Dreger: "Shattenkirk is a 2nd pairing dman, 3rd pairing on some teams"

[aufheben]

I disagree quite strongly, and think it's the most significant factor left out of most analytics. Not only TOIqoc but individual TOI as well.

It explains almost every huge outlier in Scouts-vs-Analytics player debates - i.e. Weber, Bouwmeester on one end of guys coaches like but analytics do not, or Gardiner, Schultz on the other end that coaches don't love but analystics do. It almost comes down to tough usage depressing possession numbers and easy usage inflating them.

For one thing, only 40-50% shifts (I forget which) are face-off starts. 50% of face-off starts the coach doesn't have the last change. QoC by ice-time measures who the coach plays the most. Quality of teammates is more important IMO.

 

[zeke]

For one thing, only 40-50% shifts (I forget which) are face-off starts. 50% of face-off starts the coach doesn't have the last change.

Doesn't really matter.

For example, Last night's leafs road game against the Isles:

Rielly

Vs Line 1: Bailey 11:52 - Tavares 13:25 - Lee 10:15
Vs Line 2: Strome 2:07 - Nelson 1:55 - Beauvelier 3:31
Vs Line 3: Kulemin 3:37 - Cizikas 3:36 - Prince 3:46
Vs Line 4: Ladd 3:19 - Quine 1:39 - Chimera 2:16

Gardiner

Vs Line 1: Bailey 3:22 - Tavares 2:51 - Lee 2:37
Vs Line 2: Strome 5:22 - Nelson 5:10 - Beauvelier 5:57
Vs Line 3: Kulemin 6:16 - Cizikas 7:37 - Prince 5:52
Vs Line 4: Ladd 5:07 - Quine 4:37 - Chimera 5:49

And there's a similar usage discrepancy on STL between Pietrangelo and Shattenkirk

 

[aufheben]

Doesn't really matter.

For example, Last night's leafs road game against the Isles:

Rielly

Vs Line 1: Bailey 11:52 - Tavares 13:25 - Lee 10:15
Vs Line 2: Strome 2:07 - Nelson 1:55 - Beauvelier 3:31
Vs Line 3: Kulemin 3:37 - Cizikas 3:36 - Prince 3:46
Vs Line 4: Ladd 3:19 - Quine 1:39 - Chimera 2:16

Gardiner

Vs Line 1: Bailey 3:22 - Tavares 2:51 - Lee 2:37
Vs Line 2: Strome 5:22 - Nelson 5:10 - Beauvelier 5:57
Vs Line 3: Kulemin 6:16 - Cizikas 7:37 - Prince 5:52
Vs Line 4: Ladd 5:07 - Quine 4:37 - Chimera 5:49

And there's a similar usage discrepancy on STL between Pietrangelo and Shattenkirk

It doesn't matter because of one game?

Ryan McDonagh is the Rangers #1 defenseman. He is used against the other team's best lines when possible. He ends up playing against all sorts of players. What doesn't change is Dan Girardi is always right next to him.

Shattenkirk has played 750:00+ 5-on-5 this year. 103 other defensemen have as well.

The highest OppCF% is 50.9%, the lowest OppCF% is 49.0%.
The highest TMCF% is 57.4%, the lowest OppCF% is 45.3%.

Shattenkirk has had a massive positive impact on the Blues over his career, and that's ignoring the fact that the guy averages 50 points per 82 games.

Shattenkirk doesn't play much against opposing top lines since he happens to be on a team that has two RHD that are better than him. Obviously the Blues are going to play Pietrangelo/Parayko over Shattenkirk in tougher matchups. If Shattenkirk was on a team with minimal defensive depth and he didn't play against opposing top lines, then yeah you're point makes sense.

This is another reason I don't like looking at competition quality by ice-time.

 

[Flair Hay]

I like what zeke is getting at a bit here...

 

[zeke]

It doesn't matter because of one game?

Ryan McDonagh is the Rangers #1 defenseman. He is used against the other team's best lines when possible. He ends up playing against all sorts of players. What doesn't change is Dan Girardi is always right next to him.

Shattenkirk has played 750:00+ 5-on-5 this year. 103 other defensemen have as well.

The highest OppCF% is 50.9%, the lowest OppCF% is 49.0%.
The highest TMCF% is 57.4%, the lowest OppCF% is 45.3%.

But it's not one game, it's every game.

I don't like using Opponents' advanced stats to judge quality of opposition, because imo it completely neutralizes the exact problem I'm talking about - an opponent will look like a tougher matchup because he has inflated stats thanks to easier matchups.

So when Shattenkirk and Gardiner go head to head, it inflates both of their CFqoc because both have good CF% - yet they're both doing it in easy usage, so we actually completely miss what we're trying to find. It literally makes soft usage look like hard usage.

This is a fundamental flaw imo in all current analyses which dismiss qualcomp as a factor - they end up completely missing the relevant factor by neutralizing the flaw in one player's stats by adjusting it based on the same flaw in their opponent's stats.

This is why imo we have to look at actual time on ice, both of the player and the opponent - even though I know this is actually an indirect factor, which makes analysts ignore it.

 

[aufheben]

But it's not one game, it's every game.

I don't like using Opponents' advanced stats to judge quality of opposition, because imo it completely neutralizes the exact problem I'm talking about - an opponent will look like a tougher matchup because he has inflated stats thanks to easier matchups.

So when Shattenkirk and Gardiner go head to head, it inflates both of their CFqoc because both have good CF% - yet they're both doing it in easy usage, so we actually completely miss what we're trying to find. It literally makes soft usage look like hard usage.

This is a fundamental flaw imo in all current analyses which dismiss qualcomp as a factor - they end up completely missing the relevant factor by neutralizing the flaw in one player's stats by adjusting it based on the same flaw in their opponent's stats.

This is why imo we have to look at actual time on ice, both of the player and the opponent - even though I know this is actually an indirect factor, which makes analysts ignore it.

I'm not dismissing it, I'm saying quality of teammates matters more, something people conveniently leave out when _______ has "sheltered usage".

 

[zeke]

I'm not dismissing it, I'm saying quality of teammates matters more, something people conveniently leave out when _______ has "sheltered usage".

I agree that it matters but not sure I agree it matters more. Or at least I think we can see the difference in the Relative stats.

 

[bleedblue1223]

For one thing, only 40-50% shifts (I forget which) are face-off starts. 50% of face-off starts the coach doesn't have the last change. QoC by ice-time measures who the coach plays the most. Quality of teammates is more important IMO.

Do you believe that coaches do not have to ability to actually play matchups throughout a game? Do you believe so much in on-the-fly starts that you believe that coach has no input on who goes on the ice for those changes and they just go in order of lines and pairings?

 

[aufheben]

Do you believe that coaches do not have to ability to actually play matchups throughout a game? Do you believe so much in on-the-fly starts that you believe that coach has no input on who goes on the ice for those changes and they just go in order of lines and pairings?

No, I think there are a lot of flaws in what zeke is saying: he's a bottom-pairing defenseman because of his usage, (with Oberyn pointing out the fact that Parakyo and Pietrangelo exist).

I disagree completely. He is good on defense, above average even. People act like he is this huge defensive liability.It's simply not true. He's not great at defense but he is absolutely above average.

I would not put him behind Parayko in any form whatsoever either. Hes second only to Petro on the team. I would take him over anyone else. Parayko has tons of potential but he is not better than Shattenkirk right now.

I will agree if he saw constant minutes vs top lines he wouldn't be has highly regarded but he fills in and does get shifts vs other teams top lines here and there and he doesn't look completely lost while doing it.

You put him on a Canadian team and we would start seeing 'Shattenkirk vs, Karlsson' threads. Guarantee it.

Why do you think this is? People said the same thing when the Rangers traded for Yandle. He wasn't amazing defensively, he wasn't anywhere near as bad as people said. At the end of the day his overall impact on the Rangers was very positive.

 

[bleedblue1223]

No, I think there are a lot of flaws in what zeke is saying: he's a bottom-pairing defenseman because of his usage, (with Oberyn pointing out the fact that Parakyo and Pietrangelo exist).

Zeke hasn't said anything of the sort. He's said during 5v5, he's a top 4, but he's near the lower-end of that. I believe he's somewhere in between.

Zeke is saying that he's only proven that so far, the other part of the equation is that he can only perform in the situation that he's put in. Comparing to other players in similar situations, he's perform so great that you can reasonably project the same performance in a bigger role IMO.

So while he probably can perform well in a bigger role, he likely won't perform as well as many think in a bigger role. In the end, it's somewhere in-between, but what Zeke is saying is actually backed up by the numbers and not making assumptions or misinterpreting the advanced stats like others do. Shattenkirk should be your #3, 2nd pairing duty with a tone of PP time.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Why do you think this is? People said the same thing when the Rangers traded for Yandle. He wasn't amazing defensively, he wasn't anywhere near as bad as people said. At the end of the day his overall impact on the Rangers was very positive.

People over-emphasize the mistakes of primarily offensive-defensemen. If put in the right situations, they very much have a net positive influence. All great defensive cores need to have 2-way guys, offensive guys, and defensive guys.

Give me the best possible 2-way guy to play the big/heavy minutes, the best possible offensive guy to gift offensive minutes to, and the defensive guys for defensive minutes. Having a top 6 of just a certain type wouldn't be a very good mix.

 

[SlapshotTheMovie]

Dreger confirmed to be not all that smart.

pretty much... Dude might not be your number 1 D guy and if you have a deep D core with solid pairs i can see him being a 4th D guy but no team has deep enough D to rightfully have him on a 3rd pair.

 

[bleedblue1223]

pretty much... Dude might not be your number 1 D guy and if you have a deep D core with solid pairs i can see him being a 4th D guy but no team has deep enough D to rightfully have him on a 3rd pair.

The Blues do, and it's why we aren't planning on giving him big bucks. No team is going to invest 6+ million on 3 RHD.

It really depends on how you view these things. Shatty is our 3rd best defenseman, but during 5v5 he plays on the 3rd pair because of Petro and Parayko. He'll get more minutes than typical 3rd pairs because of PP and in-game situations that dictates him getting shifts on the 1st or 2nd pairings when we need a goal.

A team like that won't value the role he plays enough to invest 6+ million in.

 

[Off Sides]

I agree with the 2nd pair, PP specialist. Trying to extrapolate sheltered stats to what a player may do in a non sheltered role seems like a leap of faith.

 

[CrypTic]

pretty much... Dude might not be your number 1 D guy and if you have a deep D core with solid pairs i can see him being a 4th D guy but no team has deep enough D to rightfully have him on a 3rd pair.

Dreger was repeating what he'd heard. The "3rd pair" wasn't his opinion. Did you listen to the segment? It's rumor mongering and if you don't like that, don't listen but I don't understand how repeating what insiders said make him dumb when that's a lot of what he's paid to do.

I'd have no problem with him on the third pair in San Jose. I think it makes sense to keep Vlasic and Braun together, whether you consider them your first pair or your second pair. He's not replacing Burns on the other 1st/2nd pair. I'd have no problem with him replacing Braun if the org decided to go that way but that would mean that it's no longer a shutdown pair.

Vlasic - Braun (shutdown)*
Martin - Burns
Schlemko - Shattenkirk (all around/offensive)

vs
Vlasic - Shattenkirk (all around)
Martin - Burns
Schlemko - Braun (defensively oriented/balanced but not shutdown)

* known to work very well together as a shutdown pairing

Caps' fans have said he'd probably be on their third pair. You could say that he's on the Blues third pair. There are probably other teams where it makes sense to have him on your third pair.

 

[TheFinalWord]

Yeah Dreger and MacKenzie at the end of the day are both journalists. TSN has spent a lot of effort pumping them up to make them seem like more, but that's all marketing. They know about the same as hockey as any hardcore fan here at hfboards who has also never played the sport themselves.

Sure, they may know the same about hockey as hardcore fans, but they also have connections and talk to the front offices and players around the league, which I'm pretty sure most hardcore fans don't get to do.

How many trades are broken by hardcore fans?

 

[Henkka]

Yandle value is pretty near.

 

[STL fan in MN]

I disagree completely. He is good on defense, above average even. People act like he is this huge defensive liability. It's simply not true. He's not great at defense but he is absolutely above average.

I would not put him behind Parayko in any form whatsoever either. Hes second only to Petro on the team. I would take him over anyone else. Parayko has tons of potential but he is not better than Shattenkirk right now.

I will agree if he saw constant minutes vs top lines he wouldn't be has highly regarded but he fills in and does get shifts vs other teams top lines here and there and he doesn't look completely lost while doing it.

You put him on a Canadian team and we would start seeing 'Shattenkirk vs, Karlsson' threads. Guarantee it.

Well, clearly we completely disagree as I find his D quite lacking most days and downright atrocious some days.

As for Parayko not being ahead of Shatty in any form, Parayko already plays more than Shatty 5 on 5 and against tougher opponents. Parayko as a sophomore is already better than Shatty at D.

Shatty is one of the best PP QBs in the world...but he's a #4-5 caliber of d-man in terms of his defensive abilities IMO.

 

[Blueston]

His defensive play this year seems worse than previously. Perhaps all of this talk has been wearing on him. He is a luxury the Blues can't afford, but on another team I could see him being a difference-maker.

 

[Dbrownss]

Easton has done a good job on breaking down some of Shattenkirk's atrocious defensive plays. Turns out he cant cover the whole ice for a situation that never should have happened because others on the ice forgot how to hockey.

He's no shutdown dman, but he can play top 4 defense.

 

[biturbo19]

But it's not one game, it's every game.

I don't like using Opponents' advanced stats to judge quality of opposition, because imo it completely neutralizes the exact problem I'm talking about - an opponent will look like a tougher matchup because he has inflated stats thanks to easier matchups.

So when Shattenkirk and Gardiner go head to head, it inflates both of their CFqoc because both have good CF% - yet they're both doing it in easy usage, so we actually completely miss what we're trying to find. It literally makes soft usage look like hard usage.

This is a fundamental flaw imo in all current analyses which dismiss qualcomp as a factor - they end up completely missing the relevant factor by neutralizing the flaw in one player's stats by adjusting it based on the same flaw in their opponent's stats.

This is why imo we have to look at actual time on ice, both of the player and the opponent - even though I know this is actually an indirect factor, which makes analysts ignore it.

Yeah. That's the real problem with basing analysis of "hard minutes" or "sheltered" minutes on Corsi-based "quality of competition" metrics. Of course you're not going to see the strongest correlation there, because it essentially overlooks the main thing a "quality of competition" metric ought to actually measure in terms of usage/deployment.

 

[Vincenzo Arelliti]

Easton has done a good job on breaking down some of Shattenkirk's atrocious defensive plays. Turns out he cant cover the whole ice for a situation that never should have happened because others on the ice forgot how to hockey.

He's no shutdown dman, but he can play top 4 defense.

Seriously, Shatty's defensive problems are WAY over-blown. STL is spoiled with really good defenders, and when Shattenkirk is trying to drive an offense from behind the goalie while also covering for a ton of forward defensive mistakes, **** happens.

Shattenkirk is not afraid of contact, plays rough, stands-up for team mates, is elite offensively, and thinks the game well. He's above-average defensively, imo, and he's the next best thing to Burns or Karlsson when it comes to driving the offense 5-on-5 (when he's consistently used that way; he doesn't get to do that much with the Blues slower style), and elite bar-none when it comes to the PP.

Shattenkirk is a good defensive player that is ELITE offensively. For those that know Yandle, Shattenkirk is better defensively (even though Yandle is decent), and FAR better offensively. Their value (because of Yandle's extra year when traded to NYR) should be similar +/-.

 

[Sykie]

Didn't read the whole thread but one thing has always striked me is how Bouwmeester is a much better player and for some reason, on HF, never got half the respect Shattenkirk got. I'm sure if you'd do a pool asking HFers who is the best player, Shattenkirk would win. That's a bit odd and doesn't reflect the reality of the ice, at all.

All that said, Shattenkirk is a very good player, still. A good second liner, ideally.