Eklund Rumor: TOR and VAN in a dogfight for Hanifin

[Jarey Curry]

Don't see Hanifin as a great fit for Toronto. I'd only target Hanifin if you could get him for cheap.

Future really good 2way dman w size and cheap?

 

[Randy Randerson]

Future really good 2way dman w size and cheap?

he's been more of an offensive guys so far in the NHL, that wasn't what his scouting reports say but that's the way the chips have fallen so far. The Leafs have lots of offense on the back end and Hanifin shoots left which is our strong side, so it's not a great fit for us

[mod]

 

[Son of Petter]

This just screams oilers to me. 10th oa + prospect.

 

[Tall Morty]

Leafs have more pressing needs than Hanifin, [MOD]

 

[Cardiac Jerks]

7OA
Baertschi
Hutton


Hanifin
Lindholm

Wouldn’t make that trade for Hanifin alone and you want Lindholm too?

Baertschi and Hutton are of no interest to Carolina and the 7th could maybe become as good as Hanifin already is.

 

[uncleben]

This isn't a Sparks/Demko thread.

Keep it on topic, and keep it civil.

 

[Jarey Curry]

he's been more of an offensive guys so far in the NHL, that wasn't what his scouting reports say but that's the way the chips have fallen so far. The Leafs have lots of offense on the back end and Hanifin shoots left which is our strong side, so it's not a great fit for us

[mod]

GMs dont give a rats ass about that what he has been so far in the minor role in Carolina. Hes that kinda talent who will bolt into the stardom when he gets enough responsibility and big enough role. His lack of use has stalled his development and is the reason hes more cheap and even available at this point. Without Slavins and Faulks, Hanifin would be as untouchable as Aho in Carolina

 

[LakeLivin]

This just screams oilers to me. 10th oa + prospect.

Sure, if the prospect is Puljujarvi. Ok, I'm being just a bit facetious. But Canes are interested in top half NHL ready players, not picks and prospects. I don't know what we're going to do with some of the promising prospects we've already got in the system.

 

[Randy Randerson]

GMs dont give a rats ass about that what he has been so far in the minor role in Carolina. Hes that kinda talent who will bolt into the stardom when he gets enough responsibility and big enough role. His lack of use has stalled his development and is the reason hes more cheap and even available at this point. Without Slavins and Faulks, Hanifin would be as untouchable as Aho in Carolina

it's nearly 240 games and 4000 mins of ice time, well well beyond the threshold of statistical significance. You can use your crystal ball all you like, our GM (who literally speaks at analytics conferences all the time) isn't likely to look at all of the results of his play and think "well he's definitely not the player that this suggests, I'm going to spend significant assets to get him even though he plays a position that we're already strong at rather than addressing the position that we're weak at"

He only competes with Slavin for 5v5 icetime, Faulk is a RHD and the "minor role" you're talking about is just under 19mins a night on the 2nd pairing. Playing him against tougher competition for more minutes doesn't make much sense as being the catalyst to him reaching his draft day ceiling, defensemen who are #1's tend to do much better against weaker competition not worse

 

[BrindAmours Army]

Hockey reference show 63.3% offensive zone starts. 36.7 defensive zone starts. That is the most offensive zones starts out of all the Canes D that played more than a few games. Also the lowest Defensive zone starts out of all the D that played more than a few games.

Hockey reference is a lot more reliable source.

I am not sure why you think 40% is tougher mins than out all the cane D. That's is a low percentage.

Not sure if you know that zone starts calculation don't include center ice starts. They only calculate offensive and defensive zones

Hockey Reference apparently thinks the neutral zone does not exist. Oddly enough, most players get around a third of their starts there!

40% ES defensive zone starts is considerably more than any other defenseman on the Canes. Pesce is the highest with 30.54%.

Hanifin got 40.75% ES OZS, 24.03% ES DZS, and 35.23% NZS.

Another poster already touched on the zone start stuff so I won't mention it.
He spent the majority of his time on the third pairing, I think that means he played on the third pairing and stepped up a pairing in case of injury. That is very typical third pairing usage.
The only reason he ever moved up off the third pairing was injury.
You usually define a player's role by what they played the majority of the season. If you don't you can start staying Gardiner played as a top pairing defender last year (played like a dozen games there when Rielly was injuried) or Nylander played center last year (played center for a dozen or so games when Matthews was injuried). However you don't as the vast majority of the time they didn't play in those positions

Again, he didn't spend most of his time on the third pairing. He was with Faulk or Pesce 36.1% of the time, which was the clear second pairing when they were together. Pesce was out for ~21% of the season, which usually led to Faulk and TVR being shifted up. Ergo, Faulk played on the first pairing, while TVR played on the second. This wasn't true 100% of the time, but it was true much more often than not. 51% - 36.1% = 14.9%. 21% + 9%(games missed by Faulk) >>> 14.9%. Ergo, Hanifin played on the second pairing more than half the time.

