Does this board have a bias against defensive defensemen?

[Maliks PlusMinus]

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 read more...

 

[Oscar Lindberg]

I want good defensemen that can play. That includes things like defending, making a good first pass, etc

Ryan Lindgren isn’t any of those things. People have inflated his abilities because he plays with the best defenseman in the league, and he has a lotta of heart.

I know it’s a lot to ask for but that’s what I would like for my team.

 

[Maliks PlusMinus]

I want good defensemen that can play. That includes things like defending, making a good first pass, etc

Ryan Lindgren isn’t any of those things. People have inflated his abilities because he plays with the best defenseman in the league, and he has a lotta of heart.

I know it’s a lot to ask for but that’s what I would like for my team.

I agree. Give me Stralman and McDonagh and Fox and I’m happiest.
It’s just the preference for OD over DD frustrates me

 

[Beer League Sniper]

You can be great at in-zone defense. But if you don't also do the things well that get the puck out of your own zone and going the other way, or better yet, stop it from entering your zone in the first place, you'll eventually break down.

It's why a guy like Zac Jones' analytics grade out so much better than Lindgren's. Is Lindgren better at in-zone defense? Probably. We've seen Jones struggle at times in the defensive zone. But the key here is that Jones is way better creating transition plays up the ice once the puck is on his stick. He's also way better at zone entry denials, so his need to play that kind of defense is less often in the first place.

Stralman never had much offense to his game, but he was exceptional in transition and zone denials. Two things that many "defensive defensemen," including Lindgren, struggle with.

So no, I don't think this fanbase hates defensive defensemen. I think they rightfully don't care for defensemen who don't have the skillset to excel in the modern NHL.

 

[EdJovanovski]

I agree.

 

[Maliks PlusMinus]

You can be great at in-zone defense. But if you don't also do the things well that get the puck out of your own zone and going the other way, or better yet, stop it from entering your zone in the first place, you'll eventually break down.

It's why a guy like Zac Jones' analytics grade out so much better than Lindgren's. Is Lindgren better at in-zone defense? Probably. We've seen Jones struggle at times in the defensive zone. But the key here is that Jones is way better creating transition plays up the ice once the puck is on his stick. He's also way better at zone entry denials, so his need to play that kind of defense is less often in the first place.

Stralman never had much offense to his game, but he was exceptional in transition and zone denials. Two things that many "defensive defensemen," including Lindgren, struggle with.

So no, I don't think this fanbase hates defensive defensemen. I think they rightfully don't care for defensemen who don't have the skillset to excel in the modern NHL.

Fair enough, but I think we are too much in that direction. I wanted to find a way to keep Mikkola. Because he was damn good in his own zone. The board generally didn’t really care and he was a guy who really helped Florida using his power and positional play.

 

[Raspewtin]

i have a bias against bad defensemen that can’t skate or pass so i guess i do

 

[Machinehead]

Let me address a few of these points.

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.

Quite the opposite. There's a serious hatred against D who are NOT good at playing D which is Lindgren currently, Trouba pretty much always, and Girardi and Staal for pretty much half their careers.

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.

DeAngelo was a darling of the board? We don't read the same board lol. He's pretty much universally disliked and the people who like him don't like him for his hockey.

MDZ and Gus were heavily criticized. People complained about Gus the whole season.

Neal Pionk is an offensive defenseman and I personally bullied that man off the team (because he's sub-NHL at defending).

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.

Here, I agree. Marek Malik was a good player when he was on the Rangers.

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.

People give our PK plenty of credit. You know who was pretty much the best penalty killer in the league last year? Adam Fox.

Lindgren graded as (at best) an average penalty killer in 2024 and Trouba rated as below average. The idea that those two are good at it comes from the use of "defensive defenseman" as a shield. More on that later.

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

Actually Klein was pretty bad at defense too LMAO

His puck-moving was super underrated and he scored a fair share at even strength. He was more offensive than he gets credit for.

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

Everyone appreciates good defense.

Here are some guys people appreciate: McDonagh, Stralman, Sauer, sure throw Klein in. How about Braden Schneider? Haven't heard a bad word about the guy in forever.

Here's the problem: Lindgren isn't that good at defense, although you could make the argument he used to be at least. Trouba is terrible at defense; always has been. He sucked at defending on Winnipeg. Girardi and Staal, whenever you want to argue the decline happened, were terrible at defense when they declined.

