Jake gardiner is better than rielly

[Cotton]

You know what annoys me now, Cotton? It's that you clearly are capable of having a great discussion on the topic, even though you admit (which I applaud) to being rather ignorant on the subject (which I mentioned in relation to cognitive science, rather than analytics). But you just have to preface your posts with going after me as a poster for simply having a different outlook on things in a very insulting, and quite frankly immature, manner, which ruins what could have been a great debate.

I might give you an answer later though.

Well stop being annoyed, If anything I should be annoyed; after 30 years of playing and watching, I'm told I must be ignorant to what poor defense is because I don't agree with an opinion because it's based on some statistics that only tell part of the story, statistics which are meant to be a suggestion in the best of cases, statistics a good amount of people in this fan base has taken as gospel.

I'm not an "advanced stats" guy, but I accept that they are the "it" thing right now. But I cant ****ing stand this new age **** that attempts to marginalize opinions that aren't backed by analytics. I good conversation could of been had without them.

Anyway, for the second time, I'm not trying to insult you, I'm just tossing the same truths right back at you, you tell me I'm coming off as ignorant? I tell you your coming off as a sheep. But you don't need to give me an answer, I didn't ask a question... that I can recall. I just shared what I learned.

And your getting the wrong idea; I respect your opinion and outlook, that's why I apologized in a previous post because you felt insulted. I lack tact at times, a bad habit, but I don't want you thinking I'm attacking you.

 

[RLF]

You know what annoys me now, Cotton? It's that you clearly are capable of having a great discussion on the topic, even though you admit (which I applaud) to being rather ignorant on the subject (which I mentioned in relation to cognitive science, rather than analytics). But you just have to preface your posts with going after me as a poster for simply having a different outlook on things in a very insulting, and quite frankly immature, manner, which ruins what could have been a great debate.

I might give you an answer later though.

Edit:

So. Let's start with shots on goal. Personal shot accuracy doesn't really capture a quality aspect of the offensive possession, as you are dealing with just a sub-part. Furthermore, when people have looked at D-men in general and their ability to affect on-ice shooting percentage, they have found that it's negligible. Over time, D-men mostly impact the offensive part of the game by pushing the play and creating a quantity of chances. There will always be variations, especially with players with small sample sizes.

It's pretty much the same with on-ice sv%. D-men as a group are all over the place in this regard, and with an increasing sample size the differences shrink and fade. When I looked over this myself I found that in any given year, a teams best D-men defensively might be the worst in on-ice sv%, while a guy like Mark Fraser might very well lead the league.

Possession in itself is certainly not the whole, but it's not worthless either. Best way to defend is by not spending time in your own zone, and that's what possession even in its rawest form can provide.

Context is important, but there has been a lot of effort put to measure the impact on contextual factors. What they have found is that the base performance is by far the most important thing, with contextual factors having a smaller influence.

But yeah, things can look very different with contextual changes. If we threw Gardiner on the right side and put him in Rielly's role, who knows how he'd perform? All we know is that in general, moves like that will not result in completely different results. I think the best way to approach any given individual situation is to measure how well they perform in the role they are given. Rielly is a terrific young guy put in an often tough role and is keeping his head over the water, and is improving all the time. Gardiner is put in a more measured role tailored to his strengths, and he is thriving.

As for a discussion on individual strengths in different abilities and skills, that's a whole 'nother thing. I don't agree that Rielly has better gap control for example, but he is for sure better along the board.

I don't know Rob Vollman, so I'd rather keep the discussion between us, if that's ok with you.



I don't know anyone who would disagree with that. My issue with people that bring up opposition, zone starts and so on is that they want to point out these factors and then assign them a completely arbitrary impact.

We all know Rielly plays the tougher role. Trying to measure how much effect this has is crucial, otherwise you are simply guessing.

And you know I respect your views and knowledge, so it is not about that. You know how I feel about stats being used as the "trump card" so to speak in a "who is better" discussion. I give it consideration, but not the final say. ADV stats contradict each other on so many occasions it is not anymore a valid argument alone than an eye test. If you believe that via eye test and stats combined, Gardiner is the better defenceman right now, that is fine and I can respect that evaluation. I don't like the "ADV stats" say so defence.