Hanifin would not have had much opportunity to "step up" a pairing due to injury, as our LDs were pretty healthy this season. Slavin did not miss a game, so there was no opportunity for him to "step up" to the 1st pairing. I don't believe Fleury was ever injured, and Dahlbeck was, well, Dahlbeck. Those two were scratched while healthy plenty of times though, a fate not shared by Hanifin oddly enough.

The right side is where our injuries were, which is where a lot of the time with TVR came from.

Hockey reference agrees that he got 60+% offensive zone starts.
Where are you getting your numbers from?

Corsica, which realizes the neutral zone is a thing.

Fair enough, I don't like the word sheltered as it has a subjective definition.

I was just trying to explain why high offensive zone usage influences advanced stats and why it doesn't make sense to say things along the lines of, a player has great shot suppression stats but you see they start 60+% of their zone starts in the offensive zone.

Only if you ignore 50ft of ice.

 

[Martin Skoula]

Hockey Reference apparently thinks the neutral zone does not exist. Oddly enough, most players get around a third of their starts there!

40% ES defensive zone starts is considerably more than any other defenseman on the Canes. Pesce is the highest with 30.54%.

Hanifin got 40.75% ES OZS, 24.03% ES DZS, and 35.23% NZS.

Corsica, which realizes the neutral zone is a thing.

Only if you ignore 50ft of ice.

Neutral zone starts don't really impact shot metrics, they're a neutral draw. Unless the player in question is getting some unreasonably extreme neutral zone usage (as in starting 1 DZ shift, 99 NZ shifts and 2 OZ shifts and calling it 66.7% OZ starts), the differential between offensive zone and defensive zone starts is the only thing that should really matter when assessing zone starts as it relates to sheltering and shot metrics. I don't really support the idea that they impact shot metrics in a significant way unless it's extreme usage, but they're can be a good indicator for guys who are getting hemmed in for some reason or seeing who the coach trusts in key defensive situations. Obviously they should be secondary to the eye test in that regard.

 

[Ziggdiezan]

Hockey Reference apparently thinks the neutral zone does not exist. Oddly enough, most players get around a third of their starts there!

40% ES defensive zone starts is considerably more than any other defenseman on the Canes. Pesce is the highest with 30.54%.

Hanifin got 40.75% ES OZS, 24.03% ES DZS, and 35.23% NZS.




Again, he didn't spend most of his time on the third pairing. He was with Faulk or Pesce 36.1% of the time, which was the clear second pairing when they were together. Pesce was out for ~21% of the season, which usually led to Faulk and TVR being shifted up. Ergo, Faulk played on the first pairing, while TVR played on the second. This wasn't true 100% of the time, but it was true much more often than not. 51% - 36.1% = 14.9%. 21% + 9%(games missed by Faulk) >>> 14.9%. Ergo, Hanifin played on the second pairing more than half the time.

Hanifin would not have had much opportunity to "step up" a pairing due to injury, as our LDs were pretty healthy this season. Slavin did not miss a game, so there was no opportunity for him to "step up" to the 1st pairing. I don't believe Fleury was ever injured, and Dahlbeck was, well, Dahlbeck. Those two were scratched while healthy plenty of times though, a fate not shared by Hanifin oddly enough.

The right side is where our injuries were, which is where a lot of the time with TVR came from.



Corsica, which realizes the neutral zone is a thing.



Only if you ignore 50ft of ice.

Zone starts typically only include the offensve and defensive zone starts as neutral zone starts dont influence advanced statistics as much.

TVR and Hanifin from the graphs Carolina fans posted in this thread or the other Hanifin to Toronto thread had the lowest QoC and highest offensive zone starts on the team for defenders. Their QoC and zone start % were very similar to each other but different from the rest of the defender teammates. Indicating that they played the majority of the season together against low quality of competition.

Would you say that when TVR and Hanifin played together they were the third pairing? As Hanifin spent 55.3% of ES time with TVR, which I think is the majority of the time.

When Pesce was injuried for around 21% of the season you say Faulk jumped up a pairing to play with Slavin (Faulk played with slavin for 24% of the time) and TVR moved up a pairing to play with Fluery (TVR played with Fluery for 22.2% of the time). That all adds up. Doesn't that mean that Hanifin stayed on the 3rd pairing to play with a Dalbeck, Mckeown etc?

 

[PetterssonSimp]

Wouldn’t make that trade for Hanifin alone and you want Lindholm too?

Baertschi and Hutton are of no interest to Carolina and the 7th could maybe become as good as Hanifin already is.

I’d rather bank on Hughes/Dobson being much better than middle pairing future defenceman who are currently sheltered Bottom pairing defenceman on non playoff teams and closing in on arbitration rights and UFA a lot sooner than the guy I get at 7. So no 7 is not available for Hanifin.

 

[Rants Mulliniks]

The link literally says nothing of them being in a dogfight (despite what the title leads you to believe). It merely says that he could see them being in a dog fight.

 

[BrindAmours Army]

Neutral zone starts don't really impact shot metrics, they're a neutral draw. Unless the player in question is getting some unreasonably extreme neutral zone usage (as in starting 1 DZ shift, 99 NZ shifts and 2 OZ shifts and calling it 66.7% OZ starts), the differential between offensive zone and defensive zone starts is the only thing that should really matter when assessing zone starts as it relates to sheltering and shot metrics. I don't really support the idea that they impact shot metrics in a significant way unless it's extreme usage, but they're can be a good indicator for guys who are getting hemmed in for some reason or seeing who the coach trusts in key defensive situations. Obviously they should be secondary to the eye test in that regard.

If you want to just look at offensive zone vs. defensive zone starts, you can do that. But you shouldn't call it offensive zone start percentage, because that isn't what it is. If you're only comparing OZS and DZS, what you're looking at is the zone start ratio. I'm just correcting people when they say something that is factually untrue, didn't argue that NZS are as relevant as OZS and DZS. Though, I don't think they are as irrelevant as you do.

I've never commented on shot metrics aside from noting that a team with good Corsi stats is going to have a higher OZS% than most.

Of the 7 Canes' defensemen that saw significant minutes last season, five of them started in the offensive zone 37.2-40.75% of the time at even strength.
Literally the only two that saw fewer offensive zone starts than the team average (36.02%) would predict were Slavin(29.49%) and Pesce(30.17%). They were also the only two with a ZSR lower than the team's.

The difference in ZSR between Pesce(#2) and #3 is 0.07. The difference between #3 and #7 is 0.06.

The data does indicate that Hanifin was sheltered, but not nearly as much as most are claiming. What it really shows is that Slavin and Pesce's usage is unique among Canes' defensemen.

Zone starts typically only include the offensve and defensive zone starts as neutral zone starts dont influence advanced statistics as much.
TVR and Hanifin from the graphs Carolina fans posted in this thread or the other Hanifin to Toronto thread had the lowest QoC and highest offensive zone starts on the team for defenders. Their QoC and zone start % were very similar to each other but different from the rest of the defender teammates. Indicating that they played the majority of the season together against low quality of competition.
Would you say that when TVR and Hanifin played together they were the third pairing? As Hanifin spent 55.3% of ES time with TVR, which I think is the majority of the time.
When Pesce was injuried for around 21% of the season you say Faulk jumped up a pairing to play with Slavin (Faulk played with slavin for 24% of the time) and TVR moved up a pairing to play with Fluery (TVR played with Fluery for 22.2% of the time). That all adds up. Doesn't that mean that Hanifin stayed on the 3rd pairing to play with a Dalbeck, Mckeown etc?

If you're going to ignore 50ft of ice, you should state that by using the right stat (zone start ratio). Offensive zone start percentage indicates what percentage of starts the player had in the offensive zone, in determining this you use both defensive and neutral zone starts as well.

Yep, Hanifin and TVR had the highest percentage of OZS. 40.75 and 39.53% respectively. Fleury came in at 39.02%, Faulk at 37.41%, and Dahlbeck at 37.2%. Not a huge range. Then you have Pesce, 30.17%, and Slavin, 29.49%.

Looking at TOI% QoC, Hanfin places 4th, TVR 7th, though the only large difference is between Pesce(#2) and Faulk(#3).
Looking at CF% QoC, Hanifin places 6th, TVR 7th. Difference between #3 and #7 is 0.25. Difference between #2(Slavin) and #3(Faulk) is 0.28.
Looking at GF% QoC, Hanifin places 5th, TVR 6th. Difference between #3 and #6 is 0.27. Between #2 and #3 0.23.

The QoC differences we not large with the exception of #2(either Pesce or Slavin) and #3. But yes, their QoC stats were lower than the others'.

Would you say that when TVR and Hanifin played together they were the third pairing?