"Defensive defenseman" gets used as a shield. It gets thrown at guys that just aren't good, including at defense, to justify their place in the lineup.

Nobody is criticizing the above guys because they're defensive defensemen. They're being criticized because they're bad.

 

[Raspewtin]

I want good defensemen that can play. That includes things like defending, making a good first pass, etc

Ryan Lindgren isn’t any of those things. People have inflated his abilities because he plays with the best defenseman in the league, and he has a lotta of heart.

I know it’s a lot to ask for but that’s what I would like for my team.

this is the answer

also, the league has a bias against “defensive” defensemen. they’ve largely been phased out of the league and for good reason.

 

[Maliks PlusMinus]

Let me address a few of these points.

Quite the opposite. There's a serious hatred against D who are NOT good at playing D which is Lindgren currently, Trouba pretty much always, and Girardi and Staal for pretty much half their careers.

DeAngelo was a darling of the board? We don't read the same board lol. He's pretty much universally disliked and the people who like him don't like him for his hockey.

MDZ and Gus were heavily criticized. People complained about Gus the whole season.

Neal Pionk is an offensive defenseman and I personally bullied that man off the team (because he's sub-NHL at defending).

Here, I agree. Marek Malik was a good player when he was on the Rangers.

People give our PK plenty of credit. You know who was pretty much the best penalty killer in the league last year? Adam Fox.

Lindgren graded as (at best) an average penalty killer in 2024 and Trouba rated as below average. The idea that those two are good at it comes from the use of "defensive defenseman" as a shield. More on that later.

Actually Klein was pretty bad at defense too LMAO

His puck-moving was super underrated and he scored a fair share at even strength. He was more offensive than he gets credit for.

Everyone appreciates good defense.

Here are some guys people appreciate: McDonagh, Stralman, Sauer, sure throw Klein in. How about Braden Schneider? Haven't heard a bad word about the guy in forever.

Here's the problem: Lindgren isn't that good at defense, although you could make the argument he used to be at least. Trouba is terrible at defense; always has been. He sucked at defending on Winnipeg. Girardi and Staal, whenever you want to argue the decline happened, were terrible at defense when they declined.

"Defensive defenseman" gets used as a shield. It gets thrown at guys that just aren't good, including at defense, to justify their place in the lineup.

Nobody is criticizing the above guys because they're defensive defensemen. They're being criticized because they're bad.

In the 18/19 season the vast majority of the board believed ADA to be a top pair dman. I thought maybe I was misremembering so I checked.

MDZ became heavily criticised as his offense worsened. If anything his D slightly improved by the time the board turned on him.

Again as I pointed out in the Lindgren thread, Trouba and Lindgren’s G/A per 60 were better than Fox on the PK. Fox was and is great. Those guys did well too.

Interestingly I was unconvinced by Sauer.
Personally I expect Schneider to become a target after Trouba and/or Lindgren leave. Time will tell.

These guys aren’t terrible at knowing how to defend in most situations. Their bodies might make them struggle at times and they’re poor passing etc or poor offensive play might see them face a forward in a tough spot more often, but Girardi and Staal were good defenders and Lindgren is a fine defender down low when he has time to set. These guys in their own zone when the opponents have the puck are good Dmen and that’s why coach after coach lean on them rightly or wrongly.

It’s ok to think the problem is that they’re use of the puck makes them poor players and I appreciate you liked malik who was a good puck mover, but a one on one against Lindgren is a lot more challenging than a one on one against most dmen in this league

 

[Fitzy]

Three things here.

1) Machine is right that on average a lower quality player will get less offensive production and so sometimes we can view players as 'stay at home blueliners' not because that's their style or what they are proficient at, but because they just aren't NHL level hockey players. Zach Bogosian and Jack Johnson are classic examples of this.

2) Advanced stats don't favor actual real-life shutdown players all that much. Especially if your job is to go out there and clog up the ice, in the right situation your shifts are going to end up with very little offense and slightly more chances against, which is actually fine if you're protecting a lead or the defenseman has a tough matchup.

3) NHL Gms and coaches like the 'safe' player like Ben Harpur who sucks over the eccentric defenseman like Adam Clendining. It's easier to make and stay in the NHL if you suck if you can pass yourself off as a '#6 stay at home D'

The reality is

A) NHL franchises overrate stay at home D and sometimes mis-identify them to justify their existence because of their exclusive reliance on antiquated evaluation methods

B) Statisticians underrate stay at home D because they tend to look at a player's body of work as a whole, rather than context dependent. Pretty classic quant issue.