 

[Crosscrease14]

Not only does Reilly have insane natural talents in skating and puck handling he's also playing big minutes at an age when most defensemen are working on their game in the minors. He's on an objectively horrible team that never had much of a chance to make the playoffs. His partner for most of the season has been a 7th defensemen until we signed him.

IMO, he's good and getting better. Sign him long term at a reasonable amount. 4-5 years between 4 and 5 million would be good for both sides. Lou will get it done after the deadline.

 

[Battle Lin]

doesnt matter, they're both ours, have little doubt rielly clearly passes him next season

rielly FA
gardiner hunwick
chychrun zaitsev

its looking good, we got a ton of 3rd pairing depth in the organization too

 

[Bullseye]

Gardiner has turned me to the dark side. He is playing great defensively and that's where I've always had issues with him. His man on man work is simply outstanding this year - what a difference.

Reilly is still playing nervous and looks young and raw. He will get to that comfort zone soon enough. He has excellent coaching and positive reinforcement. He is so young still - can't wait till he's 25 and experienced and confident.

In the meantime - Rielly seriously needs to work with Belfry on his wrist and slap shots. Simply not good enough for a 1st unit NHL PP at this point so he's a almost always a passer and teams queue on that.

For a young man with his upper body and forearm and leg strength he should be putting the puck through the net. It's his technique. Maybe try Kessel's stick?

 

[Apotheosis]

But if you watched every Leafs game this year and ignored all stats Gardiner still looks better that Reily

Yes, let's just ignore that Rielly has been the team's best shutdown man, has Hunwick to weigh down his possession numbers, played next to no PP time, and still outscores Gardiner, while playing said tougher minutes. Seriously people, I don't know what your agenda is. A RAW Rielly is better than current Gardiner. Literally the only thing that separated them coming into this year was experience and that's all Gardiner will ever have on Rielly. Rielly is the better skater, better actual defence man, better playmaker and better PP QB, all by the age of 21. It's not a debate and I don't know why this has been going on so long. It's fruitless to compare a guy who was sheltered with Phaneuf, playing 2nd pairing minutes against worse QoC and still say he's better.

 

[Nithoniniel]

Well stop being annoyed, If anything I should be annoyed; after 30 years of playing and watching, I'm told I must be ignorant to what poor defense is because I don't agree with an opinion because it's based on some statistics that only tell part of the story, statistics which are meant to be a suggestion in the best of cases, statistics a good amount of people in this fan base has taken as gospel.

I'm not an "advanced stats" guy, but I accept that they are the "it" thing right now. But I cant ****ing stand this new age **** that attempts to marginalize opinions that aren't backed by analytics. I good conversation could of been had without them.

Anyway, for the second time, I'm not trying to insult you, I'm just tossing the same truths right back at you, you tell me I'm coming off as ignorant? I tell you your coming off as a sheep. But you don't need to give me an answer, I didn't ask a question... that I can recall. I just shared what I learned.

And your getting the wrong idea; I respect your opinion and outlook, that's why I apologized in a previous post because you felt insulted. I lack tact at times, a bad habit, but I don't want you thinking I'm attacking you.

Then we're all fine, Cotton.

I just want to clarify one thing. The ignorant comment was about cognitive science, not actual hockey knowledge. And I use the word 'ignorant' as "lacking knowledge" which I don't think is an insult, nobody can know everything.

I think the thing with Gardiner and his stat that sometimes confuses matters is that we need to separate defensive ability and defensive effect. I don't think Gardiner is terrific defensively myself, although he has certainly improved. What I think is that he can use his skating to enter more defensive situations than most D-men, and that he is terrific at moving the puck up the ice, which helps him post great defensive numbers. Adequate ability, but great effect.

Quite frankly, I'm happy to discuss with someone who doesn't just go blank when I try to evolve the discussion of defensive ability beyond "tough in the corners".

I'll continue below, as my answer to RLF is probably of interest to you as well.

And you know I respect your views and knowledge, so it is not about that. You know how I feel about stats being used as the "trump card" so to speak in a "who is better" discussion. I give it consideration, but not the final say. ADV stats contradict each other on so many occasions it is not anymore a valid argument alone than an eye test. If you believe that via eye test and stats combined, Gardiner is the better defenceman right now, that is fine and I can respect that evaluation. I don't like the "ADV stats" say so defence.