Considering that is exactly what I've been arguing against, no. For 36% of his time on ice, Hanifin was with either Pesce or Faulk. When one of those players was injured, TVR would play on the second pairing. Guess who he would be playing with at those times? Hanifin. Hanifin spent all of 2.9% of his ES time with a player lower on the depth chart than TVR.

If TVR was on the 2nd pairing or better at least 21% of the time(which he was, due to Pesce's missed games alone) then Hanifin played on the 2nd pairing or better at least 23.8% (time with Faulk) + 12.3% (time with Pesce) + 21% (minimum time TVR was elevated) - 2.9%.
So, at minimum, he was in the Top 4 54.2% of the time.

Additionally, in the 64 games in which they both played, Hanifin had a higher TOI than Fleury in 46 games, or 72% of the time.

Fleury and TVR were paired together primarily in the first chunk of the season season when Hanifin was with Faulk and/or Pesce.

 

[Ziggdiezan]

If you want to just look at offensive zone vs. defensive zone starts, you can do that. But you shouldn't call it offensive zone start percentage, because that isn't what it is. If you're only comparing OZS and DZS, what you're looking at is the zone start ratio. I'm just correcting people when they say something that is factually untrue, didn't argue that NZS are as relevant as OZS and DZS. Though, I don't think they are as irrelevant as you do.

I've never commented on shot metrics aside from noting that a team with good Corsi stats is going to have a higher OZS% than most.

Of the 7 Canes' defensemen that saw significant minutes last season, five of them started in the offensive zone 37.2-40.75% of the time at even strength.
Literally the only two that saw fewer offensive zone starts than the team average (36.02%) would predict were Slavin(29.49%) and Pesce(30.17%). They were also the only two with a ZSR lower than the team's.

The difference in ZSR between Pesce(#2) and #3 is 0.07. The difference between #3 and #7 is 0.06.

The data does indicate that Hanifin was sheltered, but not nearly as much as most are claiming. What it really shows is that Slavin and Pesce's usage is unique among Canes' defensemen.




If you're going to ignore 50ft of ice, you should state that by using the right stat (zone start ratio). Offensive zone start percentage indicates what percentage of starts the player had in the offensive zone, in determining this you use both defensive and neutral zone starts as well.

Yep, Hanifin and TVR had the highest percentage of OZS. 40.75 and 39.53% respectively. Fleury came in at 39.02%, Faulk at 37.41%, and Dahlbeck at 37.2%. Not a huge range. Then you have Pesce, 30.17%, and Slavin, 29.49%.

Looking at TOI% QoC, Hanfin places 4th, TVR 7th, though the only large difference is between Pesce(#2) and Faulk(#3).
Looking at CF% QoC, Hanifin places 6th, TVR 7th. Difference between #3 and #7 is 0.25. Difference between #2(Slavin) and #3(Faulk) is 0.28.
Looking at GF% QoC, Hanifin places 5th, TVR 6th. Difference between #3 and #6 is 0.27. Between #2 and #3 0.23.

The QoC differences we not large with the exception of #2(either Pesce or Slavin) and #3. But yes, their QoC stats were lower than the others'.

Would you say that when TVR and Hanifin played together they were the third pairing?

Considering that is exactly what I've been arguing against, no. For 36% of his time on ice, Hanifin was with either Pesce or Faulk. When one of those players was injured, TVR would play on the second pairing. Guess who he would be playing with at those times? Hanifin. Hanifin spent all of 2.9% of his ES time with a player lower on the depth chart than TVR.

If TVR was on the 2nd pairing or better at least 21% of the time(which he was, due to Pesce's missed games alone) then Hanifin played on the 2nd pairing or better at least 23.8% (time with Faulk) + 12.3% (time with Pesce) + 21% (minimum time TVR was elevated) - 2.9%.
So, at minimum, he was in the Top 4 54.2% of the time.

Additionally, in the 64 games in which they both played, Hanifin had a higher TOI than Fleury in 46 games, or 72% of the time.

Fleury and TVR were paired together primarily in the first chunk of the season season when Hanifin was with Faulk and/or Pesce.

All of the advanced stats ive looked at call it zone start % so I used that name.

Okay, we can agree that Hanifin's QoC and offensive zone ratio were in the range of a #5 to #6 on average. Wondering were those stats all situations or ES.

It is just very confusing as when I was talking to other Canes fans about Faulk they were telling me his pairing was sheltering TVR + Hanifin on the third pairing and all the stats seemed to support that.

Okay fair enough, makes sense that when Hanifin was with Faulk that TVR was with Fluery. Numbers seem to add up.

