Machinehead
Fox Mafia Consigliere
But we'll be ok with Skjei-Pionk!Much like the rest of him
If he's on the top pairing come opening night, this D is doomed and it won't matter what defensive scheme is installed..
But we'll be ok with Skjei-Pionk!Much like the rest of him
If he's on the top pairing come opening night, this D is doomed and it won't matter what defensive scheme is installed..
But we'll be ok with Skjei-Pionk!
His meniscus is still bad at playing "real" defense.
I wish you guys were willing to concede that players who give up fewer shots and goals than their teammates are good at defense.I just wish you guys would at least be willing to concede the difference between offense and defense. Yes, hockey is a fluid game, but there really are still two sides of the puck.
The problem people have with this new approach to analyzing defenseman is that no matter what, they're eventually going to come up against elite puck possession forwards on the other side. Unless you have Karlsson, or some other defenseman that is actually better at keeping the puck and playing offense with it than (insert elite forward here), you need guys with the skill to take the puck back and/or minimize the damage the guy with the puck can do.
That's defense. Yes it's heavily system dependent. Yes there are guys that are better at it than others. Yes this will never go away, regardless of where the stats seem to be taking some of you guys.
That’s good!! Thanks.He said he would have been able to play the first round in the playoffs had we made it so i'd assume he's 100% now.
I wish you guys were willing to concede that players who give up fewer shots and goals than their teammates are good at defense.
This statement is just logically incorrect, and I'm not even sure it's what you meant.
If you have a team full of guys that give up tons of shots and goals, it doesn't logically follow that the guy that gives up the least is good at defense. He might be bad as well.
Are you actually trying to say that guys who give up fewer shots and goals than they create are good at defense? That's very different than what you said, but also not necessarily true.
I think these possession theories work out better the closer you get towards extremes. I mean, it's not uncommon to see soccer matches where one team had the ball for 70% of the game. Hockey is so close to 50/50 though that those skills without the puck aren't going to be marginalized like some people seem to want.
So he's just been on a bunch of bad teams then? That's a solid argument.
Umm, no. I'm talking in generalities, not about Kevin Shattenkirk. I'm trying to establish a common ground for analysis.
ATOI, duhNo you're not, you're trying to argue with the analysis.
8 seasons in the NHL, he gives up fewer shots and goals than his teammates.
Explain to me what defense is if it isn't reflected in shots and goals against.
No you're not, you're trying to argue with the analysis.
8 seasons in the NHL, he gives up fewer shots and goals than his teammates.
Explain to me what defense is if it isn't reflected in shots and goals against.
The only thing I can think of is strength of opposition and zone starts.
With sheltered minutes? I expect it. But if he would be played in all situations and still allow fever shots? Then I would be really impressed. But that would make him a top 2 defenseman, wouldn't it? Which he currently hasn't been.I wish you guys were willing to concede that players who give up fewer shots and goals than their teammates are good at defense.
You always come back to this. Are you saying that the state of the defense is so bad that Shattenkirk is forced to play on the top pairing, that by default makes him a top defensive defenseman? What does the defensive abilities of others have to do with the way that Shattenkirk defends or does not defend?But we'll be ok with Skjei-Pionk!
This is looking at the advanced stats with tunnel vision and blinders on. Which is what a lot of the advocates on this board tend to do when they attempt to use the metrics to push across a specific narrative. Shattenkirk is not put out for defensive draws. That will help pad his stats. That he is sheltered and kept away from the opposition's top offensive players will also greatly pad his stats.I wish you guys were willing to concede that players who give up fewer shots and goals than their teammates are good at defense.
No, but the way he is used on said teams has stayed exactly the same. Forget about AV's questionable personnel decisions. On no team that he has been on, has a coach wanted to use him when the opposition's top players are on the ice. On no team of his, has any coach wanted him out during defensive draws. This is all for very good reasons.So he's just been on a bunch of bad teams then? That's a solid argument.
Really? You are seriously going to start to compare a defenseman who has been in the league for 10 years and logged over 500 games to a 22 year old rookie who has played the grand total of 28 games? This is a meaningful comparison?Shattenkirk is no Lidstrom, but calling Pionk, or even Skjei, better defensively is one if the funniest things I’ve seen on hfboards. Pionk got anihhilated since he stepped on NHL ice to the day the season ended.
I don't think he meant annihilated physically.Pionk got annihilated since he stepped onto NHL ice? Has he taken a couple of big hits to make a play? Sure, but that's what good defenders do.
Good Lord, the anti-Pionk bias is amazing; he took the spot that people thought their favorite prospect "deserved" and they'll never forgive him for it.![]()
Well, then, he's even more wrong. He was excellent, especially once he got his feet wet. As is further evidenced by his play at the IIHF tourney.I don't think he meant annihilated physically.
I mean yeah maybe he looked excellent, but his metrics were subpar.Well, then, he's even more wrong. He was excellent, especially once he got his feet wet. As is further evidenced by his play at the IIHF tourney.
Question (seriously here because I don't know the answer): did anyone on defense have good metrics over, say, the final 30 games, when everything was going to shit? Like I know Pionk's weren't good, but whose were? I assume based on the way we played pretty much everyone was shit, just focusing on something like Corsi of xGF% or something relatively simple. Was Pionk noticeably worse in that respect?I mean yeah maybe he looked excellent, but his metrics were subpar.
Anyway, not an argument worth having, and this isn't the Pionk thread. And also I guess I should probably be working... but **** that.
With no analysis or opinion placed onto this because I don't think anyone wants to fight about Neal Pionk today.Question (seriously here because I don't know the answer): did anyone on defense have good metrics over, say, the final 30 games, when everything was going to ****? Like I know Pionk's weren't good, but whose were? I assume based on the way we played pretty much everyone was ****, just focusing on something like Corsi of xGF% or something relatively simple. Was Pionk noticeably worse in that respect?
I wish you guys were willing to concede that players who give up fewer shots and goals than their teammates are good at defense.
Well considering shattenkirk finished the last 3 years in the minus side of goals.. we’re halfway there!