C) NHL teams need at least 3-4 guys on defense who are really good at defending in their own zone and preventing opponent possession from turning into high percentage scoring chances. But you can get those players without 75% of them providing zero offense if you build the roster right.


Your 'shutdown 4' don't need to be Sauer, Lindgren, Girardi, Staal. It can as easily be McDonagh, Fox, Lindgren, Miller. All purpose defensemen are very useful, though it does limit your minutes on the third pairing (Which can be a good thing if you've weak depth there)

What NYR need, as I've said, is to have a top four of Fox, Miller, and two other guys. Lindgren and Trouba should be third pairing options based on their performance last season. I think Schneider can be a top 4 all situations D, but I'm unconvinced Jones can be that for us. That's why I view the Lindgren bridge as a necessary stopgap.

 

[Maliks PlusMinus]

Three things here.

1) Machine is right that on average a lower quality player will get less offensive production and so sometimes we can view players as 'stay at home blueliners' not because that's their style or what they are proficient at, but because they just aren't NHL level hockey players. Zach Bogosian and Jack Johnson are classic examples of this.

2) Advanced stats don't favor actual real-life shutdown players all that much. Especially if your job is to go out there and clog up the ice, in the right situation your shifts are going to end up with very little offense and slightly more chances against, which is actually fine if you're protecting a lead or the defenseman has a tough matchup.

3) NHL Gms and coaches like the 'safe' player like Ben Harpur who sucks over the eccentric defenseman like Adam Clendining. It's easier to make and stay in the NHL if you suck if you can pass yourself off as a '#6 stay at home D'

The reality is

A) NHL franchises overrate stay at home D and sometimes mis-identify them to justify their existence because of their exclusive reliance on antiquated evaluation methods

B) Statisticians underrate stay at home D because they tend to look at a player's body of work as a whole, rather than context dependent. Pretty classic quant issue.

C) NHL teams need at least 3-4 guys on defense who are really good at defending in their own zone and preventing opponent possession from turning into high percentage scoring chances. But you can get those players without 75% of them providing zero offense if you build the roster right.


Your 'shutdown 4' don't need to be Sauer, Lindgren, Girardi, Staal. It can as easily be McDonagh, Fox, Lindgren, Miller. All purpose defensemen are very useful, though it does limit your minutes on the third pairing (Which can be a good thing if you've weak depth there)

What NYR need, as I've said, is to have a top four of Fox, Miller, and two other guys. Lindgren and Trouba should be third pairing options based on their performance last season. I think Schneider can be a top 4 all situations D, but I'm unconvinced Jones can be that for us. That's why I view the Lindgren bridge as a necessary stopgap.

Where are the awards so I can vote for most sensible poster?
Fair points my guy

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

I think others have already covered it.

People generally don't like players who aren't good though all 3 guys mentioned in the OP have/had the most staunch defenders in this place so to say that there is a bias against them is incorrect. These type of players (heart and soul, grit, BLEED) generally get a longer leash here than nearly anyone.

The problem with these guys is that they can't push the puck forward in any meaningful way while not being very good in their own end (Lindgren graded out the worst of all of our D in almost everything that was defense related in 2023-24 and he wasn't getting minutes that were any tougher than the other guys in the top 4.) So if you're having heavily negative impacts on offense (not just through pure production, but just chance generation all around) and your defensive game has slipped to the point where teams are generating more chances with you on the ice than anyone else, thats the opposite of ideal.

 

[Cmox]

When a Defensive D is attempting OZ entries and taking wide shots then yes, I have a bias against them.

 

[HockeyBasedNYC]

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?

The Rangers have had very good defenseman for years.

You mention Girardi and Staal who were both a very very good shutdown pair. Can’t tell you how many times they did the job on prime Ovy and Sid.

I personally love a good defensive defenseman, a couple perhaps, you absolutely have to have that balance on the blueline, provided they provide a physical presence (which most do and Lindgren checks the box here for sure)

However I think about how the game has evolved and what you need to win and play at the highest level. I think about one player in particular that was a Ranger and it’s Anton Stralman. He was basically tossed aside onto the scrap heap and when he was claimed he really brought some very specific things that became a growing trend in the league - mainly possession of the puck (at the time underrated, now lauded because of advanced analytics).

