The Defensive Logjam
- Thread starter herman
- Start date
Coco-puffs
New member
Nik the Trik said:
Which is why I qualified my statement with all else being equal. At this point, Carrick has a higher ceiling, but more risk/uncertainty. Marincin is who he is IMO... defensively dependable, shot suppressing 4-6 defense-man with no offense to his game. This season will go a long way to say who has the better long term future with the team.
herman
Well-known member
Nik the Trik said:
It's still an opinion I'm in the process of refining, so I appreciate your take on it, as well as anyone else's thoughts or experiences playing/coaching.
Offensive defensemen get paid more. Offensive defensemen get Norris votes. The league values two way play from the backend.
My thesis is that offensive instincts (in the realm of defensemen for this discussion) are more valuable because they are less replaceable by mere coaching (positioning, structure). I don't really have numbers for these as it is in the thoughts out loud stage.
Offensive success from a defenseman means things like zone entries, quarterbacking the offence from the blue line, and putting up points. Doing those things well, from what I've seen, requires creativity and skill on top of the instincts ingrained from coached positioning and structure. Structure and positioning is really only designed to breakdown the defending structure and generate attempts.
Defensive success would be breaking up transition plays, preventing zone entries, and preventing/fouling up shots on net. A lot of that can be accomplished by just being in the right place at the right time. Of course instinct and skills come into play here. Clearly some defenders are better at naturally forcing attackers to their backhand, or matching speeds to close the gaps without getting turnstiled.
What do you guys think?
Kin
New member
herman said:
I think that's indisputably true although it's not limited to defensemen. Putting the puck in the net, or the contributing to the puck going in the other team's net, is the rarest and most valuable skill in the league and the guys who are the best at it are the most highly valued in the league regardless of the position they play.
This is a side note but when it comes to Norris voting I think there's been a slight shift regarding a certain multi-time Norris winner where it used to be that perennial Norris winners or contenders like Bourque or Pronger or Lidstrom were, as you put it, excellent two-way defensemen now it seems to be that we're valuing one way defensemen in a way that we didn't used to. Whether or not that shift is a real reflection of a better understanding of value in terms of actually contributing to victories is unclear.
herman said:
Like I said above, I think they're more valuable because they're scarcer but I don't know if I buy that they're more teachable necessarily. We've certainly seen players come into the league and improve as defenders but we've also seen players come into the league and improve as offensive players. Usually, though, we attribute that offensive development to players physical and mental development but we attribute the defensive development to coaching. I'm not sure there's a lot of evidence for either narrative.
herman said:
I think that there are lots of offensive and defensive skills that are refined with experience. When is a good time to join a rush or the ability to effectively pinch on a play. I think those things are effectively parallels to the sort of coaching/structural concepts you're talking about. They're going to be learned at different paces and they're going to contribute to a player being on the ice for a larger percentage of goals scored on an opponent. I think the same is true of a lot of defensive things too.
A player that comes to mind as an example is Zdeno Chara. In his first four or five years in the league he produced at Marincin like levels offensively before eventually becoming one of the better offensive defensemen in the league at his best. He obviously also had a tremendous defensive refinement to the point where once Pronger fell off a little he was probably the single best defender in the game.
Obviously a coach can't teach Chara's size or strength but he still needed proper coaching and refinement to become the HOF calibre player he became in both ends. Hockey smarts develop over time and, provided they're paired with physical ability, those manifest themselves in all facets of the game.
McGarnagle
New member
herman said:
My experiences coaching (albeit with the caveat that at a level which doesn't allow my opinion to be anything close to weighty) - is that creativity is often on display in a defensive role- in reading a play, an effective first pass, etc, etc. The only problem is that it doesn't hit the eyeballs like a play that leads directly to a goal.