And I respect that. There is a certain poster on this site that rubs me the wrong way for the same reason, using different stats as gospel with a severely lacking knowledge of their uses and limitations.

I think that advanced stats have changed the discussion because it introduces something tangible. Without it, our discussion is so often about subjective opinions, so it's hard to actually convince anybody. I think that's why some people seem to rely on it so much, since it allows you to offer something tangible in support of your opinion, or in contradiction to someone else's statement.

Personally, I feel the discussion can grow rather stale sometime. It's always a question of "how good is player X?". That's where it's easy to turn to stats. But rarely the question turns to "in what way is player X good?" and "what does this mean for his situational usefulness?". These are questions that is qualitative in nature, where we can explore abilities and skill sets in a tactical context.

I know I sometimes come across as staring blindly at stats, but that's not really true. In fact, a part of my process is to learn the stats and what they say about a player, and then see if you can poke holes in them for that specific example. You have to ask the right questions though. People mention zone starts, and I think back to what I've learned of its impacts on numbers and is doubtful. People say "I don't like having Gardiner out there against lines with physicality and speed, as they play to his weakness and neuter his strengths", then I listen.

I think that's where the quality discussion can go wrong sometimes. It's always about how good the player is in a general sense, which is all the metrics we normally use tell us.

Example: If you take a sample size of the last 3 years and look at a holistic statistical analysis view, Crosby is quite easily the best forward in the league. However, he has struggled when facing the best centers in the league. On the other hand, Bergeron is not close to him in a general sense, but he just continues being as effective no matter if it's Bozak or Crosby on the other side. In a general sense, Crosby is the better player. But does that really matter in a playoff matchup?

 

[Raymoondo]

This is legit my favourite thread in quite a while. Learned more here than in my first term of university

 

[RLF]

Then we're all fine, Cotton.

I just want to clarify one thing. The ignorant comment was about cognitive science, not actual hockey knowledge. And I use the word 'ignorant' as "lacking knowledge" which I don't think is an insult, nobody can know everything.

I think the thing with Gardiner and his stat that sometimes confuses matters is that we need to separate defensive ability and defensive effect. I don't think Gardiner is terrific defensively myself, although he has certainly improved. What I think is that he can use his skating to enter more defensive situations than most D-men, and that he is terrific at moving the puck up the ice, which helps him post great defensive numbers. Adequate ability, but great effect.

Quite frankly, I'm happy to discuss with someone who doesn't just go blank when I try to evolve the discussion of defensive ability beyond "tough in the corners".

I'll continue below, as my answer to RLF is probably of interest to you as well.



And I respect that. There is a certain poster on this site that rubs me the wrong way for the same reason, using different stats as gospel with a severely lacking knowledge of their uses and limitations.

I think that advanced stats have changed the discussion because it introduces something tangible. Without it, our discussion is so often about subjective opinions, so it's hard to actually convince anybody. I think that's why some people seem to rely on it so much, since it allows you to offer something tangible in support of your opinion, or in contradiction to someone else's statement.


Personally, I feel the discussion can grow rather stale sometime. It's always a question of "how good is player X?". That's where it's easy to turn to stats. But rarely the question turns to "in what way is player X good?" and "what does this mean for his situational usefulness?". These are questions that is qualitative in nature, where we can explore abilities and skill sets in a tactical context.

I know I sometimes come across as staring blindly at stats, but that's not really true. In fact, a part of my process is to learn the stats and what they say about a player, and then see if you can poke holes in them for that specific example. You have to ask the right questions though. People mention zone starts, and I think back to what I've learned of its impacts on numbers and is doubtful. People say "I don't like having Gardiner out there against lines with physicality and speed, as they play to his weakness and neuter his strengths", then I listen.

I think that's where the quality discussion can go wrong sometimes. It's always about how good the player is in a general sense, which is all the metrics we normally use tell us.

Example: If you take a sample size of the last 3 years and look at a holistic statistical analysis view, Crosby is quite easily the best forward in the league. However, he has struggled when facing the best centers in the league. On the other hand, Bergeron is not close to him in a general sense, but he just continues being as effective no matter if it's Bozak or Crosby on the other side. In a general sense, Crosby is the better player. But does that really matter in a playoff matchup?

1st bolded. I agree it adds more than just opinion, but can also be used in a manipulated way to support an opinion. Let's face it, No one brings up ADV stats unless they are trying to support their own opinion and they only concentrate on the ones that will support that opinion.

Best example. Nazem Kadri. In the summer people used ADV stats at nausea to support their view that he should be our number 1 centre over Bozak because of possession #'s etc. This year, the crickets have taken over except about his low shooting% at start of season to explain his lack of production. When production picked up to a great pace, it was "see, see, where are the critics now". Now that he has 6 pts in last 15 games...crickets. When he doesn't produce...it is because of his high QOC, yet QOC was said not to matter in the summer when defending him. ADV stats are used in no different way than the eye test in most situations.

2nd bolded Agreed, except some use what said player is good at to try and prove he should be moved up the line-up or is on par or better than players on other teams in tougher roles. Back to agendas being the reason to mention them. They are still opinion based on what stats one finds the most value in.

I know you don't blindly stare at stats. I do have issue with the zone starts have little impact though. In most cases, especially with defenceman, more Dzone starts = poorer possession numbers and vice versa throughout their career. Hunwick is a great example. Gardiner as well. Even logic should dictate this be true in most cases, but of course there will be exceptions. The problem I have is people using the exceptions to prove the general rule is false. There are so many factors affecting the outcomes after a zone start. Who won the draw, was it after an icing, who is the QOC, momentum in a game, your own centre and his FO win % etc etc. Logic should tell us that a higher Offzone start will affect positive possession numbers and vice versa.

Yea, you have used the Crosby/Bergeron example before and it is an interesting analysis for sure.

 

[Durrr]

1st bolded. I agree it adds more than just opinion, but can also be used in a manipulated way to support an opinion. Let's face it, No one brings up ADV stats unless they are trying to support their own opinion and they only concentrate on the ones that will support that opinion.

Best example. Nazem Kadri. In the summer people used ADV stats at nausea to support their view that he should be our number 1 centre over Bozak because of possession #'s etc. This year, the crickets have taken over except about his low shooting% at start of season to explain his lack of production. When production picked up to a great pace, it was "see, see, where are the critics now". Now that he has 6 pts in last 15 games...crickets. When he doesn't produce...it is because of his high QOC, yet QOC was said not to matter in the summer when defending him. ADV stats are used in no different way than the eye test in most situations.

2nd bolded Agreed, except some use what said player is good at to try and prove he should be moved up the line-up or is on par or better than players on other teams in tougher roles. Back to agendas being the reason to mention them. They are still opinion based on what stats one finds the most value in.

I know you don't blindly stare at stats. I do have issue with the zone starts have little impact though. In most cases, especially with defenceman, more Dzone starts = poorer possession numbers and vice versa throughout their career. Hunwick is a great example. Gardiner as well. Even logic should dictate this be true in most cases, but of course there will be exceptions. The problem I have is people using the exceptions to prove the general rule is false. There are so many factors affecting the outcomes after a zone start. Who won the draw, was it after an icing, who is the QOC, momentum in a game, your own centre and his FO win % etc etc. Logic should tell us that a higher Offzone start will affect positive possession numbers and vice versa.

Yea, you have used the Crosby/Bergeron example before and it is an interesting analysis for sure.

Kadri has had a far better overall season then Tyler Bozak. Production hasn't quite been as high as liked, but overall he's had a great season.

 

[RLF]

Kadri has had a far better overall season then Tyler Bozak. Production hasn't quite been as high as liked, but overall he's had a great season.

This was about how adv stats are being used. Nowhere did I say Kadri hasn't played well this year despite his low production. Not sure why you felt necessary to throw out that tidbit...unless you are going out of your way to show support for Kadri.

 

[Nithoniniel]

1st bolded. I agree it adds more than just opinion, but can also be used in a manipulated way to support an opinion. Let's face it, No one brings up ADV stats unless they are trying to support their own opinion and they only concentrate on the ones that will support that opinion.

Best example. Nazem Kadri. In the summer people used ADV stats at nausea to support their view that he should be our number 1 centre over Bozak because of possession #'s etc. This year, the crickets have taken over except about his low shooting% at start of season to explain his lack of production. When production picked up to a great pace, it was "see, see, where are the critics now". Now that he has 6 pts in last 15 games...crickets. When he doesn't produce...it is because of his high QOC, yet QOC was said not to matter in the summer when defending him. ADV stats are used in no different way than the eye test in most situations.