You need guys who make smart plays with the puck or just have the ability to hold onto the friggin thing. When it going gets tough for the Rangers there are too many one an dones, giveaways, dumps and chips, and not simple possession. I like guys who can do that with a purpose and Lindgren is below average in this regard. I think this is half the answer to your OP.

I think about how much better this team would be with another d man or two who could really move the puck with purpose instead of just into space, because the skilled forward core of this team benefits so greatly when a guy like that (Fox) is on the ice. You can actually set up more plays going up the ice.

 

[EdJovanovski]

I’d take a Lindgren, Girardi & Staal over a Stralman, Miller, Jones in the playoffs any day of the week. Honest hockey prevails. They may not be the most skilled but they play the game the right way.

 

[Fitzy]

I’d take a Lindgren, Girardi & Staal over a Stralman, Miller, Jones in the playoffs any day of the week. Honest hockey prevails. They may not be the most skilled but they play the game the right way.

Stralman played pretty classically honest hockey in my estimation.

And again it's context dependent. I'd rather have Lindgren and Girardi out against a better roster of high powered forwards trying to come from behind.

Give me guys who can move the puck both in transition and in the O zone in most other situations.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

I’d take a Lindgren, Girardi & Staal over a Stralman, Miller, Jones in the playoffs any day of the week. Honest hockey prevails. They may not be the most skilled but they play the game the right way.

Common Jovo L.

Do I need to replay the 2017 series vs Ottawa for you? Or the 2014 final?

For Lindgren… all you have to do is just watch basically the entire playoff run that just happened. Only D who was bad in every series.

 

[NYRFANMANI]

Nope, I'd say the board has functioning eyes and our defense stank in general for the past decade +. And we ain't having it. That simple.

The goalies made linear stats look good. One poor McDonaugh had to negate all the shittiness of the other defensemen. One poor Adam Fox has to make up for all the ineptitude and inexperience (Miller , Schneider) and shittiness of others.

No no my man, we respected the shit out of McD and other D. But this is truly shitty defense.

Just look at the quantity of high-danger chances opponents had against us/ our goalies had to face. The D stinks!

 

[TGWL]

If you can't get the puck out of the zone, you put the team in trouble. I don't think anybody looks at Lindgren and says he's the worst at using his position, picking up a player, or getting his stick in the right areas, but when it comes to puck retrievals, fist outlet passes, and the ability to skate out of a danger area, he's not very good. You can be a defensive dman, but if you handicap your team, what good is that?

With that said, I do not consider Lindgren a stay at home defensemen. He just blows at the other areas so everybody wants to justify it with him being a stay at home type of player. I don't agree. He just doesn't have the horses to get the puck first or get positioning back when pinching. He doesn't have the hands to make the plays he kills in the o-zone, or the quick passes out of the zone. He doesn't shy away from those plays while being a defensive dman. He just ruins those plays.

 

[Doctyl]

Again as I pointed out in the Lindgren thread, Trouba and Lindgren’s G/A per 60 were better than Fox on the PK. Fox was and is great. Those guys did well too.

GA/60 is an Igor stat.

	CA/60	CF%	FA/60	FF%	HDCA/60	SCA/60	xGA/60
Trouba	109.48	9.55	79.68	10.88	21.59	52.31	7.92
Lindgren	107.51	11.43	78.61	13.65	23.7	52.31	7.92
Fox	82.03	22.39	56.79	27.03	15.78	41.02	4.98
Miller	79.37	25.19	61.02	28.17	17.95	39.09	6.3

Miller is a better defensive player than Trouba and Lindgren on the PK

 

[17futurecap]

The Rangers worst move of their last run was letting Stralman walk to Tampa, his career high in points as a Ranger was 18.

Being a defensive dman doesn’t mean, get caved in your zone all night.

 

[Filthy Dangles]

Mans said Adam Clendenning was a darling here...

 

[Machinehead]

Stralman engaged at the blueline like a dog chasing a car. Definition of honest hockey.

 

[smoneil]

The players you mentioned (Staal, Girardi, Lindy) were all loved in their first few years as Rangers. The issue is that guys who play the way that they do have very short primes. They start falling apart physically right around the time they've earned a bigger contract. Cue the heel turn. We love guys like that, but only when they are cheap and giving up the body. Once they are expensive and injury prone? THAT'S when the boards start to hate them. Guys like Kloucek and Sauer were on that road as well. They just got injured before they had enough time to get expensive.