Slighty OT, but I find there's still the prevailing attitude from a lot of coaches in coaching younger players that appropriate "defense" means taking no chances and chipping the puck off the glass nine out of ten times - which basically dooms a developing player to a one dimensional game. Anything but a simple play on D is glaring and inexcusable, even though forwards routinely turn the puck over in the pursuit of a scoring opportunity, and develop as a result of realizing that creativity. I remember having one of my sons move from D to forward simply to get out from under a defensive black hole of "safe" no-skill required hockey insisted upon by the coaching volunteers.
ln terms of the norris voting, I think it is weighted to offensive statistics because a) it highlights exciting players that grow the ratings and the game - rather than reward an equally dynamic but less optically sexy skillset in goal prevention/puck transition and b) I think a lot of voting community don't really do much more than look at the stat totals and mix in a few personal biases. Regardless, for the most part, the best shutdown D are often also up there in terms of offensive stats, simply because the same skillset allow them to excel in both ends of the ice.
As per Marincin vs Carrick, I couldn't even fathom which is more valuable than which - Marincin had a much longer look with the Leafs than Carrick, and looked very comfortable in the back half - and Carrick looked good with the club as well, but his best play was with the Marlies, which doesn't mean a great deal to me, anyway. I don't get the impression that Washington gave up a huge piece of their future with Carrick, or than Marincin's ceiling is above a #4, but it's good to have competition.
herman
Well-known member
Some thoughts, now that I have an actual keyboard:
Your note about the value/rarity of offensive ability rings very true to me, as do the points I highlighted with the quote.
The narrative that is playing in my head is that offense requires creativity; there is structure and formation (ha) that can breakdown defenses, but ultimately, there is a lot of individual skill and talent required to put the puck into the net.
Defense, on the other hand, while requiring tremendous physical skills to pivot and skate backwards and spatial awareness to not get clobbered on retrievals, is like playing Not It in a game of Tag: there are a lot more win conditions and they're generally easier to achieve, largely by being in the right place a the right time, which, to my mind is the realm of coaching, (easily refined by experience).
The story that really prompted me to think that was when Holland talked about his initial struggles on the Penalty Kill, and how he admired Winnik being able to basically play all 2 minutes routinely. Winnik showed him how he positioned himself on the PK more efficiently and that was all Holland needed. Of course that is only one anecdote (that I can't find the source of) from a team with terrible special teams.
Nik the Trik said:
Your note about the value/rarity of offensive ability rings very true to me, as do the points I highlighted with the quote.
The narrative that is playing in my head is that offense requires creativity; there is structure and formation (ha) that can breakdown defenses, but ultimately, there is a lot of individual skill and talent required to put the puck into the net.
Defense, on the other hand, while requiring tremendous physical skills to pivot and skate backwards and spatial awareness to not get clobbered on retrievals, is like playing Not It in a game of Tag: there are a lot more win conditions and they're generally easier to achieve, largely by being in the right place a the right time, which, to my mind is the realm of coaching, (easily refined by experience).
The story that really prompted me to think that was when Holland talked about his initial struggles on the Penalty Kill, and how he admired Winnik being able to basically play all 2 minutes routinely. Winnik showed him how he positioned himself on the PK more efficiently and that was all Holland needed. Of course that is only one anecdote (that I can't find the source of) from a team with terrible special teams.
herman
Well-known member
McGarnagle said:
This is a really good point. Coaching tends to overvalue safety on defense, rather than generation. The safe play is much easier, but is still a guaranteed turnover without the probability of the reward of scoring.
Watching Gardiner blossom now that he is out of Carlyle's shadow (or in spite of spending time there) has been invigorating.
Frank E
Active member
herman said:
I don't think that's a fair representation of the Gardiner and Carlyle situation. I recall us crediting Carlyle with developing Gardiner, throwing him out there in many situations, and he got better...so much so that they gave him that long-term 5 year contract I thought prematurely.
I know there's a fair bit of Carlyle hate around here, but I don't think he failed Gardiner. Carlyle gave Gardiner a long rope.
Misty
New member
herman said:
On the other hand, what tends to separate the truly exceptional defencemen from the rest is (to my mind) not as coachable:
- ability to read and anticipate plays developing: positioning can be taught to give you a better chance of breaking up a play, but you still need to evaluate the situation to gauge the most likely passing lane to be ready for, etc...over time that will improve naturally with situational experience, but some people just seem to be innately better at it than other (that "hockey IQ" that scouts rave about in certain prospects)
- speed/coordination/reflexes/strength/endurance: all of which can be developed or enhanced via training programs, nutrition, repetition (specialized coaching) but all of which still seem to have underlying genetic attributes
I expect that players with exceptional abilities in most of the above are going to see those advantages reflected at both ends of the ice, though. Very hard to know where they'd be more visible, although I remember commentators constantly marveling at Lidstrom's ability to tip/deflect pucks that people tried to chip past him, or always being in just the right spot to break up a play in front of the net.
