With primary points there are something I'm curious about. Since you've already been doing the footwork on the stats, I'll just pose it because I'm not entirely sure how to pull the info for it. How much of the primary points numbers are purely a reflection on his lower goal total? When we talk about his fewer primary points are we really just finding multiple ways of punishing him for scoring fewer goals?
Hronek's not a guy who is going to skate the puck up ice and lead rushes. He's going to, as you say, take that play in front of him, and just move it up. How much of Lidstrom's game was taking what was in front of him and making the simple, smart, effective play every single time? Rafalski did it. Murphy did it. Chelios did it. Stuart did it. It's not a bad way of playing the game. Taking the plays that are in front of him is the key to the success of a lot of defensemen in the NHL. I wouldn't chalk that up as a negative.
No it's not a negative by any means. I think his willingness to take the play in front of him is a trait that makes him more valuable than he would otherwise be, mainly because he doesn't have a dynamic ability to bite off even more. As for the primary point discussion, it's hard to isolate a lot of variables, but we can look at it broken out like this I suppose (in totals, rounding errors present). I think the thing that we still don't know is how many primary assists he logged last year off of rebounds that his shot created.
2018-19: 23 points - 21.7% goals, 34.8% A1, 43.5% A2
2019-20: 31 points - 29.0% goals, 32.3% A1, 38.7% A2
2020-21: 22 points - 9.1% goals, 18.2% A1, 72.7% A2
Now certainly, the role on the powerplay is significant here. He produced 10.4 individual shots per 60 minutes of powerplay time last year compared to 7.4 this year, meaning he is shooting less, and we know by watching him that he's not shooting from the same spot on the ice. His shots are likely not even intended to be goal scoring threats by themselves, and rather trying to use screens and deflections to create chances, which is fine.
I feel like I have to keep repeating this, not because of this response, but because the reaction is always so aggressive. My intent is not to say that Hronek is a bad player, but he is a first pairing defenseman
only if you look at him through a statistical production microscope. The way he has come around his offense is appreciable, but he is not dynamic enough to be in the the upper echelon of true offensive defensemen. And defensively, he looks the same as he did last year. I do not want him to see the ice on the PK; I think he still is taken advantage of physically in his end; he still gets lost in his own zone; he makes questionable reads defending in transition.
These are things that I think he will still get better at, but the lack of polish prevents me from comfortably saying he is a first pairing defenseman because I don't think he will ever be good at them (just not bad), and yet I still think he is a good player. Just one who is better suited to not be asked to do as much as he does, even if that means his numbers regress slightly, because we have a player set to arrive next year who I think is even better at taking the play that is in front of him and who also excels at the things that happen in the other end of the ice. Hronek as the second best RD on your team is a legitimate weapon, and I am excited to get him into that role.