What makes a good defense pairing?

[Bounces R Way]

It doesn't even have to be two really "smart" players like Hughes-Hronek. Sometimes just putting two lunkheads together works remarkably well too.

Zadorov-Gudbranson was one of the best 3rd pairings I've watched in years.

 

[biturbo19]

Zadorov-Gudbranson was one of the best 3rd pairings I've watched in years.

lmao. This was literally the exact pairing that first came to mind when i was making that comment. But it happens more than on the surface seems reasonable.

 

[PositiveCashFlow]

Approval from the fans here on HF

 

[Machinehead]

1) Talent

*huge gap*

2) Chemistry

They do have to work well together, but like, a pair with two good players on it will mostly work. There are some examples to the contrary. Josi-Weber was just never an effective pair for whatever reason. Both of them see their underlying numbers skyrocket away from each other.

One of my biggest pet peeves on this site is when people try to boil down chemistry on a defensive pair to offense guy and defense guy. There's so much more to it than that.

Any time the discussion of Adam Fox's partner comes up, peabrains try to put him with some useless lunk because "Adumb Focks scoar pointz." Fox would 100% be better with a puck-mover as his partner.

 

[Aurinko]

Is it as simple as having one good offensive guy and pair him with a defensive defender?
Is it putting a younger player with a vet?
What about a shutdown pair, is it always as easy as putting the two most defensive minded guys together?

There's some great pairings in the league, Toews-Makar probably the gold standard. Bouchard-Ekholm is an interesting one as individually they're obviously skilled but they fill in the gaps to each other's games so well. Hughes-Hronek definitely up there and McAvoy-Lindholm have had some dominant stretches.

what are some other good pairings and why do they work?
what are some bad pairings and why do they not work?

Methot - EK65 is the gold standard imo.

Without solid defensive D, Karlsson was stacking world record minuses. Two there always are, no more, no less.

 

[Russian_fanatic]

I think the Hughes-Hronek thing is an exhibition in why this isn't exactly a straightforward question to answer. There are certain things that pretty reliably work, at least "on paper". But there are also certain instances of two defencemen who should work well together on paper and complement each other perfectly...and then it just doesn't work at all. There are also things like Hughes-Hronek that doesn't make a whole lot of sense on paper...but just put together an absolutely massive season as one of the most ice-tilting pairs in the league in tons of tough minutes.

Chemistry is a funny thing, and it can account for a huge amount of how good a pairing is, or can be. Whether it's "more than the sum of it's parts" or "oil and water". And it's not always immediately evident until you actually try it.


That ability to process the game on the same "wavelength" or take that similar approach to the game, can really make for pairings that elevate both partners. Ideally, you've got a decent mix of more offensive and defensively oriented inclinations...but that "on the same page" element overshadows a lot of things.

It doesn't even have to be two really "smart" players like Hughes-Hronek. Sometimes just putting two lunkheads together works remarkably well too. Counterintuitively so. Where they just wanna play rolling forward, step up and pinch aggressively, and rattle the boards and obliterate guys whenever possible...and somehow that translates to a telepathic ability to read one another's one-track mind, and adjust to exactly what their partner is going to do. Because it's exactly what they'd do.



So yes. Sometimes opposites are complementary. Sometimes the same is complementary. Sometimes things that seem like a terrible idea end up complementary. Sometimes things that make all the sense in the world on paper, are just an absolute trainwreck.

Hughes-Hronek worked because both guys are elite skaters, both guys are fantastic passers, the whole LHD + RHD component, and they're just so skilled and smart. I would find it baffling if they didn't work.

Soucy-Myers was a weird one for me... they just worked, and they bring out the best in each other.

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

Intelligence and mobility.

 

[aqsw]

As a guy that has played a few games in his life as a Dman, I would say a good partner, and great backcheckers.Really good goalies help too. Keeps your stats good!!

 

[Rodgerwilco]

I think back to a pairing like Letang + Orpik in their primes.

One really good puck moving offensively skilled player in Letang who could skate and break the puck out, but suffers some defensive lapses at times. Complemented by a tough defensive minded partner who plays a strong physical game, but doesn’t offer a ton offensively.

It’s almost a stereotypical pairing, but it just worked so well for so long.

 

[TageGod]

Prevent offense, drive transition, and contribute offensively. In order of importance. If you can do the first two, you're good. Third one is just bonus.

 

[Statto]

Complimentary skills are key but without good communication it doesn’t matter.

 

[Beezeral]

Well if you listen to hockey men.

They need to be big, crease clearing defenseman who are tough to play against. Extra points if they hit hard and fight. So basically the ideal pairing is Chiarot-Gudbranson.


If you listen to intelligent people, you want defenseman who can suppress shot attempts, zone entries, and are really good at moving the puck up the ice cleanly. Then you add in actual offensive skill and baby you have a stew going.

 

[AvroArrow]

Being able to defend at a high level while being able to produce above average offensively. Every good D pair has to be good at actually defending. If you can provide elite offence, even better, but you gotta be able to chip in a bit.

There are offensive D men who are dog shit defensively, I don't consider them good D-men or D pairings. Being above average defensively is a prerequisite.

 

[Beezeral]

Zadorov-Gudbranson was one of the best 3rd pairings I've watched in years.

creating a good third pairing isn't the goal though. And it's also not that hard if the team in front of it is good enough.

 

[Bounces R Way]

creating a good third pairing isn't the goal though. And it's also not that hard if the team in front of it is good enough.

Why wouldn't it be? Unless your goal is to create a bad one.
A 3rd pairing that can eat up 16-18 minutes and take up a lot of PK time has a lot more value than people think. Takes a ton of stress and wear and tear off your top 4.

That Zadorov-Gudbranson pairing in 2021-22 put together two historically poor possession players and had both of them in the top 10 for CF%. Zadorov led the league in CF% at 59%.

Considering how many bad 3rd pairings there are in the league it's probably harder than you think.

 

[Beezeral]

Why wouldn't it be? Unless your goal is to create a bad one.
A 3rd pairing that can eat up 16-18 minutes and take up a lot of PK time has a lot more value than people think. Takes a ton of stress and wear and tear off your top 4.

That Zadorov-Gudbranson pairing in 2021-22 put together two historically poor possession players and had both of them in the top 10 for CF%. Zadorov led the league in CF% at 59%.

Considering how many bad 3rd pairings there are in the league it's probably harder than you think.

the correlation usually is that bad teams have bad third pairings. Good teams with a good defensive structure like the Flames in 21-22 and the Panthers this past year can turn mediocre players into a competent 3rd pairing.

As for my original comment, the goal of the thread is to discuss what makes a good defensive pairing. to me that doesn't mean, "hey let's talk about a good third pairing" Good 3rd pairings aren't that difficult to create for good teams.

 

[Bounces R Way]

the correlation usually is that bad teams have bad third pairings. Good teams with a good defensive structure like the Flames in 21-22 and the Panthers this past year can turn mediocre players into a competent 3rd pairing.

As for my original comment, the goal of the thread is to discuss what makes a good defensive pairing. to me that doesn't mean, "hey let's talk about a good third pairing" Good 3rd pairings aren't that difficult to create for good teams.

3rd pairing defenseman are people too.

I get what you're saying. That pair rose above competent though, they were elite that year. Sutter had them keep it simple and stick to using their physical attributes to get great mileage out of two dmen that don't have complimentary skillsets. Really it's more interesting to me anyway what makes a good 2nd or 3rd pairing than it is a top pair where more often than not it's just throwing the best LHD and RHD together.

 

[Esq]

Has there been a better one in recent years than Suter-Weber in Nashville? They were dominant

Keith/Seabrook

 

[DingDongCharlie]

I’d say ability to defend and transition the puck. Bonus if you have a D that can also carry the puck out under pressure. As an example Ekholm - Bouchard. Ekholm is excellent defensively and in transition. Strong first pass. Bouchard isn’t fast but can carry the puck and outlet pass extremely well. He does get burned at times as he can be slow on recovery when he losses the puck battle or his man.

When a D pairing can’t defend or cover for each other you end up with what we saw with Nurse - Ceci. Nurse seems to second guess himself. Soo many times he’s not pressing hard enough and also not protecting the net front. He’s in no man’s land or taking himself out of ideal position looking for a hit. Jovocop was an example of someone I rountinely remember doing the same.

I guess it comes down to hockey IQ as the most important in my opinion. Someone mentioned skill and size but I’d disagree. Nurse is skilled, big and physical. He’s also a classic example of all tools with no toolbox.

 

[Beezeral]

3rd pairing defenseman are people too.

I get what you're saying. That pair rose above competent though, they were elite that year. Sutter had them keep it simple and stick to using their physical attributes to get great mileage out of two dmen that don't have complimentary skillsets. Really it's more interesting to me anyway what makes a good 2nd or 3rd pairing than it is a top pair where more often than not it's just throwing the best LHD and RHD together.

They are people too, but IMO you are putting a bit too much value on a pretty fluky season.

There's too much that goes into hiding a 3rd pairing that makes it much better than it actually is. Panthers are a perfect example. They gave OEL and Kulikov a bunch of offensive zone starts and their defensive zone starts were stapled to Barkov's line. The good teams find ways to shelter the flaws of a 3rd pair and make it viable.

 

[GirardSpinorama]

Good chemistry and cant have the same weakness. You cant have both being small, slow, weak shot etc. Other than that, you just pair the best players.

 

[TheGroceryStick]

+124