Player Discussion Dmitry Orlov
- Thread starter tavares
- Start date
AtNightWeFly
You better run.
What an odd question this is.
My guess is he stays a Cap for a long long time. Alzner's been here for like 100 years already.
My guess is he stays a Cap for a long long time. Alzner's been here for like 100 years already.
Calicaps
NFA
Hivemind
We're Touched
He looks like a guy who hasn't played professional hockey in a year. All the talent in the world, but the decision making is pretty bad right now.
- Feb 10, 2010
- 13,590
- 10,184
Agree with everything said so far. He has top 4 potential but he is really rusty right now. He has decent hands and decent puck handling skills. But man can he bomb the puck though.
Alexander the Gr8
Registered User
Even if he sucks right now, it's mainly because he hasn't played in a year. He needs to improve his positioning and decision making. Nothing that the defensive guru Trotz can't iron out.
He is not KHL bound, don't worry
He is not KHL bound, don't worry
BackHandShelf22
Registered User
- Apr 12, 2014
- 1,481
- 2
Impartial party who watched the game tonight. You can tell everything is still very raw for him. You can see the talent there though. I liked what I saw from him in spurts.
HunterSThompson
[}=[][][][][]
Figured I would dig up this thread instead of muddying all the other threads with Orlov talk.
This is in response to Twabby's final post in the closed Kings game thread.
I was really not trying to make Orlov look bad.
You asked for evidence of risk, because a large portion of everyone's word is not good enough. Comparing these types of stats to players on other teams is beyond idiotic. Some teams put a premium on blocking shots. Others may elect to pressure players at their positions to limit shot attempts against. Some may even leave defenders to cover players guarding against rebounds and getting to loose pucks instead of blocking shots. In the offensive zone, some teams have strategy that use the D often. Some like to cycle in the corner and rarely use the D. Some have 5 moving parts that cycle in and out getting everyone in better shooting lanes.
These were merely context building statistics comparing him to other defensemen on the Capitals (I am sorry if that wasn't clear in some way). How he, on the Caps in their system, compares to Mark Giordano, on the Flames in their system, is irrelevant. These stats, heck most stats, are tough to compare across such diverse samples.
Compared to other players playing the same system, he has his shot blocked more often than anyone else. Is it a huge difference, not really, especially in raw numbers but he does. If you want to say that isn't risk, then that is fine, but in my mind shots that get blocked in the offensive zone when a defensemen is shooting the puck can be a recipe for disaster and therefore not doing the safer play is risky.
Compared to other players playing the same system, he has more giveaways per TOI than anyone else. Is it that big of a deal? No. Does it mean he is not good at playing hockey? No. It just means (in my mind, others may disagree) that he either can't hold onto the puck as well as the other defensemen (I don't think that is true, and I doubt you do too), or he puts himself in riskier situations that lead to giveaways.
These are the only two stats that I can think of that show any semblance of risk, something you asked for knowing that a risk factor stat does not exist (w/o which it would somehow validate to everyone else that he is not risky). As I said these are certainly not a perfect measure of risk especially since there is no way to measure risk away from the puck. They seem to indicate something to me, if they don't to you, okay.
These are not by any means conclusive of anything, but they are simply a small modicum of measure of his play this year (not overall but in regards to these things compared to other players Trotz has the option to play).
This is in response to Twabby's final post in the closed Kings game thread.
I was really not trying to make Orlov look bad.
You asked for evidence of risk, because a large portion of everyone's word is not good enough. Comparing these types of stats to players on other teams is beyond idiotic. Some teams put a premium on blocking shots. Others may elect to pressure players at their positions to limit shot attempts against. Some may even leave defenders to cover players guarding against rebounds and getting to loose pucks instead of blocking shots. In the offensive zone, some teams have strategy that use the D often. Some like to cycle in the corner and rarely use the D. Some have 5 moving parts that cycle in and out getting everyone in better shooting lanes.
These were merely context building statistics comparing him to other defensemen on the Capitals (I am sorry if that wasn't clear in some way). How he, on the Caps in their system, compares to Mark Giordano, on the Flames in their system, is irrelevant. These stats, heck most stats, are tough to compare across such diverse samples.
Compared to other players playing the same system, he has his shot blocked more often than anyone else. Is it a huge difference, not really, especially in raw numbers but he does. If you want to say that isn't risk, then that is fine, but in my mind shots that get blocked in the offensive zone when a defensemen is shooting the puck can be a recipe for disaster and therefore not doing the safer play is risky.
Compared to other players playing the same system, he has more giveaways per TOI than anyone else. Is it that big of a deal? No. Does it mean he is not good at playing hockey? No. It just means (in my mind, others may disagree) that he either can't hold onto the puck as well as the other defensemen (I don't think that is true, and I doubt you do too), or he puts himself in riskier situations that lead to giveaways.
These are the only two stats that I can think of that show any semblance of risk, something you asked for knowing that a risk factor stat does not exist (w/o which it would somehow validate to everyone else that he is not risky). As I said these are certainly not a perfect measure of risk especially since there is no way to measure risk away from the puck. They seem to indicate something to me, if they don't to you, okay.
These are not by any means conclusive of anything, but they are simply a small modicum of measure of his play this year (not overall but in regards to these things compared to other players Trotz has the option to play).
twabby
Registered User
- Mar 9, 2010
- 13,706
- 14,617
I guess my main point is that while these individual items (turnovers/60, blocks/CA) may indicate some level of risk, you need to look at the reward for having the guy on the ice and you also need to see how his other stats (mainly his possession stats) indicate that he is not a risk.
Alzner and Niskanen had a rough night possession-wise last night, but I wouldn't say either made any particularly "risky" plays. It didn't matter that neither player made a risky play on Nielsen's game-tying goal because the Islanders got a lucky bounce. By allowing the other team to have possession of the puck, you are assuming risk because there is always a chance of a bad bounce going against you. If you have the puck more often than the opponent does (as the Capitals almost always do while Orlov is on the ice), you are greatly reducing your risk of the other team scoring. This, in my mind, is why Orlov is a less risky player than people think. He doesn't allow the other team to get those lucky bounces while at the same time allowing the Capitals to get those lucky bounces because the Caps fire more pucks at the net than the opposition.
In terms of reward, it is clear that he is the most dynamic and offensively gifted defenseman on the team right now, and the stats spell it out. He leads the team in points/60 at even strength, and the Capitals goals for/goals against when he is on the ice is 61.67%, top of the team.
The whole point of hockey is to score more goals than the opposition, and Orlov does this. The stats indicate that he is really good, and he passes my eye test. Just look at how many excellent plays he made last night. The main argument against Orlov is that he plays easier competition, and I can't argue that. What I can argue is that I think he will be very good even against tough competition based on studies that have been done on this exact subject. He excelled in second pairing minutes earlier this season, and I bet he will excel in first pairing minutes when he eventually gets a chance. Until we see what he can do on the first pairing, it's unfair to say he will never be a #1 defenseman if all other evidence points to him having the ability to be a #1 defenseman.
I saw this quote while reading Puck-Daddy earlier today. It's Bobby Orr on Erik Karlsson:
Orlov is not Karlsson, but he's really good and I think Trotz and co. realize this. I think he is going to be a #1 defenseman very soon, and if the Caps are smart they are going to sign him to a long-term cap-friendly deal instead of a bridge deal this offseason. The bridge deal for Subban didn't work out well with Montreal who then had to pay full price for him, whereas Erik Karlsson is criminally underpaid in Ottawa because they decided to pay him early knowing that he would blossom into a star.
Alzner and Niskanen had a rough night possession-wise last night, but I wouldn't say either made any particularly "risky" plays. It didn't matter that neither player made a risky play on Nielsen's game-tying goal because the Islanders got a lucky bounce. By allowing the other team to have possession of the puck, you are assuming risk because there is always a chance of a bad bounce going against you. If you have the puck more often than the opponent does (as the Capitals almost always do while Orlov is on the ice), you are greatly reducing your risk of the other team scoring. This, in my mind, is why Orlov is a less risky player than people think. He doesn't allow the other team to get those lucky bounces while at the same time allowing the Capitals to get those lucky bounces because the Caps fire more pucks at the net than the opposition.
In terms of reward, it is clear that he is the most dynamic and offensively gifted defenseman on the team right now, and the stats spell it out. He leads the team in points/60 at even strength, and the Capitals goals for/goals against when he is on the ice is 61.67%, top of the team.
The whole point of hockey is to score more goals than the opposition, and Orlov does this. The stats indicate that he is really good, and he passes my eye test. Just look at how many excellent plays he made last night. The main argument against Orlov is that he plays easier competition, and I can't argue that. What I can argue is that I think he will be very good even against tough competition based on studies that have been done on this exact subject. He excelled in second pairing minutes earlier this season, and I bet he will excel in first pairing minutes when he eventually gets a chance. Until we see what he can do on the first pairing, it's unfair to say he will never be a #1 defenseman if all other evidence points to him having the ability to be a #1 defenseman.
I saw this quote while reading Puck-Daddy earlier today. It's Bobby Orr on Erik Karlsson:
Orlov is not Karlsson, but he's really good and I think Trotz and co. realize this. I think he is going to be a #1 defenseman very soon, and if the Caps are smart they are going to sign him to a long-term cap-friendly deal instead of a bridge deal this offseason. The bridge deal for Subban didn't work out well with Montreal who then had to pay full price for him, whereas Erik Karlsson is criminally underpaid in Ottawa because they decided to pay him early knowing that he would blossom into a star.
Last edited:
artilector
Registered User
- Jan 11, 2006
- 8,351
- 1,187
I am a big fan of Orlov, but I think skipping the bridge contract might be difficult in his case, because the Caps can't afford to have 5 guys on D paid big salaries at the same time.
And when the bridge contract is over, it will be a hard choice to keep Orlov over Carlson and Niskanen. Despite the warts, Carlson is a horse, Niskanen is very steady. Orlov is a bit undersized for shutdown duty (and I imagine over time it would add up), not as steady, and has some history of concussions...
The other way to make space would be to trade Orpik... but... let's see if the Caps are able to trade Laich first!
I mean... I like this player, so yeah at some point I would roll the dice and keep Orlov over, say, Niskanen. But I am not sure how likely the Caps' brass is to do that, and for fairly valid reasons.
Hopefully.. Orlov can take another couple of steps, improve defensive positioning, make it difficult to keep somebody else over him...
And when the bridge contract is over, it will be a hard choice to keep Orlov over Carlson and Niskanen. Despite the warts, Carlson is a horse, Niskanen is very steady. Orlov is a bit undersized for shutdown duty (and I imagine over time it would add up), not as steady, and has some history of concussions...
The other way to make space would be to trade Orpik... but... let's see if the Caps are able to trade Laich first!
I mean... I like this player, so yeah at some point I would roll the dice and keep Orlov over, say, Niskanen. But I am not sure how likely the Caps' brass is to do that, and for fairly valid reasons.
Hopefully.. Orlov can take another couple of steps, improve defensive positioning, make it difficult to keep somebody else over him...
Alexander the Gr8
Registered User
I think the playoffs will tell us who we should keep. The players will show their true colours. If they all excel, it's a good problem to have.
Orlov lacks size, speed and defensive ability to be #1 Dman in NHL, I believe.
Young Alzner and Carlson were both better than him defensively. And I don't see Orlov being the #1 without being really good at D.
He can be good at offense, but he's no Bobby Orr (c) Subban.
I mean, Karlsson is exceptional freak physically. Orlov isn't that good at skating north-south for half an hour. How can he become #1 with all these deficiencies?
I'd gladly settle for top-4 position long term. Alzner and Orlov LD, Carlson and Niskanen RD. I'm good with it.
But 1st he needs to outplay one little guy named Nate Schmidt. And then an old man Batya too.
Young Alzner and Carlson were both better than him defensively. And I don't see Orlov being the #1 without being really good at D.
He can be good at offense, but he's no Bobby Orr (c) Subban.
I mean, Karlsson is exceptional freak physically. Orlov isn't that good at skating north-south for half an hour. How can he become #1 with all these deficiencies?
I'd gladly settle for top-4 position long term. Alzner and Orlov LD, Carlson and Niskanen RD. I'm good with it.
But 1st he needs to outplay one little guy named Nate Schmidt. And then an old man Batya too.
895
Registered User
- Jun 15, 2007
- 8,397
- 7,067
I disagree on the lack of speed.
Doesn't have the ideal size but he has the strength to make up for it. I'd rather Orlov be a short tank than a tall pushover like Schultz.
I think Orlov is already a top 4 defenseman. Time will tell if he can become a top pairing guy.
Faster forwards are a problem for him. He can't close them out with size and can't catch them with speed.
1) Dmitry Orlov is good in offensive zone and bad in defensive zone.
2) Brooks Laich is useless in offensive zone and good in defensive zone.
Let's interchange them. Forward Orlov + Defensmen Laich
2) Brooks Laich is useless in offensive zone and good in defensive zone.
Let's interchange them. Forward Orlov + Defensmen Laich
Last edited by a moderator:
g00n
Retired Global Mod
- Nov 22, 2007
- 30,527
- 14,543
Maybe I'm misinterpreting but we can't on one hand say things like QOC don't matter because they're diluted over larger sample sizes and then try to apply similar possession stats to things like "risk" in discussing single games or even isolated plays, especially when the most important sample size is a 4-7 game series. It's two different languages.
That said I've been in Orlov's corner from the start and thought he could replace Green. When he came back and was taking heat for bad mistakes I said he just looked like a young player with limited NHL experience that NEEDS REPS to get that experience, especially since he lost a year of it due to injury. As he grows, if developed properly and not stunted offensively, he could end up being a very balanced and dangerous player. He's willing to take risks and has the talent to capitalize on them. He just needs the wisdom and judgment to know WHEN to take those risks, and that's something only experience affords.
That said I've been in Orlov's corner from the start and thought he could replace Green. When he came back and was taking heat for bad mistakes I said he just looked like a young player with limited NHL experience that NEEDS REPS to get that experience, especially since he lost a year of it due to injury. As he grows, if developed properly and not stunted offensively, he could end up being a very balanced and dangerous player. He's willing to take risks and has the talent to capitalize on them. He just needs the wisdom and judgment to know WHEN to take those risks, and that's something only experience affords.
twabby
Registered User
- Mar 9, 2010
- 13,706
- 14,617
Of course a single risky play could affect a game or series. But so could a bad bounce. A bad bounce that is less likely to happen if your team has the bulk of the possession. Ideally you have a good possession player who is also not risky. I happen to think Orlov isn't as risky here as people think, and his early season mistakes were more a result of being rusty after not playing hockey for more than a year rather than anything inherently wrong with his game. More experience certainly will be great for him, and I believe in the next few years he will be a #1 defenseman.
People often say teams make their own luck. Putting a good possession player on the ice leads to more possible lucky breaks for your team rather than the opposition. It also leads to more power plays and for the Capitals, every power play is worth a quarter of a goal on average which is huge.
People often say teams make their own luck. Putting a good possession player on the ice leads to more possible lucky breaks for your team rather than the opposition. It also leads to more power plays and for the Capitals, every power play is worth a quarter of a goal on average which is huge.
g00n
Retired Global Mod
- Nov 22, 2007
- 30,527
- 14,543
I think the bold is an incredible reach. When we're talking about very few actual bad bounces that cost a team in the course of a season, vs possession stats that are measured in fractions of a percent over coin flip, it's not a wash. A guy just over 50% corsi adjusted for whatever isn't offsetting bad bounces by being on the ice for one extra shot every couple of games.
Ad
Upcoming events
-
2024 SoFi NBA Play-In Tournament Sacramento Kings @ New Orleans PelicansWagers: 5Staked: $318.00Event closes- Updated:
-
Stanley Cup 2024 Stanley Cup Champion - ONLY BET ONE TEAMWagers: 12Staked: $16,404.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
-
Series Winner Boston Bruins vs Toronto Maple LeafsWagers: 8Staked: $3,310.00Event closes
- Updated: