Player Discussion Kevin Shattenkirk

[Machinehead]

Much like the rest of him

If he's on the top pairing come opening night, this D is doomed and it won't matter what defensive scheme is installed..

But we'll be ok with Skjei-Pionk!

 

[NYR]

But we'll be ok with Skjei-Pionk!

Edit:

I wouldn't have any problems with putting Skjei on the top pair but Pionk?
Not so much..

 

[Synergy27]

His meniscus is still bad at playing "real" defense.

I just wish you guys would at least be willing to concede the difference between offense and defense. Yes, hockey is a fluid game, but there really are still two sides of the puck.

The problem people have with this new approach to analyzing defenseman is that no matter what, they're eventually going to come up against elite puck possession forwards on the other side. Unless you have Karlsson, or some other defenseman that is actually better at keeping the puck and playing offense with it than (insert elite forward here), you need guys with the skill to take the puck back and/or minimize the damage the guy with the puck can do.

That's defense. Yes it's heavily system dependent. Yes there are guys that are better at it than others. Yes this will never go away, regardless of where the stats seem to be taking some of you guys.

 

[Machinehead]

I just wish you guys would at least be willing to concede the difference between offense and defense. Yes, hockey is a fluid game, but there really are still two sides of the puck.

The problem people have with this new approach to analyzing defenseman is that no matter what, they're eventually going to come up against elite puck possession forwards on the other side. Unless you have Karlsson, or some other defenseman that is actually better at keeping the puck and playing offense with it than (insert elite forward here), you need guys with the skill to take the puck back and/or minimize the damage the guy with the puck can do.

That's defense. Yes it's heavily system dependent. Yes there are guys that are better at it than others. Yes this will never go away, regardless of where the stats seem to be taking some of you guys.

I wish you guys were willing to concede that players who give up fewer shots and goals than their teammates are good at defense.

 

[Captain Lindy]

He said he would have been able to play the first round in the playoffs had we made it so i'd assume he's 100% now.

That’s good!! Thanks.

 

[Synergy27]

I wish you guys were willing to concede that players who give up fewer shots and goals than their teammates are good at defense.

This statement is just logically incorrect, and I'm not even sure it's what you meant.

If you have a team full of guys that give up tons of shots and goals, it doesn't logically follow that the guy that gives up the least is good at defense. He might be bad as well.

Are you actually trying to say that guys who give up fewer shots and goals than they create are good at defense? That's very different than what you said, but also not necessarily true.

I think these possession theories work out better the closer you get towards extremes. I mean, it's not uncommon to see soccer matches where one team had the ball for 70% of the game. Hockey is so close to 50/50 though that those skills without the puck aren't going to be marginalized like some people seem to want.

 

[Machinehead]

This statement is just logically incorrect, and I'm not even sure it's what you meant.

If you have a team full of guys that give up tons of shots and goals, it doesn't logically follow that the guy that gives up the least is good at defense. He might be bad as well.

Are you actually trying to say that guys who give up fewer shots and goals than they create are good at defense? That's very different than what you said, but also not necessarily true.

I think these possession theories work out better the closer you get towards extremes. I mean, it's not uncommon to see soccer matches where one team had the ball for 70% of the game. Hockey is so close to 50/50 though that those skills without the puck aren't going to be marginalized like some people seem to want.

So he's just been on a bunch of bad teams then? That's a solid argument.

 

[Synergy27]

So he's just been on a bunch of bad teams then? That's a solid argument.

Umm, no. I'm talking in generalities, not about Kevin Shattenkirk. I'm trying to establish a common ground for analysis.

 

[Machinehead]

Umm, no. I'm talking in generalities, not about Kevin Shattenkirk. I'm trying to establish a common ground for analysis.

No you're not, you're trying to argue with the analysis.

8 seasons in the NHL, he gives up fewer shots and goals than his teammates.

Explain to me what defense is if it isn't reflected in shots and goals against.

 

[Irishguy42]

No you're not, you're trying to argue with the analysis.

8 seasons in the NHL, he gives up fewer shots and goals than his teammates.

Explain to me what defense is if it isn't reflected in shots and goals against.

ATOI, duh

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

No you're not, you're trying to argue with the analysis.

8 seasons in the NHL, he gives up fewer shots and goals than his teammates.

Explain to me what defense is if it isn't reflected in shots and goals against.

The only thing I can think of is strength of opposition and zone starts.

 

[Synergy27]

The only thing I can think of is strength of opposition and zone starts.

Also, PP time, which is an extension of zone starts essentially because the idea is that you're playing in situations where it's more likely that you'll be shooting.

Defense is the ability to stop the opponent from scoring when they have possession of the puck. You do this by either taking the puck away from them or forcing them into a position where they will turn the puck over, either directly or via a low danger shot. (which is a turnover if you think about it) . Stopping the opponent from scoring by assuring they never have the puck is great, but it's not defense, and it's also an unrealistic goal in NHL hockey (which has nearly 50\50 possession splits because of the parity).

Yes, defense is hugely system dependent. We saw McDonagh look lost at times in AV's system. But when you dumb it all the way down and look at the simplest defensive case (1 on 1), I don't know how you can't see that Shattenkirk isn't good at it.

 

[Chimpradamus]

I wish you guys were willing to concede that players who give up fewer shots and goals than their teammates are good at defense.

With sheltered minutes? I expect it. But if he would be played in all situations and still allow fever shots? Then I would be really impressed. But that would make him a top 2 defenseman, wouldn't it? Which he currently hasn't been.

 

[gorangers0525]

Shattenkirk is no Lidstrom, but calling Pionk, or even Skjei, better defensively is one if the funniest things I’ve seen on hfboards. Pionk got anihhilated since he stepped on NHL ice to the day the season ended.

 

[True Blue]

But we'll be ok with Skjei-Pionk!

You always come back to this. Are you saying that the state of the defense is so bad that Shattenkirk is forced to play on the top pairing, that by default makes him a top defensive defenseman? What does the defensive abilities of others have to do with the way that Shattenkirk defends or does not defend?

I wish you guys were willing to concede that players who give up fewer shots and goals than their teammates are good at defense.

This is looking at the advanced stats with tunnel vision and blinders on. Which is what a lot of the advocates on this board tend to do when they attempt to use the metrics to push across a specific narrative. Shattenkirk is not put out for defensive draws. That will help pad his stats. That he is sheltered and kept away from the opposition's top offensive players will also greatly pad his stats.

So he's just been on a bunch of bad teams then? That's a solid argument.

No, but the way he is used on said teams has stayed exactly the same. Forget about AV's questionable personnel decisions. On no team that he has been on, has a coach wanted to use him when the opposition's top players are on the ice. On no team of his, has any coach wanted him out during defensive draws. This is all for very good reasons.

 

[True Blue]

Shattenkirk is no Lidstrom, but calling Pionk, or even Skjei, better defensively is one if the funniest things I’ve seen on hfboards. Pionk got anihhilated since he stepped on NHL ice to the day the season ended.

Really? You are seriously going to start to compare a defenseman who has been in the league for 10 years and logged over 500 games to a 22 year old rookie who has played the grand total of 28 games? This is a meaningful comparison?

And for the record, Skej is a MUCH better defender than Shattenkirk. Or so I believe.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

Pionk got annihilated since he stepped onto NHL ice? Has he taken a couple of big hits to make a play? Sure, but that's what good defenders do.

Good Lord, the anti-Pionk bias is amazing; he took the spot that people thought their favorite prospect "deserved" and they'll never forgive him for it.

 

[silverfish]

Pionk got annihilated since he stepped onto NHL ice? Has he taken a couple of big hits to make a play? Sure, but that's what good defenders do.

Good Lord, the anti-Pionk bias is amazing; he took the spot that people thought their favorite prospect "deserved" and they'll never forgive him for it.

I don't think he meant annihilated physically.

 

[Brooklyn Rangers Fan]

I don't think he meant annihilated physically.

Well, then, he's even more wrong. He was excellent, especially once he got his feet wet. As is further evidenced by his play at the IIHF tourney.

 

[silverfish]

Well, then, he's even more wrong. He was excellent, especially once he got his feet wet. As is further evidenced by his play at the IIHF tourney.

I mean yeah maybe he looked excellent, but his metrics were subpar.

Anyway, not an argument worth having, and this isn't the Pionk thread. And also I guess I should probably be working... but f*** that.

 

[nyr2k2]

I mean yeah maybe he looked excellent, but his metrics were subpar.

Anyway, not an argument worth having, and this isn't the Pionk thread. And also I guess I should probably be working... but **** that.

Question (seriously here because I don't know the answer): did anyone on defense have good metrics over, say, the final 30 games, when everything was going to shit? Like I know Pionk's weren't good, but whose were? I assume based on the way we played pretty much everyone was shit, just focusing on something like Corsi of xGF% or something relatively simple. Was Pionk noticeably worse in that respect?

 

[silverfish]

Question (seriously here because I don't know the answer): did anyone on defense have good metrics over, say, the final 30 games, when everything was going to ****? Like I know Pionk's weren't good, but whose were? I assume based on the way we played pretty much everyone was ****, just focusing on something like Corsi of xGF% or something relatively simple. Was Pionk noticeably worse in that respect?

With no analysis or opinion placed onto this because I don't think anyone wants to fight about Neal Pionk today.

But where Neal Pionk really struggled was his relCF60 metric. This metric, in English, is the difference in the Rangers shot attempts for per 60 with Pionk on the ice vs with Pionk off the ice. And keep in mind this is relative to team, so we can cancel out some of the noise regarding AV hockey and how bad the team performed in raw shot attempt percentage. Pionk's number on this metric is -11.93. Meaning with Pionk on the ice, the Rangers took nearly 12 less shot attempts per 60 than with Pionk off the ice. This is bad. Among d-men with at least 20gp this year, Pionk was 6th worst in this metric [corsica.hockey].

Now. No one is guaranteeing that Pionk is going to be an offense killer his entire career. Most people are pretty well in agreement that a lot of this probably has to do with usage. That when he stops being a 1RD and is a 3RD, this number should settle itself. The argument really is, well, how much? I don't think anyone has a good answer for that.

I think Pionk is a pretty fascinating case. He did look good a lot of the time. There were definitely also times where he didn't look good, though. However, in one of the truly more shit seasons this organization has seen in 14 years, I mean, arguing about Pionk seems dumb.

 

[lilphildub]

I wish you guys were willing to concede that players who give up fewer shots and goals than their teammates are good at defense.

Well considering shattenkirk finished the last 3 years in the minus side of goals.. we’re halfway there!

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

Well considering shattenkirk finished the last 3 years in the minus side of goals.. we’re halfway there!

Ovechkin finished a season -35 while scoring 50 goals. Plus-minus is BS

 

[silverfish]

Sometimes I think to myself that people aren't shrugging off advanced stats as much as they used to. Then I see someone claim that Shattenkirk is bad at defense because of his +/-.

Keep in mind that Brady Skjei had the 6th worst +/- for d-men this year. Guess he sucks at defense.