WhatIfGodWasALeaf
Active member
Giordano spoke recently about how it takes a lot of players 2/300 games of actually playing in the NHL before they are able to accurately read the movement of elite forwards and predict how the plays are going to unfold. He has spoken to a lot of his peers apparently and this seems to be the general consensus for the majority of guys who don't break into the league as stars from the jump. Some guys basically figure it out and if they have the raw tools to allow them to play the game, then they can really take a jump while they can read the game in a way that will allow them to maximise their skill set. Some guys that get more than a cup of coffee in the NHL often figure out how to read the game, but don't have the particular skill set to be able to take advantage of their newfound understanding of the game.
After that it is mostly about the fundamentals, can you skate, pass and shoot at a level that will allow you to take advantage of what you see?
I thought it was an interesting take on the whole subject of "defence" being a skill.
After that it is mostly about the fundamentals, can you skate, pass and shoot at a level that will allow you to take advantage of what you see?
I thought it was an interesting take on the whole subject of "defence" being a skill.
Kin
New member
herman said:
I guess what I'd say to that is that I guess that there are elements of defense that can be improved upon through coaching that coachability, for lack of a better term, is itself a skill that isn't equally shared. There have been too many good coaches in history coaching too many one dimensional(albeit very competitive) players for me to believe that the sorts of gains we've seen some players make as defensive players could have happened to anyone with the proper coaching.
I also think there are things that are essentially physical attributes that are harder to gauge but are still skills in the way of "creativity" or what have you like hand/eye coordination that contribute greatly to a player's ability to read and react to plays in the defensive end.
herman said:
That's sort of what I mean though. Being a NHL player is so lucrative that I really can't believe that there aren't more guys who would just become really effective defensive forwards if all it required was the right coaching, a certain willingness to do it and a baseline set of physical attributes. Holland is just hanging on to a roster spot at this point and if he could become a Winnik-like PKer it'd virtually guarantee his employment in the league for another 5-6 years. To put it plainly, I don't think we've seen that from him.
herman
Well-known member
Nik the Trik said:
That's a good point about coachability. I should clarify that I wasn't promoting coaching over innate ability + experience as the primary determinant, rather coaching can more easily overcome a defensive deficiency than an offensive one for defensemen -- i.e. it is easier to fix Carrick's defensive flaws than to get Marincin's shot generation level up.
This is not to say Marincin is a lost cause either. I believe he has the mental and physical tools to eventually get there, and his Junior history shows a head for the offensive game as well. Rielly noted that when playing him in junior, Marincin had a "greasy pair of hands" that could make really good passes. To WIGWAL's post about 2/300 games being the usual amount of time it takes for defensemen to adjust to NHL speeds, I hope we get a chance to see him turn that corner, rather than lose him on waivers.
Nik the Trik said:
I believe part of why we aren't seeing that sort of immediate stratification is because NHLers are, by and large, the best players on every team they've played for up until they make it, so they have expectations of themselves to play similar roles and produce at similar rates. The cream still floats to the top, but due to the way the game was coached for so long, only the obvious top and the very obvious bottom sixers got roles. Players like Holland used to get benched for players like FML. I see the shift happening though, with the league getting younger and more talented up and down the lineup, and I can see Holland leaning towards playing a more Winniky game to avoid extinction.
herman
Well-known member
Misty said:
I agree that coaching can only expose and release the player's potential.
Where I was going with my (potentially wrong) point, was that coaching can boost a defenseman's baseline defensive game more readily than it can unleash offensive prowess in a defensive defenseman's play.
I found this article while reading up on how defensemen play the game, and what makes one player more effective than others: https://www.mckeenshockey.com/nhl-blog/evaluating-defensemen/
There's a tremendous amount of decision making involved in playing defense. Older methods of defense (shot block, chip out) seemed to be designed to reduce decision making overhead down to those coachable reactions/positions I was thinking about.
hockeyfan1
New member
Re: from the article
It's pretty obvious that defensive and offensive skills in a defenceman all require some forms of creativity, be it physically, mentally and skillfully.
The article (in which Herman posted the link to) takes into account the necessities of each type of defenceman, whether it be a defensively-oriented type or an offensively-oriented type. However, both comprise certain skill sets that can either stand out or continue in development. By that, I mean a d-man with a high IQ quotient in development (which as the Leafs' Reilly), or, a veteran or stand out (such as the Predators' Subban).
Here are some points emphasized in the article that seek to define and differentiate (to a certain degree) the role of a defenceman in either capacity (defensive/offensive):
Defensive d-man:
- Skating/Transitioning/Pivoting -- all these embody the ability and agility to shift according to play and to be able to read the oncoming offence and adapt accoedingly
- Closing the Gap/Gap Control -- all this embodies visual skills and the ability to read the play, such as how much room will a d-man give an opposing offensive skater in play with puck in possession; how to contain the opposing players rushing speed/etc. In other words, cutting off the angle, blocking a shot, utilizing some form of physicality (body check/hit) to attempt to stymie or break up play, while not being liable to get caught out of position, etc.
- Support and Engage -- Does a d-man engage the (puck) carrier to begin the defensive process (and attempt to get the puck back) or does he give support? Again, this involves the ability to 'read' the play and making a decision depending on the situation that he finds himself in.
Quick decision-making, good visuals, agility, skating, transitioning, size (may be an added plus), speed, etc. all add up to the mix to create a mobile, agile, smart defenceman who hones his craft well.
It's pretty obvious that defensive and offensive skills in a defenceman all require some forms of creativity, be it physically, mentally and skillfully.
The article (in which Herman posted the link to) takes into account the necessities of each type of defenceman, whether it be a defensively-oriented type or an offensively-oriented type. However, both comprise certain skill sets that can either stand out or continue in development. By that, I mean a d-man with a high IQ quotient in development (which as the Leafs' Reilly), or, a veteran or stand out (such as the Predators' Subban).
Here are some points emphasized in the article that seek to define and differentiate (to a certain degree) the role of a defenceman in either capacity (defensive/offensive):
Defensive d-man:
- Skating/Transitioning/Pivoting -- all these embody the ability and agility to shift according to play and to be able to read the oncoming offence and adapt accoedingly
- Closing the Gap/Gap Control -- all this embodies visual skills and the ability to read the play, such as how much room will a d-man give an opposing offensive skater in play with puck in possession; how to contain the opposing players rushing speed/etc. In other words, cutting off the angle, blocking a shot, utilizing some form of physicality (body check/hit) to attempt to stymie or break up play, while not being liable to get caught out of position, etc.
- Support and Engage -- Does a d-man engage the (puck) carrier to begin the defensive process (and attempt to get the puck back) or does he give support? Again, this involves the ability to 'read' the play and making a decision depending on the situation that he finds himself in.
Quick decision-making, good visuals, agility, skating, transitioning, size (may be an added plus), speed, etc. all add up to the mix to create a mobile, agile, smart defenceman who hones his craft well.
hockeyfan1
New member
Re: from the article (continuing from my previous posting):
Here are some points emphasized in the article that seek to define and differentiate (to a certain degree) the role of a defenceman in either capacity (defensive/offensive).
Offensive d-man:
- Passing/Rushing -- this comprises the ability of puck movement which also takes into account the placement /movement of hands & feet. Knowing when to pass or rush the puck (advancing in-play or possession of play); maneuverability of player (stick-handling, skating speed, etc.). Passing skills that encapsulate all of the above including balance & of course, creativity. What to when not in possession and how to both assess, create and gain opportunity in the play at hand. A stray pass can lead to an opposing goal one way or another or give the opposing team plenty of room and time to forge a goal. Same with dropping or having the puck taken away from you.
How well one strays from the action and their capabilities to bounce back from that position can often be the determining factor between loss or gain (be it by want of an opposing goal scored or prevented).
- Zone/Point Skills -- this basically shows how well a point man a defenceman can be -- shooting from the point as well as shooting past obstacles, be it in the opposing player's shot blocking attempt, gettingpast traffic out front; etc.
- Distributory/Assessment Skills -- effectively comprises the ability and or abilities to 'read' play and make decisions based on play situation, to follow the structural play of the team (risk assessment) during a breakout in the defensive zone, or to lead a regroup? Joining the rush -- when to join or to support? These all involve some form of "risk assessment" and once again, a defenceman's smart skills come into vogue here.
As we can see, there are inherent differences and/or expected skills between a defensively-oriented defenceman and an offensively-oriented one.
They all require the proper set of movement, speed, agility, and visuals to get the job done. However, a defensive defenceman, due to his moreso defensive-oriented skills than an offensive-oriented defenceman, is called upon to be even more precise in his defensive abilities, and his liabilities will showcase themselves more glaringly in this regard.
Some may disagree on the above point alone, but an offensively-oriented defenceman is really seen as more of a two-way player, and even though he carries just as much of a basic skillet defensively-speaking, he may not be seen as more liable than one who's basic job is to defend more than go on the offensive. Of course, this all depends on what teams expect from their d-corps. It is believed that a defensive defenceman has to stand out in his position and be capable of contributing to the rush in a way that will not hamper his team's situation in play, while an offensive defenceman has to stand out in his ability to be the two-way player he is without being a liability in that regard.
Either way, these aren't easy skills which goes to show how difficult it is for just anyone to assume the mantle of a great d-man. Those players that we've seen that encapsulate all of these skills one way or another, have gone on to greatness. It takes time and patience especially for today's young prospects breaking into a professional league, oftentimes overwhelmed by the sheer aspect of it all.
Here are some points emphasized in the article that seek to define and differentiate (to a certain degree) the role of a defenceman in either capacity (defensive/offensive).
Offensive d-man:
- Passing/Rushing -- this comprises the ability of puck movement which also takes into account the placement /movement of hands & feet. Knowing when to pass or rush the puck (advancing in-play or possession of play); maneuverability of player (stick-handling, skating speed, etc.). Passing skills that encapsulate all of the above including balance & of course, creativity. What to when not in possession and how to both assess, create and gain opportunity in the play at hand. A stray pass can lead to an opposing goal one way or another or give the opposing team plenty of room and time to forge a goal. Same with dropping or having the puck taken away from you.
How well one strays from the action and their capabilities to bounce back from that position can often be the determining factor between loss or gain (be it by want of an opposing goal scored or prevented).
- Zone/Point Skills -- this basically shows how well a point man a defenceman can be -- shooting from the point as well as shooting past obstacles, be it in the opposing player's shot blocking attempt, gettingpast traffic out front; etc.
- Distributory/Assessment Skills -- effectively comprises the ability and or abilities to 'read' play and make decisions based on play situation, to follow the structural play of the team (risk assessment) during a breakout in the defensive zone, or to lead a regroup? Joining the rush -- when to join or to support? These all involve some form of "risk assessment" and once again, a defenceman's smart skills come into vogue here.
As we can see, there are inherent differences and/or expected skills between a defensively-oriented defenceman and an offensively-oriented one.
They all require the proper set of movement, speed, agility, and visuals to get the job done. However, a defensive defenceman, due to his moreso defensive-oriented skills than an offensive-oriented defenceman, is called upon to be even more precise in his defensive abilities, and his liabilities will showcase themselves more glaringly in this regard.
Some may disagree on the above point alone, but an offensively-oriented defenceman is really seen as more of a two-way player, and even though he carries just as much of a basic skillet defensively-speaking, he may not be seen as more liable than one who's basic job is to defend more than go on the offensive. Of course, this all depends on what teams expect from their d-corps. It is believed that a defensive defenceman has to stand out in his position and be capable of contributing to the rush in a way that will not hamper his team's situation in play, while an offensive defenceman has to stand out in his ability to be the two-way player he is without being a liability in that regard.
Either way, these aren't easy skills which goes to show how difficult it is for just anyone to assume the mantle of a great d-man. Those players that we've seen that encapsulate all of these skills one way or another, have gone on to greatness. It takes time and patience especially for today's young prospects breaking into a professional league, oftentimes overwhelmed by the sheer aspect of it all.