board have a bias against defensive defensemen?

  • Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
No, it's not the board. The league has evolved to value guys who can transport the puck and play in all three zones more than the classic "defensive defenseman" who usually ends up being a net negative, chasing the play, failing to clear the puck, hemorrhaging shot attempts allowed.

I was never an analytics guy in any significant sense and it took me a really long time to come around, but I've seen too many "defensive defenseman" that are just so lacking in other areas.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TopShelfSnipes, Sayba, mandiblesofdoom and 5 others
I have a bias against defensemen that can't make a first pass, get hemmed in their own zone consistently because they can't make a first pass, and spend way too much time with the best offensive players on this team despite having no offensive capabilities whatsoever.

For the record I loved Staal, Girardi, and Sauer pre-injuries and 7000 blocked shots. The game has changed and you have to be able to move the puck out of the zone, and not by flipping it back out to the other team.

Today's defensive defenseman is different than it used to be. Ironically, Stralman is exactly what I want to see Lindgren and/or Trouba replaced with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TopShelfSnipes and mandiblesofdoom
If we had a Jaccob Slavin here, everyone would love him. The problem is that most folks labeled as "defensive" or "stay at home guys" just aren't good enough at other things. The Slavin's of the world, elite defensively but average elsewhere, are unicorns at this point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LokiDog and mandiblesofdoom
Having been a hockey fan, well, forever, I've lived through multiple definitions of the "ideal" D. In the last years of the Original Six, there were very few D that would be considered "offensive" (if you scored 8 goals and had 25 assists, that was a lot and very few had even that). Then along came Bobby Orr and totally changed the role of a Dman. Then there was what I call the Paul Coffey era of offense first. Then what I call the Scott Nidermeyer era of strong skating D who could still play a strong two-way game. Now, we seem to be in the era where the most important aspects of the role are making a good outlet pass, carrying the puck out of the zone, and driving possession in the offensive zone thus limiting time in your own zone. But, even so (and I think the current ideal of a perfect D man is fascinating and fits the modern game so well), at some point you still have to play strong in your own zone, in front of the net, etc. That doesn't necessarily mean size and strength but it does mean strong positioning. I do think teams benefit by a few (I hate to use this term) "stay-at-home" D first defensemen. But to answer the question, yes I do think that many here underestimate their value. Sometimes older D on the wrong side of 30 fill this role well: I always liked Staal and Girardi. RL and JT are trending downward, no doubt (and RL is far from 30). But I still have an affinity for a few of those "old-fashioned" guys though I know this is not the ideal or even the way to go.
 
  • Like
Reactions: deathb4disco, Galvatron, Mr Mxyzptlk and 1 other person
Filthy Dangles said:
Mans said Adam Clendenning was a darling here...
Click to expand...

Player Discussion - Adam Clendening

Again, if the top 4 had two legitimate RHDs to pair with McDonagh and Holden respectively, a lot of people would be thrilled developing a young pairing like Skjei and Clendening on the 3rd pairing. That's a significantly HUGE IF
forums.hfboards.com forums.hfboards.com

Didn’t try to post that particular page but the thread as a whole has gold.

I’m not saying they thought he was god, but people were very angry about his playing time.

Also, just for clarity I think Strålman was outstanding, one of my favourites.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: Filthy Dangles
WIthout reading all the replies, and maybe oversimplifying it a bit, i think we have a bias against defensive dmen because young, offensive minded dmen have a history of being denied ice time because dmen who "play the right way" got time their on ice play didnt warrant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mandiblesofdoom
jacko23 said:
WIthout reading all the replies, and maybe oversimplifying it a bit, i think we have a bias against defensive dmen because young, offensive minded dmen have a history of being denied ice time because dmen who "play the right way" got time their on ice play didnt warrant.
Click to expand...

Name me anyone except Jones.
 
NYRFANMANI said:
Name me anyone except Jones.
Click to expand...
Im enjoying a lazy sunny day by the pool, so im not bouncing around rosters containing the corpses of Staal and Girardi, Stu Bickel and whoever else, while looking for young defensemen in the press box or in Hartford those years waiting for a chance.

Could i be wrong? Sure. It wont ruin my day, but i feel like we keep trotting those kinds of guys out long after we should.
 
Maliks PlusMinus said:
So, do we actually appreciate good defense or is our idea of good defense just being better at attacking?
Click to expand...
What is "good defense"? To me good defense is making the right play quickly to defuse threats. Good positioning while defending the rush - good gap, etc. Move the puck to a teammate when possible to go the other way. Physical plays to take the opponent off the puck.

Do that, I'm happy.
 
A lot of recency bias. Staal and Girardi were both really good players, but their last contracts were lousy. Hence people remember the shells and not how good they really were for the vast majority of their time.

I also think “defensive defenseman” who often don’t have the same physical tools tend to fall harder and faster.

Lindgren is a fine #4. The problem is he’s coming off a down year and has been tasked with being a #2. If they played him in a better role and locked him up for 2-3 years then that’d be fine. 4+ years and asking him to be a top pair guy is a disaster waiting to happen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kane One
Maliks PlusMinus said:
I’m not going to pretend that Lindgren has been good for the last year. By the end Girardi and Staal could barely crawl around the ice, but there seems to be some serious hatred against D who are good at playing D and are not good at the other end of the rink.

Players like Gus, Clendening, De Angelo and for long stretches MDZ were darlings of the board with the coach often underutilising them even though their D was painful. Even Bobby Sanguinetti should have been up much sooner.

Marek Malik was inexplicably getting berated as he matched good D with excellent breakout passes because frankly he had no idea what to do in the offensive zone minus one penalty shot that springs to mind.

I’m not sure if nobody here has ever understood how to defend a powerplay, but it’s very rare that anybody gets praise for doing well on it. If a guy can play a two on one perfectly when his partner gets trapped nobody even notices and instead checks how often said player was on the ice when we had the puck in the opposition’s zone.

I guess Kevin Klein was a DD who was popular here, but it’s rare.

So, do we actually appreciate good defense or is our idea of good defense just being better at attacking?
Click to expand...

"Defensive defenseman" is a misnomer that is generally given to physical players who aggressively clear the slot, throw hits, block shots, and generally don't contribute offensively.

The problem is those things don't make you good defensively. The best defense is possessing the puck and actually being good at hockey. There are a handful of legitimately good defensive defensemen - but many of them are two way defenders, and remarkably few are pure defense only players like Lindgren.

Historically, defensive defensemen have been overhyped because there were no ways to quantify defensive skill for many years, so things like shot blocks, hits, and +/- were used as proxies, even though these things don't actually necessarily correlate with defensive skill, and in the case of blocks and hits, mean that your team doesn't have the puck, which means you're not doing a good job of recovering the puck.

Take Nicklas Lidstrom - widely considered one of the best defensive defensemen ever. He'd block some shots, but he rarely ever hit anybody. And that's because his stick, positioning, and skating were so elite that he'd effortlessly break up plays, transition, and get the puck moving the other way. Most people do not, however, think of Nicklas Lidstrom as a defensive defenseman.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mandiblesofdoom
TopShelfSnipes said:
"Defensive defenseman" is a misnomer that is generally given to physical players who aggressively clear the slot, throw hits, block shots, and generally don't contribute offensively.

The problem is those things don't make you good defensively. The best defense is possessing the puck and actually being good at hockey. There are a handful of legitimately good defensive defensemen - but many of them are two way defenders, and remarkably few are pure defense only players like Lindgren.

Historically, defensive defensemen have been overhyped because there were no ways to quantify defensive skill for many years, so things like shot blocks, hits, and +/- were used as proxies, even though these things don't actually necessarily correlate with defensive skill, and in the case of blocks and hits, mean that your team doesn't have the puck, which means you're not doing a good job of recovering the puck.

Take Nicklas Lidstrom - widely considered one of the best defensive defensemen ever. He'd block some shots, but he rarely ever hit anybody. And that's because his stick, positioning, and skating were so elite that he'd effortlessly break up plays, transition, and get the puck moving the other way. Most people do not, however, think of Nicklas Lidstrom as a defensive defenseman.
Click to expand...

Lidstrom was an elite defensive defenseman, I don't wanna get into s rankings war but he was probably as good as I've watched defensively.
 
Chris Tanev is an example of an elite defensive defencemen, I would gladly take his services. Trouba,Girardi,Staal are just bad players who had a reputation of being good defensively.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mandiblesofdoom
Drew4u said:
Chris Tanev is an example of an elite defensive defencemen, I would gladly take his services. Trouba,Girardi,Staal are just bad players who had a reputation of being good defensively.
Click to expand...
This is wildly inaccurate and basically exactly my point. Girardi and Staal do not deserve this sort of take at all. They were outstanding for a large amount of time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NYRFANMANI, Mr Mxyzptlk and deathb4disco
I like good defensmen be it offensive, defensive or combo. Guys like Rod Langway and Scott Stevens could dominate games without scoring just like a hot goaltender can dominate. In his prime I used to see some guys avoid going to Barry Becks side of the ice. I hated playing against guys like that. Not everything is about stats. On the other hand Makar has been dominant at times at the other end. Letang has been a great transition guy. Leetch played both ends. So did Potvin. So did Bourque.
 
Shesterkybomb said:
Lidstrom was an elite defensive defenseman, I don't wanna get into s rankings war but he was probably as good as I've watched defensively.
Click to expand...

Of course. No disagreement there. But my point is that when casual fans and the media talk about Lidstrom, it's rarely as a defensive defenseman - it's usually as an offensive defenseman or a two-way defenseman.

That's because most of what is referred to as "defensive defensemen" - especially in the context of the OP's question - are shot blocking lineup plugs who play a physical game, but suck at clearing the zone or driving possession, and put up paltry offensive totals. Is there a bias against those types of players? Yes, and there absolutely should be. Lindgren is not worth 4.5M. Ben Harpur is an AHL defensemen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GoAwayPanarin and mandiblesofdoom
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom