Player Discussion Hampus Lindholm III - the Return/Revenge of the Swede?

Paul4587

Registered User
Jan 26, 2006
31,162
13,178
Not trying to argue your points, but I will say that although Benny used raw numbers, he DID in fact mention the possibility of recovering from surgery being possible reasons for decline / weaker numbers in some areas multiple times in the article (I know it was long).

Point conceded about the wrist injury in 16-17. Was he in fact hurt the entire season? Or did it happen at a certain point of the season? I don't remember.

I would also point out that these are projection tools he's using. You said "Lindholm's shot was significantly harder than it's ever been before," but 1) I'm not sure you can verify this statement in literal value (speed clocks?), and 2) getting more shots through by the end of the year shouldn't be used as projection for how he might be in future years...in smaller sample sizes, it could be a bit of luck...or maybe he really has improved and his numbers will continue to trend in that direction. Hard to project that...he's just trying to just get a feel for where Lindholm is projecting based on historical data.

Just makes it interesting for me to read. In the dog days, I'm hungry for almost anything.

His wrist according to an article by Stephens was injured in I think his third game that season. He was wearing a massive wrap right until the end of the playoffs.

The problem with not using relative numbers is that you’re not factoring in a massive drop in raw numbers due to systems. While he does acknowledge Carlyle’s system has likely impacted the numbers he’s also completely ignoring that relative to his teammates Lindholm had the second best shot suppression numbers among all dmen and the one guy above him only plays 19 minutes per night.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Getz2perry

branmuffin17

Registered User
Sep 10, 2014
1,046
1,219
Santa Ana, CA
A solid #3 D? Really?
LOL I agree...I think that final assessment is pretty silly. He's easily a solid #2 overall at this point, and top shutdown D.

BUT...one comment from the article has Benny saying this:

"Yes 30-60 would be a #2. The reason I said a #3 is twofold. Primarily I think he’s better at leading his own pairing, and not the top one. He’s clearly not a third pairing guy and i think he’s better than a supporting piece on the second pairing. 2-3 seemed like a fair compromise. Secondly, depending on the stat, he’s not always in that 30-60 range. For instance, scoring chances against, he’s only been ranked in top 80 once, and in the top 100 twice. For a non-offensive defenseman I find that mildly concerning, and it truly makes me wonder how much of his reputation is based on his general demeanor and good goaltending. I think a clear number two doesn’t have that question mark."

So...based on that, I can understand.
 
Last edited:

branmuffin17

Registered User
Sep 10, 2014
1,046
1,219
Santa Ana, CA
I think that's one of the points Benny is getting at. Which means, if we want that true #1, we have to sacrifice something, because we don't have that in our system. We'll have to do it likely through trade...or otherwise, be happy with our 2 #2s (Lindholm/Fowler) and supporting cast (Montour/Manson), and hope one of our minor leaguers can take a huge step (possibly Larsson or someone) and be like...another #2 (unlikely).
 

Mallard

Registered User
Apr 19, 2017
1,752
429
Canada
Does Pitts/Vegas/Win/Wash have a true number 1 though? I think we are ok if Lindholm and Fowler are the best we can do. I don't think they are any worse of a foundation than what Pittsburgh has won with and what Vegas/Win/Washington have. I could be overating Hampus and Cam I guess and have my homer lenses on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KaseMeOutside

AngelDuck

Rak 'em up
Jun 16, 2012
23,078
16,563
Does Pitts/Vegas/Win/Wash have a true number 1 though? I think we are ok if Lindholm and Fowler are the best we can do. I don't think they are any worse of a foundation than what Pittsburgh has won with and what Vegas/Win/Washington have. I could be overating Hampus and Cam I guess and have my homer lenses on.
John Carlson is absolutely a #1 dman. Guy is going to get a truck full of cash this offseason

I mean if Fowler got 6.5, Carlson probably gets 8
 

Paul4587

Registered User
Jan 26, 2006
31,162
13,178
Does Pitts/Vegas/Win/Wash have a true number 1 though? I think we are ok if Lindholm and Fowler are the best we can do. I don't think they are any worse of a foundation than what Pittsburgh has won with and what Vegas/Win/Washington have. I could be overating Hampus and Cam I guess and have my homer lenses on.

Pittsburgh had the two best centres to play the game the past decade along with a top 20 winger and great scoring depth.

Vegas and Washington haven’t won anything at this point but Washington does have a number one in Carlson.

Back to that article though, the author is claiming Lindholm isn’t all that great because of his raw scoring chances against stat (if he’s using raw numbers then in his eyes our team must be full of #4-7 guys) . If you’re going to use advanced stats and go into so much detail you should at least know what you’re talking about.

Is this the same guy who wrote the article in 16-17 about how great a year Perry was having and then used his Corsi for all strengths including PP to justify it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Exit Dose
Oct 18, 2011
44,064
9,673
If you're going to write an article and use advanced stats to reach a conclusion you should have a better understanding of them. Lindholm is an elite 2 zone player(nuetral and dzone) who can also contribute some offense.

What the ducks don't have is that offensive powerhouse on defense which seems to bite us every year
 

ZzZz

Registered User
Dec 22, 2017
433
248
John Carlson is absolutely a #1 dman. Guy is going to get a truck full of cash this offseason

I mean if Fowler got 6.5, Carlson probably gets 8

Orlov and Niskanen get the tougher minutes usually, but Carlson is arguably the best offensive D in the game right now and should be getting at least 8 mill.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AngelDuck

AngelDuck

Rak 'em up
Jun 16, 2012
23,078
16,563
Orlov and Niskanen get the tougher minutes usually, but Carlson is arguably the best offensive D in the game right now and should be getting at least 8 mill.
Yeah, he put up 68 points this year

Tough minutes be damned, that's a guy who deserves a lot of money
 
  • Like
Reactions: Peaves

Trojans86

Registered User
Dec 30, 2015
3,075
2,004
Lol at Lindholm being a 3d. You gotta watch more hockey if you believe that or you need to figure out whats wrong with your analytics. Lindholm Manson was one of the top d pairings in the league last year.

Perfect example of analytics being very misleading when used as the primary source of analysis.
 

Kalv

Slava Ukraini
Mar 29, 2009
23,473
10,972
Latvia
Didn`t read the article. #3 seems too low for Hampus, but he is not a #1 as well. His offensive numbers have, simply put - stagnated, over the years.

He is a damn great defenseman nonetheless tho, I see him as a very capable #2. And I hope his offense will pick up but he has to work on it a lot
 

Masch78

Registered User
Oct 5, 2017
2,459
1,584
Was Scott Stevens in his later years a #1 defender? Hampus numbers would be much better when he would be on the 1st PP unit. Skillwise he can play there. But Randy preferes Cam.

To me Hampus is a top pairing D on every team in the league. I will not rate #1 or #2. He is not a superstar defenceman, but there are maybe 5 players I'd consider being it. And for my understanding, players like Klingberg, Krug or Gostisbehere are not more #1 than Hampus. They are more offensive, sure, but D is much more than points.
 

Kalv

Slava Ukraini
Mar 29, 2009
23,473
10,972
Latvia
Was Scott Stevens in his later years a #1 defender? Hampus numbers would be much better when he would be on the 1st PP unit. Skillwise he can play there. But Randy preferes Cam.

To me Hampus is a top pairing D on every team in the league. I will not rate #1 or #2. He is not a superstar defenceman, but there are maybe 5 players I'd consider being it. And for my understanding, players like Klingberg, Krug or Gostisbehere are not more #1 than Hampus. They are more offensive, sure, but D is much more than points.
Klingberg played 24 minutes a game, was +10 and scored 67 points, I think he can be regarded as #1.

For Krug and maybe also for ghost, I could agree, yes.
 

Duck Off

HF needs an App
Oct 25, 2002
20,909
5,287
Oklahoma
Know a lot of you don't like Anaheim Calling, but this is an interesting article.

Projecting Lindholm

I couldn't finish the article, because that's too focused on advanced stats for me. That said, calling him a #3 is kind of stupid IMO. He's clearly a #2 IMO.

Hampus primarily lacks consistency IMO. Fortunately where he's consistent his defensive positioning so most of the time he's one of our best two defenseman each night. However, to take that next step that we need him to, he needs to be better with the puck and we need more of that "I'm the guy" attitude on the ice. He'll show signs of that every now and then, but not nearly enough to be remotely considered a #1. Right now he reminds me of a slightly worse Vlasic. There's nothing wrong with that, but for us to have success, we need a clear #1. Right now we don't have anyone close to a #1, and that's a problem. Fortunately Lindholm is still young so maybe he could be that guy.
 

Magnus the Duck

Registered User
Nov 7, 2014
4,155
1,649
Sweden
Hampus primarily lacks consistency IMO. Fortunately where he's consistent his defensive positioning so most of the time he's one of our best two defenseman each night. However, to take that next step that we need him to, he needs to be better with the puck and we need more of that "I'm the guy" attitude on the ice. He'll show signs of that every now and then, but not nearly enough to be remotely considered a #1. Right now he reminds me of a slightly worse Vlasic. There's nothing wrong with that, but for us to have success, we need a clear #1. Right now we don't have anyone close to a #1, and that's a problem. Fortunately Lindholm is still young so maybe he could be that guy.

Lacks consistency? ROFL. Does IMO mean "in my imagination"?
 

Paul4587

Registered User
Jan 26, 2006
31,162
13,178
Didn`t read the article. #3 seems too low for Hampus, but he is not a #1 as well. His offensive numbers have, simply put - stagnated, over the years.

He is a damn great defenseman nonetheless tho, I see him as a very capable #2. And I hope his offense will pick up but he has to work on it a lot

I’m curious what your definition of number one is? Because I think you’ll struggle to find 20 guys league wide that are better than him. Defensively he’s elite and offensively he’s shown he’s capable enough and with a bit of work and opportunity should be able to take a step forward in that area.
I think he’s a low end no 1 guy.

I do wish we had an elite guy like Hedman or Doughty but unless we trade for Karlsson in the offseason Lindholm is as close as we will get.
 
Last edited:

Masch78

Registered User
Oct 5, 2017
2,459
1,584
It's not consistency that Hampus lacks, it's high end offensive skill.

Him and Fowler are both just pretty good offensively but not great

If Hampus would be great offensively he would not only be a #1 defender, he would be a generational talent. At least in my mind.
 
Oct 18, 2011
44,064
9,673
If Lindholm was a 50 point dman he'd be a Norris level player. Instead he's a level below which is still great and if we had a true go to offensive guy I think his strengths would be appreciated more instead of us wanting more from him offensively
 

Zegs2sendhelp

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Jul 25, 2012
39,066
33,534
If Lindholm was a 50 point dman he'd be a Norris level player. Instead he's a level below which is still great and if we had a true go to offensive guy I think his strengths would be appreciated more instead of us wanting more from him offensively
I think the system holds him back a bit... and the fact that he hasn't really gotten a lot of powerplay time throughout his career. Would be nice to see what hed do on a team like Toronto/Tampa etc.
 

Kalv

Slava Ukraini
Mar 29, 2009
23,473
10,972
Latvia
I think the system holds him back a bit... and the fact that he hasn't really gotten a lot of powerplay time throughout his career. Would be nice to see what hed do on a team like Toronto/Tampa etc.
He has had his opportunities with Fowler out often. He hasn`t delivered. Plain and simple
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->