Is It Time for a Norris Trophy AND a "Best Offensive Defenseman Trophy"?

[swiftwin]

I would rather see the Norris be unchanged and have them change the Selke to include both defensive forwards and defensive defensemen. Potentially have 2 Selke trophies, one awarded to a forward and another awarded to a defenseman.

This makes much more sense, since there would be alot of overlap between the best overall defenseman and best offensive defenseman.

 

[Bending and Tending]

A defenseman who is good offensively never gets recognized for the value he brings defensively.

but they still are recognized.

 

[Cool Bryz]

how does any part of that prove that EK and PK are more dominant possession-wise than Doughty? you realize he plays a lot with Muzzin, who's literally the best possession D man (as far as Corsi is concerned) in the league, which will skew those stats. Doughty is absolutely dominant possession-wise, that should be the last thing you should argue if you're touting the relative benefits of EK/PK.

I don't understand your point. If Doughty and Muzzin always play together then they should both have high Corsi Rel. As it stands EK and PK have much higher Corsi Rel.

Original link: http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/rat...eamid=0&type=corsi&sort=F60RelTM&sortdir=DESC

Corsi Rel = Relative to all teammates, not relative to defense partner. If anything, Muzzin being good increases Doughty's Corsi Rel.

 

[Bending and Tending]

Clearly you missed the part in game 4 against the Habs where he played 3:37 of the last 4 minutes of the game, protecting a 1-0 lead, on the brink of elimination. The Habs were barely able to get in the Sens zone because of his defensive ability.

One situation doesn't mean anything. I saw Sid dance around Karlsson for 2/3 goals he scored that game. Should I generalize his ability based on getting walked.

 

[ReginKarlssonLehner]

Long Live Karlsson The Great.

 

[Nithoniniel]

There is no need for two trophies. People just have to realize that D-men who can push possession and contribute in both ends are extremely valuable, and that the best thing a D-man can do for his team defensively is move the puck out of the zone.

I don't understand your point. If Doughty and Muzzin always play together then they should both have high Corsi Rel. As it stands EK and PK have much higher Corsi Rel.

Original link: http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/rat...eamid=0&type=corsi&sort=F60RelTM&sortdir=DESC

Corsi Rel = Relative to all teammates, not relative to defense partner. If anything, Muzzin being good increases Doughty's Corsi Rel.

You have to take CF% into account when dealing with Corsi Rel still. A half-decent possession player can push up a bad teams number, but wouldn't have even close to the same effect on a good team. That's why you have for example Gardiner, a good but not great possession player, having a pretty much league-leading Corsi Rel on awful Toronto. Pushing the numbers for a LA Kings is way harder, even if the amount is smaller.

Muzzin shouldn't be disregarded though. He's been great this season, and deserves cred for what he's done.

 

[firewagonHOCKEY]

I think after Karlsson retires the league will create this award to honor him.
The Karlsson trophy for best offensive defenceman!

 

[HarrisonFord]

So a poster needs to be over 20 years old, a rabid hockey fan watching all games across the league, and have been watching NHL hockey for an arbitrary length of at least 10 years to have a valid opinion? Give me a break.

No, but it would put things into perspective for him. He's stating that EK is revolutionizing the position - meaning that he's doing something that no other player has done before. It isn't true. That's what I'm saying. And I'm saying that perhaps he needs to familiarize himself with players of the past to see other examples of players like Karlsson

I agree that the offensive defenceman has been around for decades. Orr, Coffee, etc. Ok fine. But EK is no normal offensive D, ie. Mike Greene. Just watch the way he skates, how be breaks out of the zone. His forwards cover on the blue line because they know when he's "going for it". The Senators' system is built around his game style, and the team is getting quite good at it. Guys with high hockey IQ like Stone really excel in this system.

I think he and Mike Green are more similar than you think. Mike Green was a different player before injuries took it's toll. The Mike Green of today is far different than the Mike Green of a few years ago.

My issue with Karlsson is that he "goes for it" too much. I thought he did a much better job in the playoffs this year though in regards to opportunity selection, and that is something I hope for the Sens sake he takes into next season. And in terms of the Sens system, I have my own belief on whether or not you can build a system around an offensive defenseman as your primary offensive catalyst (and I'd love to show you the stats work I've done on it which is based around SH% of forwards vs. SH% of D) but that's something I'd keep to PM rather than this thread

Face it, the game is changing, and much like the enforcer, the one dimensional stay at home defenceman is slowly being phased out, or at least to the point where they are no longer the stars of the game, garnering the 6m+ contracts.

I don't think it is really. The Methot's of the world will always be just as important as the offensive defensemen. That's why my top defensemen are guys who can do both i.e. Weber, Doughty. You can depend on them for both. You can only depend on EK for one

First, there is no need to intentionally be pedantic to get your point across. Obviously it's a 5 man effort out there, and everyone did their part in the last 4 mintues of game 5. People (including you) harp on how EK doesn't defense, then a superb example of how he does is pointed out to you, and you try to downplay fact by shifting praise to whoever else was on the ice. In this case, your argument doesn't make any sense.

I don't mean to be pedantic, I'm just frustrated by the lack of knowledge by most people on what a defenseman actually does in a game. Specifically the not easily noticed defensive things. What I pointed out was that there was no sustained offensive zone time by the Habs in that time. The Sens forwards did a commendable job of keeping the Habs out of their zone by staying in passing lanes, forcing the Habs back into their zone to regroup, and causing chaos on the forecheck. I get he was on the ice, but that's not his play that kept them up for 3 minutes. It does make sense if you can look past the fact that it wasn't EK up there in the offensive zone

Second, that was a horrendously weak 2 on 2 wrister goal. EK was at the blue line trying to intercept. Michalek is there to cover his position. Michalek caught up, covered his man, Methot took the shooter, but Andy let in a brutal goal. You can't pin that terrible goal on Karlsson.

Yes, it was a weak wrister, however you have to also take into account that the goaltender was hedging towards the pass as well. Michalek caught up, but the stick was free and if a pass came across the montreal forward would have had full stick use to tip it on net. That's dangerous. I put this on Karlsson because he was stuck flat footed at the blue line. He didn't bust his ass back either, he hung back hoping that the other Sens players would create a turnover in the neutral zone and he could take it back the other way. I pin this on Karlsson because a 2 on 2 with two defensemen in their proper positions is far less dangerous and allows the goaltender to focus on the shooter compared to a 2 on 2 with a forward trying to cover a streaking pass target with space where the goalie has to be farmore concerned with a pass happening and can't cheat towards the shot only

replies in bold

Cool, so when he's on the ice for almost the entire last 4 minutes of a game, and successfully defends a lead for the win, it's not because of Karlsson, it's because of his teammates. But when the team gets scored on when it's his teammates' fault, it's all Karlsson's fault.

It's Karlsson's fault because Karlsson is out of position.

 

[HarrisonFord]

There is no need for two trophies. People just have to realize that D-men who can push possession and contribute in both ends are extremely valuable, and that the best thing a D-man can do for his team defensively is move the puck out of the zone.



You have to take CF% into account when dealing with Corsi Rel still. A half-decent possession player can push up a bad teams number, but wouldn't have even close to the same effect on a good team. That's why you have for example Gardiner, a good but not great possession player, having a pretty much league-leading Corsi Rel on awful Toronto. Pushing the numbers for a LA Kings is way harder, even if the amount is smaller.

Muzzin shouldn't be disregarded though. He's been great this season, and deserves cred for what he's done.

Corsi is flawed when talking about defensemen imo.

With Corsi a defenseman is punished for blocking a shot rather than rewarded for negating a scoring chance

 

[Proust*]

It was a 2 on 1 with a forward rushing back to try and cover the passer. And it was only a 2 on 1 because EK was more focused on trying to make the risky, offensive play rather than retreat back and play the zone exit like he should be doing in that situation. Which is what he does all the time..

The back-checking forward had the passer covered, so it wasn't a 2 on 1. Weise had no passing option, so he took a low-risk shot that Anderson should have stopped. Anderson was pretty square to Weise and was not cheating. Putting the goal on Karlsson makes absolutely no sense. The risk created would not result in a goal 9 times out of 10.

 

[Cool Bryz]

There is no need for two trophies. People just have to realize that D-men who can push possession and contribute in both ends are extremely valuable, and that the best thing a D-man can do for his team defensively is move the puck out of the zone.



You have to take CF% into account when dealing with Corsi Rel still. A half-decent possession player can push up a bad teams number, but wouldn't have even close to the same effect on a good team. That's why you have for example Gardiner, a good but not great possession player, having a pretty much league-leading Corsi Rel on awful Toronto. Pushing the numbers for a LA Kings is way harder, even if the amount is smaller.

Muzzin shouldn't be disregarded though. He's been great this season, and deserves cred for what he's done.

That's absolutely true, though I would still expect an outstanding possession player to stand out even on a team like LA. Kopitar does, for instance.

 

[Micklebot]

replies in bold


It's Karlsson's fault because Karlsson is out of position.

This is completely asinine. Teams play as a 5 man unit, Michalek and Karlsson swapped responsibilities on the play to try an maintain pressure, both were in position.

Good lord, you complain that other posters don't recognize the responsibilities of forwards when preventing zone entries only to ingnore their responsibilities on a play like this one. Your talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Had Karlsson not had support on the play from Michalek, maybe you'd have a case, but they both recognized the situation and played it well. A fluke bounce of a stanchion created a better chance than it should have been, and it still should never had resulted in a goal without a soft play on Anderson's part.

People are acting like this was some high risk play that only a clueless in his own end one dimensional Dman would ever attempt, but it was really an every day play that had an unfortunate result. It's not like Weber, Doughty, Keith, Hjalmarsson, McDonagh et al have never tried to stop the play at the blue line and had the puck get by.

 

[Proust*]

This is completely asinine. Teams play as a 5 man unit, Michalek and Karlsson swapped responsibilities on the play to try an maintain pressure, both were in position.

Good lord, you complain that other posters don't recognize the responsibilities of forwards when preventing zone entries only to ingnore their responsibilities on a play like this one. Your talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Had Karlsson not had support on the play from Michalek, maybe you'd have a case, but they both recognized the situation and played it well. A fluke bounce of a stanchion created a better chance than it should have been, and it still should never had resulted in a goal without a soft play on Anderson's part.

People are acting like this was some high risk play that only a clueless in his own end one dimensional Dman would ever attempt, but it was really an every day play that had an unfortunate result. It's not like Weber, Doughty, Keith, Hjalmarsson, McDonagh et al have never tried to stop the play at the blue line and had the puck get by.

Yup. Using HarrisonFord's "logic", you can fault any defenseman for any goal against while they are on the ice.

 

[Upgrayedd]

Anyone done up any lists of who would compete for this discussed defensive defensemen award? It surely wouldn't be many of the names mentioned in this thread, if you want to go with a truly defensive award for players who mostly focus on playing stay at home d your looking at guys in the second and third pair way down the list type of guys imo.

Using the most recent playoffs for fun, i would nominate:

Brooks Orpik
Clayton Stoner
Deryk Engelland


yeah....

 

[Korpse]

replies in bold


It's Karlsson's fault because Karlsson is out of position.

It's a very common play. There isn't a defensemen in the league who doesn't at some point try and hold the line when they have support. Key word being support. There was support from Michalek AND zibanejad it was a 3 on 4 in Ottawa's favour. Karlsson was back into the play and has the high man (prust) covered. If you think he was waiting in the neutral zone for a counter attack you are really pushing your agenda here.

I too am frustrated by the lack of knowledge by most on what a defensmen does in a game. It's always about hits, blocks, board battles and clearing the crease. Such a limited view of what a defensmen actually does.

 

[Micklebot]

Anyone done up any lists of who would compete for this discussed defensive defensemen award? It surely wouldn't be many of the names mentioned in this thread, if you want to go with a truly defensive award for players who mostly focus on playing stay at home d your looking at guys in the second and third pair way down the list type of guys imo.

Using the most recent playoffs for fun, i would nominate:

Brooks Orpik
Clayton Stoner
Deryk Engelland


yeah....

To be fair, if it's a regular season award, recognizing guys like Methot, Vlasic, Hjalmarson, Hamhuis, Girardi, McDonagh ect wouldn't be bad.

Why limit yourself to bottom 4 guys that provide zero offense, there are plenty of top pair and top 4 D that are essential to their teams success but aren't cracking 35 pts. I wouldn't mind seeing them recognized a little more than they currently are.

 

[HarrisonFord]

replies in bold


It's Karlsson's fault because Karlsson is out of position.

This is completely asinine. Teams play as a 5 man unit, Michalek and Karlsson swapped responsibilities on the play to try an maintain pressure, both were in position.

Good lord, you complain that other posters don't recognize the responsibilities of forwards when preventing zone entries only to ingnore their responsibilities on a play like this one. Your talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Had Karlsson not had support on the play from Michalek, maybe you'd have a case, but they both recognized the situation and played it well. A fluke bounce of a stanchion created a better chance than it should have been, and it still should never had resulted in a goal without a soft play on Anderson's part.

People are acting like this was some high risk play that only a clueless in his own end one dimensional Dman would ever attempt, but it was really an every day play that had an unfortunate result. It's not like Weber, Doughty, Keith, Hjalmarsson, McDonagh et al have never tried to stop the play at the blue line and had the puck get by.

Yes, teams play as a five man unit. But this to me is in the same category of one of the (many) reasons that people rag on Phaneuf - he puts himself out of position to try and make a big hit. But it's a 5 man unit you say? Yes it is, but in general, a forward is not as good at defending as a defenseman is. Just like how a forward who is skating forward parallel to an opponent streaking in is not as good as a defenseman who is between the other team's forward and the net. There's a reason that systems and coverages are designed that way. Honestly, can you tell me why I'm wrong about this? Michalek is not a defenseman, he's a forward. He's not as good of a defenseman as Karlsson is. If you swapped Michalek into your lineup on defense, what pairing would be play on? This is the point I'm making that when he takes these chances, he puts his team at a disadvantage if the play comes back the other way.

This play is an example of one that I don't think a guy like Doughty would take a risk on. It's off a faceoff, there is one forward deep in the Montreal zone, and once the puck gets past him there's 2 forwards behind him. IMO this is a bad time to take a risky pinch. Maybe if your team is down a goal you do this. But it's not like there was any sustained possession within the Montreal zone where a pinch keeps the Habs pinned in. Montreal doesn't have their players deep within their own zone so that if it doesn't work it won't really matter. Like, the other part that I don't get about this play is that if it actually works, what advantage does he gain? He's got Habs players all around him, with a teammate offside, so he's just going to have to dump the puck back into the Habs zone to give them a chance to have a fairly easy break out.

You might not agree with me, and that's fine, but I'm consistent in what I think when it comes to EK - and I don't just have it centered on him either. And the biggest thing I say about him is that he needs to work on his decision making when it comes to taking risks. He was really good at it in the Montreal series (and I noted that in a previous post) but he makes a bad judgement call on that goal, and he made a lot of them in the regular season.

It's a very common play. There isn't a defensemen in the league who doesn't at some point try and hold the line when they have support. Key word being support. There was support from Michalek AND zibanejad it was a 3 on 4 in Ottawa's favour. Karlsson was back into the play and has the high man (prust) covered. If you think he was waiting in the neutral zone for a counter attack you are really pushing your agenda here.

I too am frustrated by the lack of knowledge by most on what a defensmen does in a game. It's always about hits, blocks, board battles and clearing the crease. Such a limited view of what a defensmen actually does.

Again, this isn't true. Defensemen do make the pinch play, but the frequency with which they do it varies. I outlined a few scenarios above where it's a good idea for a defenseman to make the pinch play (which comes with risk, but depending on the situation of the play, the risk might be higher or lower depending on a lot of different factors) and described why this wasn't one of those good situations.

As for the last point there, I don't think anybody has ever discredited his offensive game. He's dynamic, great with the puck, a great passer and great shooter. But then we talk about the other half of his game. What I think frustrates me, and many other posters, is when Karlsson supporters simply discredit the hitting, blocking, board battles and crease work and chalk it up to "lol doesn't matter, the NHL is changing, you don't need that stuff anymore". You do. It's never going to go away.

 

[HarrisonFord]

Anyone done up any lists of who would compete for this discussed defensive defensemen award? It surely wouldn't be many of the names mentioned in this thread, if you want to go with a truly defensive award for players who mostly focus on playing stay at home d your looking at guys in the second and third pair way down the list type of guys imo.

Using the most recent playoffs for fun, i would nominate:

Brooks Orpik
Clayton Stoner
Deryk Engelland


yeah....

You're being really obtuse. How about the Hjalmarssons, Girardi's, and Beauchemins?

 

[Micklebot]

Yes, teams play as a five man unit. But this to me is in the same category of one of the (many) reasons that people rag on Phaneuf - he puts himself out of position to try and make a big hit.

Well actually he gets criticized because he doesn't have someone covering for him when he goes for the big hit... see the difference?

But it's a 5 man unit you say? Yes it is, but in general, a forward is not as good at defending as a defenseman is. Just like how a forward who is skating forward parallel to an opponent streaking in is not as good as a defenseman who is between the other team's forward and the net. There's a reason that systems and coverages are designed that way. Honestly, can you tell me why I'm wrong about this? Michalek is not a defenseman, he's a forward. He's not as good of a defenseman as Karlsson is. If you swapped Michalek into your lineup on defense, what pairing would be play on? This is the point I'm making that when he takes these chances, he puts his team at a disadvantage if the play comes back the other way.

This play is an example of one that I don't think a guy like Doughty would take a risk on. It's off a faceoff, there is one forward deep in the Montreal zone, and once the puck gets past him there's 2 forwards behind him. IMO this is a bad time to take a risky pinch. Maybe if your team is down a goal you do this. But it's not like there was any sustained possession within the Montreal zone where a pinch keeps the Habs pinned in. Montreal doesn't have their players deep within their own zone so that if it doesn't work it won't really matter. Like, the other part that I don't get about this play is that if it actually works, what advantage does he gain? He's got Habs players all around him, with a teammate offside, so he's just going to have to dump the puck back into the Habs zone to give them a chance to have a fairly easy break out.

You might not agree with me, and that's fine, but I'm consistent in what I think when it comes to EK - and I don't just have it centered on him either. And the biggest thing I say about him is that he needs to work on his decision making when it comes to taking risks. He was really good at it in the Montreal series (and I noted that in a previous post) but he makes a bad judgement call on that goal, and he made a lot of them in the regular season.
....

See, I gotta disagree. He has Wiercioch back, two forwards coming back in support, and has already recognized the Habs dman chiping it up off the glass, a very low percentage breakout strategy. He's standing up on the blueline about where the puck would come down had it not hit a stanchion. Best case scenario, he holds it in and gets it to open ice for Ryan to retrieve in the high slot with defenders moving the wrong way. Worst case (minus the stanchion defelction) it sails over him unobstructed and Michalek is left to squeeze Wiese out along the boards, but because it hits that stanchion, Michalek gets turned around and takes Mitchell instead leaving Wiercioch to come across and play Wiese.

This is not really a high risk play, because the only way it gets out to the Mtl forwards with speed is with a fluky bounce. 99 times out of a hundred, that puck is going right back into their end, and the other 1 time it gets out there is ample support back to limit any scoring chance (like what happened, a shot that should be saved).

I mean, Karlsson could have retreated when he saw the chip play, but this is a case where Ottawa should be thinking offense imo. They had the matchup they want, and if it goes the other way, it's not Pacioretty, it's Mitchell, Prust and Wiess.

Basically, the worst possible outcome happened, and it resulted in a bad angle shot with no passing option. If you're not going to take a risk in that scenario, you're not playing to win, you are playing not to lose.

There are plenty of times where I'd agree that Karlsson took a risk I'd rather he didn't, this really is not one of them; it was calculated and very minimal risk. I honestly don't see people ever criticizing Weber or Doughty for bad bounces that don't result in odd man rushes, but for some reason it happens to Karlsson, or Subban, and all the sudden it's proof of them taking too many risks. This is like a goalie coming out of the net to stop up a puck behind the goal line, but it bounces off a stanchion and goes in the net. People don't claim the goalie is taking too many risks.

 

[Upgrayedd]

You're being really obtuse. How about the Hjalmarssons, Girardi's, and Beauchemins?

Lol that's funny because you clearly didn't understand my point at all, that said your response speaks volumes of your own aptitude! Yeah sure toss those guys in there as well...nobody cares about them outside of fans of the teams they play for and a few people on here....good d-men yes, award winners? Lol i think not.

 

[HarrisonFord]

Well actually he gets criticized because he doesn't have someone covering for him when he goes for the big hit... see the difference?

How do you know this? I'd say he's in the same situation here going against the play while his opponents move up the ice. At least he takes an opponent out of the play when he makes the hit (granted he's far slower than EK so he can't catch up to the play and get back as well)

See, I gotta disagree. He has Wiercioch back, two forwards coming back in support, and has already recognized the Habs dman chiping it up off the glass, a very low percentage breakout strategy. He's standing up on the blueline about where the puck would come down had it not hit a stanchion. Best case scenario, he holds it in and gets it to open ice for Ryan to retrieve in the high slot with defenders moving the wrong way. Worst case (minus the stanchion defelction) it sails over him unobstructed and Michalek is left to squeeze Wiese out along the boards, but because it hits that stanchion, Michalek gets turned around and takes Mitchell instead leaving Wiercioch to come across and play Wiese.

This is not really a high risk play, because the only way it gets out to the Mtl forwards with speed is with a fluky bounce. 99 times out of a hundred, that puck is going right back into their end, and the other 1 time it gets out there is ample support back to limit any scoring chance (like what happened, a shot that should be saved).

I mean, Karlsson could have retreated when he saw the chip play, but this is a case where Ottawa should be thinking offense imo. They had the matchup they want, and if it goes the other way, it's not Pacioretty, it's Mitchell, Prust and Wiess.

Basically, the worst possible outcome happened, and it resulted in a bad angle shot with no passing option. If you're not going to take a risk in that scenario, you're not playing to win, you are playing not to lose.

There are plenty of times where I'd agree that Karlsson took a risk I'd rather he didn't, this really is not one of them; it was calculated and very minimal risk. I honestly don't see people ever criticizing Weber or Doughty for bad bounces that don't result in odd man rushes, but for some reason it happens to Karlsson, or Subban, and all the sudden it's proof of them taking too many risks. This is like a goalie coming out of the net to stop up a puck behind the goal line, but it bounces off a stanchion and goes in the net. People don't claim the goalie is taking too many risks.

I watched it in slow speed, and HD. You're right about the stanchion. However, there's also the moment which honestly proves my point even better. That's the point where 17 (Mitchell right?) is fighting for the puck on the Habs side of the neutral zone with Michalek, while Weise is cheating across the red line. While this is happening, Karlsson has pivoted and is skating slowly forwards towards his zone, watching the puck battle. And then he slows himself to an almost stop. This is one of the things that kills me. He's doing this because he's in forward mode. He's not thinking about the guy breaking towards his zone unmolested. He's looking at the puck and hoping it comes to him so that he can maybe get a chance. That is not the mindset a defense should be in. He should be bolting back as fast as he can to get back to what position he should be in. Because even if DD/Weber was in this situation from pinching, they would have done the defense thing, and would have probably been back into the play in time to catch up to Weise.

There is a bad bounce here, he's definitely a victim of bad luck when the puck comes out of the zone. But he also creates this bad luck by choosing to pinch instead of recognizing the flow of the game coming the other way, where he needs to retreat the zone. He furthers this bad luck by even allowing Weise to take the shot, by coasting back rather than using that incredible skating he owns to catch up to Weise and not even allow that shot to be taken. Michalek, to my knowledge, is a fairly slow skater. If he can catch up, Karlsson could have too.

Again, I know risk taking is important, but IMO the defenseman should be taking less risks than forwards - simply due to their positioning and being the last men back. A forward turns it over, the defense are still there to go through. I see what you mean though about the matchup, which wasn't something I'd considered.

 

[HarrisonFord]

Lol that's funny because you clearly didn't understand my point at all, that said your response speaks volumes of your own aptitude! Yeah sure toss those guys in there as well...nobody cares about them outside of fans of the teams they play for and a few people on here....good d-men yes, award winners? Lol i think not.

You listed limited, slow defenders who play on the 2nd and 3rd pairings against bottom 6 players. I listed important shut down players who play against other teams top lines.

The award winners are the ones who can provide offense and also shut down opposing stars. I.e. Drew Doughty, Shea Weber.

 

[gnarls barkley]

Anyone done up any lists of who would compete for this discussed defensive defensemen award? It surely wouldn't be many of the names mentioned in this thread, if you want to go with a truly defensive award for players who mostly focus on playing stay at home d your looking at guys in the second and third pair way down the list type of guys imo.

Using the most recent playoffs for fun, i would nominate:

Brooks Orpik
Clayton Stoner
Deryk Engelland


yeah....

Doughty
Keith
Weber
Stralman
Vlasic

there's a smattering for you

 

[Korpse]

Again, this isn't true. Defensemen do make the pinch play, but the frequency with which they do it varies. I outlined a few scenarios above where it's a good idea for a defenseman to make the pinch play (which comes with risk, but depending on the situation of the play, the risk might be higher or lower depending on a lot of different factors) and described why this wasn't one of those good situations.

As for the last point there, I don't think anybody has ever discredited his offensive game. He's dynamic, great with the puck, a great passer and great shooter. But then we talk about the other half of his game. What I think frustrates me, and many other posters, is when Karlsson supporters simply discredit the hitting, blocking, board battles and crease work and chalk it up to "lol doesn't matter, the NHL is changing, you don't need that stuff anymore". You do. It's never going to go away.

You're pretty much blaming Karlsson for pinching because a forward can't defend a 2 on 2 as well as a defensemen, so pointing out how common the play is, is fair. Sure you can argue what's he gain from it, but there isn't much to lose either. Forwards are well coached in regards to what to do in those situations, after all it's a play that teams make a dozen times a game.

I wasn't even referencing his play with the puck, more so pointing to his ability to stop opponents attack. You never hear about how a defenseman has good gap control, closes his opponents off at the wall, forces a dump in or picks off opponents breakout passes. I'll take the guy who stops the attack over the guy who is good when the other team has possession in the zone.

 

[Micklebot]

How do you know this? I'd say he's in the same situation here going against the play while his opponents move up the ice. At least he takes an opponent out of the play when he makes the hit (granted he's far slower than EK so he can't catch up to the play and get back as well)



I watched it in slow speed, and HD. You're right about the stanchion. However, there's also the moment which honestly proves my point even better. That's the point where 17 (Mitchell right?) is fighting for the puck on the Habs side of the neutral zone with Michalek, while Weise is cheating across the red line. While this is happening, Karlsson has pivoted and is skating slowly forwards towards his zone, watching the puck battle. And then he slows himself to an almost stop. This is one of the things that kills me. He's doing this because he's in forward mode. He's not thinking about the guy breaking towards his zone unmolested. He's looking at the puck and hoping it comes to him so that he can maybe get a chance. That is not the mindset a defense should be in. He should be bolting back as fast as he can to get back to what position he should be in. Because even if DD/Weber was in this situation from pinching, they would have done the defense thing, and would have probably been back into the play in time to catch up to Weise.

There is a bad bounce here, he's definitely a victim of bad luck when the puck comes out of the zone. But he also creates this bad luck by choosing to pinch instead of recognizing the flow of the game coming the other way, where he needs to retreat the zone. He furthers this bad luck by even allowing Weise to take the shot, by coasting back rather than using that incredible skating he owns to catch up to Weise and not even allow that shot to be taken. Michalek, to my knowledge, is a fairly slow skater. If he can catch up, Karlsson could have too.

Again, I know risk taking is important, but IMO the defenseman should be taking less risks than forwards - simply due to their positioning and being the last men back. A forward turns it over, the defense are still there to go through. I see what you mean though about the matchup, which wasn't something I'd considered.

Michalek is a pretty good skater, I'd say above average, particularly when it comes to straight line speed, he's actually pretty speedy. He won the Sens fasest skater competition beating Hoffman (who I'm sure you know is blazing fast). His acceleration isn't as fast, but he was already moving in that direction. As for Karlsson hesitating and being in forward mode, I agree he could have gone full tilt defensively at that time, but I'm not convinced it would have been the best choice. He's recognized all the players are covered, and sticks with Prust, who could have come in as a late man had he doubled up on Mitchell or Wiese. Obviously in hindsight, it would have been at worst equal, but I don't see it as a mistake or error in judgement, rather he's recognizing that neither Weise or Mitchell should be dangerous in this situation. At worst, I'd say it was a minor issue, and certainly not a case where he was responsible for a goal against.

Anyhow, I think at this point it's just a matter of opinion on how risk adverse you want your players to be, and I have no issues with prefering someone to be more risk adverse, but I feel like this play in particular is being made into a mountain when it's really a molehill. There is certainly risk involved any time you stand up at the blueline, but that particular instance is a risk I'm willing to take every time.