2nd bolded Agreed, except some use what said player is good at to try and prove he should be moved up the line-up or is on par or better than players on other teams in tougher roles. Back to agendas being the reason to mention them. They are still opinion based on what stats one finds the most value in.

I know you don't blindly stare at stats. I do have issue with the zone starts have little impact though. In most cases, especially with defenceman, more Dzone starts = poorer possession numbers and vice versa throughout their career. Hunwick is a great example. Gardiner as well. Even logic should dictate this be true in most cases, but of course there will be exceptions. The problem I have is people using the exceptions to prove the general rule is false. There are so many factors affecting the outcomes after a zone start. Who won the draw, was it after an icing, who is the QOC, momentum in a game, your own centre and his FO win % etc etc. Logic should tell us that a higher Offzone start will affect positive possession numbers and vice versa.

Yea, you have used the Crosby/Bergeron example before and it is an interesting analysis for sure.

That's true. It's easy to fall into the trap of letting how you perceive the facts be influenced by your opinion, rather than the other way around.

As for zone starts, of course it has an effect. I realize I can come across as dismissing it outright sometimes, but I don't mean to. As a general rule I've found that a shift in 2% ZS correlate with about 1% relative possession, with a stronger effect the further you get from the average.

It shouldn't be dismissed, but I don't think it should be viewed as the main factor either.

And it's all situational. Considering that Gardiner's ability to push possession has a lot to do with retrieving the puck, causing separation and effecting a zone exit, I think his possession numbers wouldn't be that negatively affected by more defensive zone starts. On the other hand, Rielly is terrific at generating events so I'm not surprised that his possession numbers have fallen off with a much less offensive role.

 

[Deez Nuts]

Yes, let's just ignore that Rielly has been the team's best shutdown man, has Hunwick to weigh down his possession numbers, played next to no PP time, and still outscores Gardiner, while playing said tougher minutes. Seriously people, I don't know what your agenda is. A RAW Rielly is better than current Gardiner. Literally the only thing that separated them coming into this year was experience and that's all Gardiner will ever have on Rielly. Rielly is the better skater, better actual defence man, better playmaker and better PP QB, all by the age of 21. It's not a debate and I don't know why this has been going on so long. It's fruitless to compare a guy who was sheltered with Phaneuf, playing 2nd pairing minutes against worse QoC and still say he's better.

Just because Rielly is used on the top pairing does not mean he is a shutdown defenceman. Ironically, he ranks right near the bottom of the NHL in giving up shots against and his possesion numbers are much lower than Gardiner. Meanwhile Gardiner ranks right near the top in supressing shots against. Rielly may be a faster skater, but Gardiner is much more fluid and better overall in my opinion. Their point totals are a wash and I suspect Jake will finish with more points, although the difference is marginal. Gardiner being sheltered by Phaneuf? Now that is a funny claim. It actually appears like Phaneuf was weighing Gardiner down, as Gardiner has stepped up his game since the trade. In five games since the trade, Gardiner is a plus player while Rielly is a minus 10 - the worst on the team. Rielly has played less PP minutes than Gardiner no doubt, yet with the additional minutes he has not produced a point as of yet albeit a small sample size. Regardless, I'm not sure how effective he will be on the PP considering he has no slap shot to speak of and lofting weak wristers ain't going to do much damage.
I know you insist Rielly has Karlsson offensive potential and everyone is entitled to their opinion. But in his third year Karlsson was putting up a point per game pace while Rielly is on pace to score 35 points.

 

[sessiroth]

I don't mind both teams.

So what?

Gardiner's been better defensively than rielly has. Tough to accept that here I guess

So then for sure you can agree that both have been better then Subban this year.

 

[Hockey Talker29]

It's nice to see open-minded discussion on here, with well argued points on either side.

Well done!

 

[moon111]

Stats or no stats, I would judge them based on how a coach uses them. Reilly sees more minutes, kills penalties, and with Hunwick face the toughest opposition. Gardiner leads the team in offensive zone face-offs, doesn't kill penalties. Either Gardiner's offensive ability is so high Babcock doesn't want to waste him in defensive situations, or he's not that good in such.

I though Randy Carlyle did all he could to spoon-feed Kadri and ruin Grabovski in `12-13. I could never judge them on equal footings that year. Now I think the exact opposite is true. Babcock is doing all he can to put the players in a position to succeed. The ice-time these two defenders see says allot.

