pretend he somehow is helping the rest of the team while he's on the bench.
Pretend?
So either
1) "Momentum" isn't a psychological factor in games
or
2) the Flames have had as many momentum swings in these games associated with our third pair getting trapped in their own zone, usually resulting in goals against, or penalties against, or desperate line changes on the fly. And yes - at times penalties have been taken with Bartkowski on the ice by other individuals because of Bartkowski's inability to deny zone entries or exit the defensive zone early and efficiently.
I don't think there is anything "desperate" or "pretentious" about claiming (2). It's observable.
Now am I saying Kulak is some superstar who makes guys complete passes better while he sits on the bench? No. I am saying that guys are getting more high ground on line changes and more regular ice time when our third pair does not produce wild swings in momentum. I'll even define momentum - extensive shifts where one team is living in the other team's zone. And finally, the only goal our third pair was on the ice for against in the last two games was a failure by the forwards to manage the puck, which is in contrast to the momentum swings that have occured with Bartkowski on the ice on nothing sequences that end up in a fire drill.
There is
causation between having three strong pairs playing well and the team as a whole playing well VS having two strong pairs playing well, a third pair that is struggling, and the other two defense pairs (and the forwards) losing out on easier shifts.
Can I prove it? I probably could if I went back and dug up the video during and after every Kulak shift - but I really shouldn't have to. You're hyperbolizing a claim that is both sensible and simultaneously moreso an indictment of Matt Bartkowski than any unique praise of Brett Kulak.
Now if you insist that "Momentum" isn't a psychological factor in games so be it - or you to some degree admit that my claim has merit. Having good players at the bottom of your roster is beneficial to having liabilities at the bottom of your roster. I said this same sort of thing when people were claiming that the difference between Bollig and Byron was irrelevant if neither was scoring. Players can contribute in many ways that actually have on-ice effects. Now I will say some things - like hitting or fighting - may not have the same results on what I observe to be "momentum shifts" as things like disciplined stickwork, clean breakouts, tight gap control. controlled zone entries.
TL;DR - I never said Kulak is amazing. But I do contend that when one group is playing well on the ice, it does influence the context that allows other lines to perform to their full capability. Especially when the rest of your roster is not Team Canada that can make something out of nothing every shift.