Confirmed with Link: COL trades Barrie(50% retained)/Kerfoot/2020 6th to TOR for Kadri/Rosen/2020 3rd Part 2

[Pokecheque]

I'm a little confused by your arguments.

You are comparing a balanced line in Boston with Pastrnak (a winger) to the importance of a defenseman? Yes, pairings matter, but when you play DEFENSE, you are relied on to play DEFENSE. There is a reason defensemen are more highly valued than wingers. If Boston calls Carolina and offers Pastrnak for Slavin, do you think Carolina takes that?

As for Barrie's partners, Holden is still playing a viable role with Vegas and Nemeth is in Detroit. Barrie's play has Barrie'd his partners time and again, and to think that Graves would not have fallen subject to that is laughable.

You argue Barrie is a dynamic puck moving defenseman, but he is bad at outlet passes. Wouldn't passing to other offensive players to create scoring chances be considered dynamic. However, if you suck at passing and can only create offense by rushing the puck, wouldn't that make you one dimensional or not dynamic?

Again, I do not care about anything in Toronto. Toronto made a bad trade, not because Barrie is awful, but because he was not the correct fit for that team. This is the drum I have been banging for years when it comes to paying a player like Barrie. He has to be put in the right system to succeed and it is a very specific system. Otherwise, you are going to get caught with more of a liability than a commodity.

You and I will never agree on any of this though. Fact is, you think that offense is the best defense, and I believe that true defense wins championships. I think that Colorado is having more success this year because the defensive side of their game has vastly improved and that has benefited the offense greatly. Agree to disagree.

Does Boston take that deal? Probably not. Pastrnak, despite his one-dimensional game, is a near-elite if not elite scorer. Plus he's locked in for a reasonable sum until 2023. Carolina might think about that too as Svech and Aho setting up Pastrnak might be fun to watch, but I don't think they part with their best all-around defenseman. And Slavin ain't just some stay-at-home guy. He has a very well-rounded game.

I know what a defenseman is. Shouting DEFENSE makes me think you're still in the 90s where positions and roles were insanely rigid. There is much, much more fluidity in the game than there used to be. And yes, a good, aggressive offense is the best defense. If you think sitting back and blocking shots and relying on goaltending is the way to go, please see how that's working out for the very defensive-minded team the Avs are currently playing.

Holden is a third pairing fringe defender whose defense is uproariously bad. Vegas is elite defensively though, so they can roll him out without consequence. The Avs used him in a top-four role and he got exposed CONSTANTLY. I don't mean to constantly slag the guy as I think he's a good guy, but he was an NHL journeyman for most of his career for a reason. Nemeth played a solid role...on the worst team in the NHL by a country mile. Not entirely his fault of course, but your argument there doesn't really hold up. Barrie never had great defensive partners in Colorado. I'd argue Nemeth was probably the best (definitely in year two when he finally stopped turning into an icing call factory). To say otherwise would be a lie. So I don't think Graves would look as good as he's looked alongside Makar, but it ain't like Barrie didn't have the tall task of making a mediocre or bad defensive partner look a whole lot better.

The only thing I'm taking exception to in your arguments is that you're greatly oversimplifying some things. The Avs did not magically become the 7th-best defensive team in hockey because they got rid of Tyson Barrie. That helped, yes, but they made some key additions up front defensively and addressed scoring depth issues. Now they spend a whole lot more time in the attacking zone when before, even just a year ago, they had a lot of one-and-done possessions. Keeping it in the other guy's end of the ice is by far the best form of defense, because the opposition can't do anything with it if they don't have the puck. It's better than just traditional defense, which the Avs are also much better at than they used to be. They can get the puck away from opposing players and move it out of the zone better than nearly every other team in the NHL. That's effective defense.

Yeah...defense wins championships. We agree on that at least. I'm grateful the Avs employ a form of defense that isn't a crime against hockey, unlike the Flyers, Coyotes, and to a certain extent, the Blue Jackets.

FTR I'm not sitting here saying the Leafs failed 100% because of Babcock and shaky goaltending. Those were two huge factors, but truth be told, the Leafs were doomed from the get-go. The "Shanaplan" tried to bridge the gap between old school and new school but the men involved wanted no part of that. Dubas is by no means free of blame, but he's but one factor of many.

 

[xbestboybandever]

Does Boston take that deal? Probably not. Pastrnak, despite his one-dimensional game, is a near-elite if not elite scorer. Plus he's locked in for a reasonable sum until 2023. Carolina might think about that too as Svech and Aho setting up Pastrnak might be fun to watch, but I don't think they part with their best all-around defenseman. And Slavin ain't just some stay-at-home guy. He has a very well-rounded game.

I know what a defenseman is. Shouting DEFENSE makes me think you're still in the 90s where positions and roles were insanely rigid. There is much, much more fluidity in the game than there used to be. And yes, a good, aggressive offense is the best defense. If you think sitting back and blocking shots and relying on goaltending is the way to go, please see how that's working out for the very defensive-minded team the Avs are currently playing.

Holden is a third pairing fringe defender whose defense is uproariously bad. Vegas is elite defensively though, so they can roll him out without consequence. The Avs used him in a top-four role and he got exposed CONSTANTLY. I don't mean to constantly slag the guy as I think he's a good guy, but he was an NHL journeyman for most of his career for a reason. Nemeth played a solid role...on the worst team in the NHL by a country mile. Not entirely his fault of course, but your argument there doesn't really hold up. Barrie never had great defensive partners in Colorado. I'd argue Nemeth was probably the best (definitely in year two when he finally stopped turning into an icing call factory). To say otherwise would be a lie. So I don't think Graves would look as good as he's looked alongside Makar, but it ain't like Barrie didn't have the tall task of making a mediocre or bad defensive partner look a whole lot better.

The only thing I'm taking exception to in your arguments is that you're greatly oversimplifying some things. The Avs did not magically become the 7th-best defensive team in hockey because they got rid of Tyson Barrie. That helped, yes, but they made some key additions up front defensively and addressed scoring depth issues. Now they spend a whole lot more time in the attacking zone when before, even just a year ago, they had a lot of one-and-done possessions. Keeping it in the other guy's end of the ice is by far the best form of defense, because the opposition can't do anything with it if they don't have the puck. It's better than just traditional defense, which the Avs are also much better at than they used to be. They can get the puck away from opposing players and move it out of the zone better than nearly every other team in the NHL. That's effective defense.

Yeah...defense wins championships. We agree on that at least. I'm grateful the Avs employ a form of defense that isn't a crime against hockey, unlike the Flyers, Coyotes, and to a certain extent, the Blue Jackets.

FTR I'm not sitting here saying the Leafs failed 100% because of Babcock and shaky goaltending. Those were two huge factors, but truth be told, the Leafs were doomed from the get-go. The "Shanaplan" tried to bridge the gap between old school and new school but the men involved wanted no part of that. Dubas is by no means free of blame, but he's but one factor of many.

I can't shout through a keyboard... I used caps emphasize defense. You have missed the point on a lot of this and I am leaving it at agree to disagree. Your views on hockey and Tyson Barrie are not the same as mine, and there is no amount of going back and forth that is going to change that. I don't agree with your views on really anything in this, and you don't mine, not a big deal.

 

[Pokecheque]

I can't shout through a keyboard... I used caps emphasize defense. You have missed the point on a lot of this and I am leaving it at agree to disagree. Your views on hockey and Tyson Barrie are not the same as mine, and there is no amount of going back and forth that is going to change that. I don't agree with your views on really anything in this, and you don't mine, not a big deal.

You still haven't answered my question though. If a very good offense is not a good form of defense, then what is?

 

[xbestboybandever]

You still haven't answered my question though. If a very good offense is not a good form of defense, then what is?

... a good offense?

 

[Pokecheque]

... a good offense?

Not following you, but that's fine. I don't wish to stretch this out into a multi-page debate like I usually do. I don't think we disagree as much as you think we do though. I like defense quite a bit. I was a defenseman, and my own personal game as a player, if it were NHL level, would be as boring and milquetoast as it gets.

I think Barrie still has solid value as a player. At this point he's more of a complementary piece than a core player, but he has fantastic value to a team on the cusp or already in contender status. The Leafs simply didn't have the pieces (or originally, the coach) to make him work properly and took too long to realize that.

 

[xbestboybandever]

Not following you, but that's fine. I don't wish to stretch this out into a multi-page debate like I usually do. I don't think we disagree as much as you think we do though. I like defense quite a bit. I was a defenseman, and my own personal game as a player, if it were NHL level, would be as boring and milquetoast as it gets.

I think Barrie still has solid value as a player. At this point he's more of a complementary piece than a core player, but he has fantastic value to a team on the cusp or already in contender status. The Leafs simply didn't have the pieces (or originally, the coach) to make him work properly and took too long to realize that.

What don't you follow? You asked me if a very good offense isn't defense, then what is it? It is that, a very good offense.

Like if an apple is a very good apple, does that make it an orange?

 

[Pokecheque]

What don't you follow? You asked me if a very good offense isn't defense, then what is it? It is that, a very good offense.

Like if an apple is a very good apple, does that make it an orange?

Gotcha. I guess if I can't explain to you that a good offense, one that keeps the puck away from the other team, does not constitute a great form of defense, then we're at an impasse.

But I'll try one last time: If you follow football, then you know a good defensive team must also have an offense that at the very least holds onto the ball and stays on the field. It's not terribly different in hockey. Teams like the Dallas Stars do more along the lines of what you're talking about, but I wonder if that's sustainable. Only time will tell.

 

[xbestboybandever]

Gotcha. I guess if I can't explain to you that a good offense, one that keeps the puck away from the other team, does not constitute a great form of defense, then we're at an impasse.

But I'll try one last time: If you follow football, then you know a good defensive team must also have an offense that at the very least holds onto the ball and stays on the field. It's not terribly different in hockey. Teams like the Dallas Stars do more along the lines of what you're talking about, but I wonder if that's sustainable. Only time will tell.

We are at an impasse. I understand what your argument is. I don't need you to try and dissect it. I just believe that the two are different and that they can each compliment each other. It's not all one or the other. You need players to play D, the exact same way you need players to play O. Your thought is just that the O side can dictate the D side, which I think is over simplifying what defense in hockey is. To your points, you have argued the importance of adding PEB, Nichuskin, Nieto, Kadri and Calvert, all of which have a very high defensive acumen. You say adding that these players gave the team depth, yet you feel that possession of the puck is the best defense. The game is 60 minutes (minus OT) and there is no team that is going to play keep away from NHL players for a majority of the game. You are on the side of more offense, and I am on the side of more balance. That is the impasse.

A good offense is a good offense.
A good defense is a good defense.
A good PP is a good PP.
A good PK is a good PK.
A good goalie is a good goalie.

It takes facets of all of these to win games. Tyson Barrie is a one dimensional player that helps at most 2 of those, but is a liability to at least 3.

 

[MaKarter]

 

[The Abusement Park]

We are at an impasse. I understand what your argument is. I don't need you to try and dissect it. I just believe that the two are different and that they can each compliment each other. It's not all one or the other. You need players to play D, the exact same way you need players to play O. Your thought is just that the O side can dictate the D side, which I think is over simplifying what defense in hockey is. To your points, you have argued the importance of adding PEB, Nichuskin, Nieto, Kadri and Calvert, all of which have a very high defensive acumen. You say adding that these players gave the team depth, yet you feel that possession of the puck is the best defense. The game is 60 minutes (minus OT) and there is no team that is going to play keep away from NHL players for a majority of the game. You are on the side of more offense, and I am on the side of more balance. That is the impasse.

A good offense is a good offense.
A good defense is a good defense.
A good PP is a good PP.
A good PK is a good PK.
A good goalie is a good goalie.

It takes facets of all of these to win games. Tyson Barrie is a one dimensional player that helps at most 2 of those, but is a liability to at least 3.

Well the more you have the puck the less likely you are to get scored upon. So in that sense offense is very much a form of defense.

Also every position affects one another. Doesn’t matter how good you’re goalie is if you give up grade chance after grade a chance. Just like you need a defense that can get the puck to your forwards.

 

[GirardSpinorama]

You guys both make good points. But I lean more towards not having Barrie on our team. At a certain point adding another offensively inclined D man who is a liability defensively is a diminished return.

You can't shelter a dman easily especially in the playoffs. It's a game of inches and also a game of situations. I can't think of a high leverage situation where if we were healthy we need Barrie versus Makar and Girard. I can think of opposing coaches focusing on Barrie and utilizing him as a weakness in our defense.

 

[xbestboybandever]

Well the more you have the puck the less likely you are to get scored upon. So in that sense offense is very much a form of defense.

Also every position affects one another. Doesn’t matter how good you’re goalie is if you give up grade chance after grade a chance. Just like you need a defense that can get the puck to your forwards.

Or like how back checking forwards help the D? And how you have specialized players to do that so your top players don’t burn out doing that?

 

[McMetal]

Gotcha. I guess if I can't explain to you that a good offense, one that keeps the puck away from the other team, does not constitute a great form of defense, then we're at an impasse.

But I'll try one last time: If you follow football, then you know a good defensive team must also have an offense that at the very least holds onto the ball and stays on the field. It's not terribly different in hockey. Teams like the Dallas Stars do more along the lines of what you're talking about, but I wonder if that's sustainable. Only time will tell.

You definitely have a point, but in the NHL, you're never going to have the puck on your stick for 60 minutes. Sometimes, the other team is going to push back, and when that happens, the way your defenseman play without the puck matters a great deal. Controlling the play for most of the game doesn't do much good if every time the other team gets the puck you botch your coverage or play a bad gap and it ends up in a grade A scoring chance.

Toronto this year is definitely an example of how you can go too far in that direction. You need both, really, you can't win with a team of all Barries any more than you can win with a team of all Coles.

 

[The Abusement Park]

Or like how back checking forwards help the D? And how you have specialized players to do that so your top players don’t burn out doing that?

Correct that is also very important for defense. I don’t think anyone is saying that’s not important. The biggest reason our defense has improved because the buy in from the forwards has heavily lightened the load on the backend.
But don’t you think having the puck more than your opponent would also significantly decrease the likelihood of getting scored on?

 

[xbestboybandever]

Correct that is also very important for defense. I don’t think anyone is saying that’s not important. The biggest reason our defense has improved because the buy in from the forwards has heavily lightened the load on the backend.
But don’t you think having the puck more than your opponent would also significantly decrease the likelihood of getting scored on?

Yes, of course. The counter point to all of this is that what if a team gets 6 shots, but all of them are break aways? I don't feel like debating sports theory with you two. Yes, having the puck more than your opponent is a good form of defense by offense, but that is not the way sports work. You need both and you need balance. You can look at all of sports history and teams that have both are typically champions.

90's Bulls.
80's Pistons.
The Kings during their playoff runs and cup wins.
The Hawks.
The Patriots over the Colts.

And those are just off the top of my head.

If offense is the best form of defense, why do teams not play 5 forwards all the time?

 

[Emell]

Good defense and good offense are played by all the players on the ice.

To win you need to play a 200 ft game as a team.

If you approach things having already segmented the game into “offense” and “defense”, then you’ve failed the first step.

Offensive zone time bleeds over into defensive zone time bleeds over into... until the distinction doesn’t matter nearly as much as how your 200ft system works and is executed

If anything, the Avs are a prime modern example of success born from this

 

[The Abusement Park]

Yes, of course. The counter point to all of this is that what if a team gets 6 shots, but all of them are break aways? I don't feel like debating sports theory with you two. Yes, having the puck more than your opponent is a good form of defense by offense, but that is not the way sports work. You need both and you need balance. You can look at all of sports history and teams that have both are typically champions.

90's Bulls.
80's Pistons.
The Kings during their playoff runs and cup wins.
The Hawks.
The Patriots over the Colts.

And those are just off the top of my head.

If offense is the best form of defense, why do teams not play 5 forwards all the time?

For the same reason that a team doesn’t play 5 defenseman at the same time. Neither Poke or I are saying I have to go balls to the wall offense to have an effective defense. We’re also saying a balance is needed, but that a well built offense can also act in a way as defense.

 

[GirardSpinorama]

Correct that is also very important for defense. I don’t think anyone is saying that’s not important. The biggest reason our defense has improved because the buy in from the forwards has heavily lightened the load on the backend.
But don’t you think having the puck more than your opponent would also significantly decrease the likelihood of getting scored on?

Not always. Hockey isn't basketball. In a hockey game you can win with 10% of the possession as long as you crush it during that 10%. In basketball; it's mathematically improbably to do that.

A marginal increase in possession does not help as much in hockey (compared to other sports) and we haven't been able to quantify the value of defensive dmen well in hockey just yet.

 

[The Abusement Park]

Not always. Hockey isn't basketball. In a hockey game you can win with 10% of the possession as long as you crush it during that 10%. In basketball; it's mathematically improbably to do that.

A marginal increase in possession does not help as much in hockey (compared to other sports) and we haven't been able to quantify the value of defensive dmen well in hockey just yet.

That’s why I said decrease the likelihood of getting scored on. Of course you could win with 10% puck possession but do you really think any team who has the puck that little will be a good team?

 

[henchman21]

Not always. Hockey isn't basketball. In a hockey game you can win with 10% of the possession as long as you crush it during that 10%. In basketball; it's mathematically improbably to do that.

A marginal increase in possession does not help as much in hockey (compared to other sports) and we haven't been able to quantify the value of defensive dmen well in hockey just yet.

There are a few teams that are really close internally with that data.

 

[GirardSpinorama]

That’s why I said decrease the likelihood of getting scored on. Of course you could win with 10% puck possession but do you really think any team who has the puck that little will be a good team?

Only if all factors are held EQUAL would a marginal increase in possession decrease the likelyhood of getting scored on. But if you add a tyson barrie, increase your possession by 5% but increase the number of times he gives the puck away/gets owned in front of the net/boards; are you really adding value?

The 10% is a very bad example obviously, thats my bad. But in reality the differences are 45v55% or somethign close. And IMO the marginal increase is not necessarily going to decrease the likelihood of getting scored on. We need a lot of other data to support it.

 

[GirardSpinorama]

There are a few teams that are really close internally with that data.

Yup. I wonder if the Avs have done that. Did we get Ian Cole due to quants or just traditional scouting. It'd be iteresting to know.

 

[Pokecheque]

Yes, of course. The counter point to all of this is that what if a team gets 6 shots, but all of them are break aways? I don't feel like debating sports theory with you two. Yes, having the puck more than your opponent is a good form of defense by offense, but that is not the way sports work. You need both and you need balance. You can look at all of sports history and teams that have both are typically champions.

90's Bulls.
80's Pistons.
The Kings during their playoff runs and cup wins.
The Hawks.
The Patriots over the Colts.

And those are just off the top of my head.

If offense is the best form of defense, why do teams not play 5 forwards all the time?

A reminder from Darryl Sutter: Don't mistake puck dominance for defense

"The big thing in today’s game is you have to be able forecheck and backcheck, and you have to have the puck," Sutter said over the weekend (h/t Ryan Lambert). "You can’t give the puck up. We don’t play in our zone, so there’s not much defending."

"The game’s changed. They think there’s defending in today’s game. Nah, it’s how much you have the puck. Teams that play around in their own zone (say) they’re defending but they’re generally getting scored on or taking face-offs and they need a goalie to stand on his head if that’s the way they play,” said Sutter.

 

[Pokecheque]

And that was back in 2014.

 

[The Abusement Park]

Only if all factors are held EQUAL would a marginal increase in possession decrease the likelyhood of getting scored on. But if you add a tyson barrie, increase your possession by 5% but increase the number of times he gives the puck away/gets owned in front of the net/boards; are you really adding value?

The 10% is a very bad example obviously, thats my bad. But in reality the differences are 45v55% or somethign close. And IMO the marginal increase is not necessarily going to decrease the likelihood of getting scored on. We need a lot of other data to support it.

I think you guys are thinking I believe puck possession should replace defense? Because I’m saying it should be used as a tool that in a sense helps in a defensive manner.