 

[diceman934]

Well stop being annoyed, If anything I should be annoyed; after 30 years of playing and watching, I'm told I must be ignorant to what poor defense is because I don't agree with an opinion because it's based on some statistics that only tell part of the story, statistics which are meant to be a suggestion in the best of cases, statistics a good amount of people in this fan base has taken as gospel.

I'm not an "advanced stats" guy, but I accept that they are the "it" thing right now. But I cant ****ing stand this new age **** that attempts to marginalize opinions that aren't backed by analytics. I good conversation could of been had without them.

Anyway, for the second time, I'm not trying to insult you, I'm just tossing the same truths right back at you, you tell me I'm coming off as ignorant? I tell you your coming off as a sheep. But you don't need to give me an answer, I didn't ask a question... that I can recall. I just shared what I learned.

And your getting the wrong idea; I respect your opinion and outlook, that's why I apologized in a previous post because you felt insulted. I lack tact at times, a bad habit, but I don't want you thinking I'm attacking you.

In many ways we have reverted back to the days were shots on goal were used to determine who out played who.

We learned that quality of shots were a better metric used as it determined who had more scoring chances.

Shots on goal for and against are now used far to much to determine a players numbers. Just like any statically data, advance stats without context is useless.

Zone starts on their own are a stat but when you add zone starts to QOC then you will be adding more context. Same way as stats like plus minus..

On their own useless but when you use context of QOC, zone starts and zone finishes as well as playing partner the useless stat can become useful.

The problem on here us some believe that advance stats tell the whole picture or it is far more important then context. I believe that context is far more important then advance stats but hard for the individuals who have limited experience playing/coaching the game at higher levels.

I say players have bad feet and use it as a reason why players will not be successful at the NHL level...at lower levels like Jr it is not ad noticeable as the average player is far below pro level. That is context. Matt Finn is a prime example I said that we drafted him far to high...and got ripped on...but defending my opinion by stating that he had bad feet ( poor transitional skating). The above is context.

 

[LeafingTheWay]

Stats or no stats, I would judge them based on how a coach uses them. Reilly sees more minutes, kills penalties, and with Hunwick face the toughest opposition. Gardiner leads the team in offensive zone face-offs, doesn't kill penalties. Either Gardiner's offensive ability is so high Babcock doesn't want to waste him in defensive situations, or he's not that good in such.

I though Randy Carlyle did all he could to spoon-feed Kadri and ruin Grabovski in `12-13. I could never judge them on equal footings that year. Now I think the exact opposite is true. Babcock is doing all he can to put the players in a position to succeed. The ice-time these two defenders see says allot.

I see it in a much different way.

Babcock's method of coaching to me is really amazing. The way I see it, Babcock is putting our core players in positions where they normally struggle. For example, look at Kadri, Gardiner and Rielly. Kadri normally struggles on faceoffs, Gardiner struggles on his offensive side of his game, Rielly struggles in his defensive side of the game. As the season goes on, we see Babcock bringing Rielly Gardiner and Kadri to a mix of both their weaknesses and strengths.

 

[Bullseye]

Well it sure looked that way tonight.

 

[RLF]

That's true. It's easy to fall into the trap of letting how you perceive the facts be influenced by your opinion, rather than the other way around.

As for zone starts, of course it has an effect. I realize I can come across as dismissing it outright sometimes, but I don't mean to. As a general rule I've found that a shift in 2% ZS correlate with about 1% relative possession, with a stronger effect the further you get from the average.

It shouldn't be dismissed, but I don't think it should be viewed as the main factor either.

And it's all situational. Considering that Gardiner's ability to push possession has a lot to do with retrieving the puck, causing separation and effecting a zone exit, I think his possession numbers wouldn't be that negatively affected by more defensive zone starts. On the other hand, Rielly is terrific at generating events so I'm not surprised that his possession numbers have fallen off with a much less offensive role.

The only part I really disagree with. I agree with your assessment of Gardiner but not that more D-zone starts wouldn't really affect his possession numbers. He does what you said very well, but a faceoff is from a standstill and is quite different from the space he is able to create by using his skating abilities when coming back to retrieve a puck. Hard to know unless Babcock starts to use him more in defensive zone starts though.