I think to some it is. I remember when he was touted as a top pairing defenseman who can play against the opposition' stop players. In fact, I recall that someone even labeled him a great shot suppressor. Whatever that means.
It means exactly what it says... When he is on the ice, his teams give up less shot attempts against and less expected goals against.
And yet he is awful defensively. Not really seeing the logic here. When he was on the ice, there were many odd man rushes that were given up. Not really sure what he is suppressing.
He is. And it's pretty self-explanatory, or at least a quick Google search away. When he's on the ice, the teams he has played for allowed fewer shots and fewer expected goals against than they did when their other defenders were on the ice.
He started the season with a torn meniscus and played through it. Maybe that affected his game? I don't know...seems possible...
I mean, there's really no logic to it.
A real defensive defenseman would have ripped out his meniscus and eaten it in front of the other team to assert his dominance.
So then why is it necessary for his minutes to be sheltered if his being on the ice limits the opponents offensive game so much?
Was it also torn in St. Louis where he was hidden from the opposition's top offensive players? I don't know...something seems wrong.
Then why has no coach he has been with, trusted him in the final minutes of a one goal game that his team was trying to win? Would you not want your "shot suppressors" on the ice at that time?
I mean I'd much rather have Shattenkirk out there than Staal and Holden but the coach clearly disagrees so f*** me, right?
Could be any number of reasons - mostly likely because him being a good shot suppressor doesn't mean that a team can't have someone who is ever better than him at it who they'd prefer to have out there. He was on STL for most of his career - they had pretty great d-depth for most of the time there, wouldn't be surprised if they had 2 guys ever better at it than he is.
I understand. But AV's poor decision making aside, he was not so trusted back in St. Louis either.
I guess that is the rosy glasses view of him. I believe it was not because every coach suffers from AV's poor decision making ways. But rather that they did not think much of his ability to play competent defense.
Those are two entirely possible answers to the question you asked. The fact is we can't know unless we can get in touch with past coaches and ask them, which isn't going to happen.
Pietrangelo and Parayko are likely better options than him. I don't think that makes Shattenkirk 'untrusted', I think he was just in a situation where his team was absolutely stacked at RD, hence why he was ever available in the first place.
If you ascribe all of his defensive troubles to injury, then sure. If however, he is just a poor defensive player, then that is an problem. To go along with other problems.