So by your numbers it looks like Hanifin played the easiest zone usage on the team while playing some of the easiest QoC on the team. That being said he played 54% on the 2nd pairing and 46% on the 3rd pairing.

Don't get how that is possible to have the most 'sheltered' usage and QoC but still spent significant time on the 2nd pairing. I'm guessing the third pairing must have gotten more defensive starts and harder QoC when Hanifin was on the 2nd pairing?

From all the stats and from what Canes fans have said it seems like Hanifin played a similar role to a 3rd line scoring line. Decent amount of ice time but easy QoC and high zone usage to try to make use of Hanifin's strong offensive play.

 

[LickTheEnvelope]

I like Hanifin but see basically no way the Canucks could trade for him.

 

[Cupless44]

Wouldn’t make that trade for Hanifin alone and you want Lindholm too?

Baertschi and Hutton are of no interest to Carolina and the 7th could maybe become as good as Hanifin already is.

Hanfin is a left shot with limited offense. Both Bouchard and Dobson are right shot with higher offensive potential.

I do not want to give up 7th pick for a #3 defenseman as a Canuck fan.

 

[GoldiFox]

Hanfin is a left shot with limited offense. Both Bouchard and Dobson are right shot with higher offensive potential.

I do not want to give up 7th pick for a #3 defenseman as a Canuck fan.

“Limited offense”. Might as well just say “I’ve never watched Hanifin play but here are my imaginary yet strong opinions anyway.”

The only reason Hanifin made it to the All-Star game last year was his offense. Watch the guy for 20 solid minutes, it’s easy to see. He’s a good offensive D that struggles with awareness in the defensive zone. If Hanifin reaches #1 status it is as a 50+ point PPQB who is just above-average defensively.

 

[uncleben]

Hanfin is a left shot with limited offense. Both Bouchard and Dobson are right shot with higher offensive potential.

I do not want to give up 7th pick for a #3 defenseman as a Canuck fan.

I at first interpreted that as a 7th round pick

 

[Matt2576]

As a leafs fan would love to have him but not what we need

 

[BrindAmours Army]

All of the advanced stats ive looked at call it zone start % so I used that name.

Okay, we can agree that Hanifin's QoC and offensive zone ratio were in the range of a #5 to #6 on average. Wondering were those stats all situations or ES.

It is just very confusing as when I was talking to other Canes fans about Faulk they were telling me his pairing was sheltering TVR + Hanifin on the third pairing and all the stats seemed to support that.

Okay fair enough, makes sense that when Hanifin was with Faulk that TVR was with Fluery. Numbers seem to add up.

So by your numbers it looks like Hanifin played the easiest zone usage on the team while playing some of the easiest QoC on the team. That being said he played 54% on the 2nd pairing and 46% on the 3rd pairing.

Don't get how that is possible to have the most 'sheltered' usage and QoC but still spent significant time on the 2nd pairing. I'm guessing the third pairing must have gotten more defensive starts and harder QoC when Hanifin was on the 2nd pairing?

From all the stats and from what Canes fans have said it seems like Hanifin played a similar role to a 3rd line scoring line. Decent amount of ice time but easy QoC and high zone usage to try to make use of Hanifin's strong offensive play.

You can call a dog a chicken, but it doesn't make it so. If you're ignoring the neutral zone, it isn't a zone start %. If they call it that, they are using the wrong term.

Those were ES stats.

Easy. 1.) As noted, aside from our first pairing, the difference in those stats on a player to player basis were minimal. There was a bigger difference between 2nd and 3rd than 3rd and 6th. 2.) Slavin-Pesce were the go to shutdown pairing. 3.) Fleury was nonexistent offensively, but wasn't terrible defensively. So, if we had a face off in the offensive zone, it was better for Hanifin to be on the ice. Not because he was poor defensively compared to Fleury, but because Fleury adds almost nothing in the offensive zone. The same is true to a lesser extent with Dahlbeck. 4.) The Canes needed more scoring. It's going to be more effective to put your offensive players in positions to do that rather than place shutdown players in the offensive zone for the hell of it.

Faulk was doing 0 actual sheltering last season. It was by far his worst season defensively, from my viewings. Though, I have not looked to see if the stats support that, it's just what I thought based off the eye test. That's another reason why Hanifin and Faulk were split. Both offensively minded, and Faulk has played better with stay at home defensemen in the past.

At times, if there must be a 2nd and 3rd pairing, Hanifin and TVR would have been the third pairing. But as I said earlier, the Hanifin-TVR and the Fleury-Faulk pairings were used pretty similarly. The main difference would be that Peters would favor one pairing if the faceoff was on the left side, and the other pairing if the faceoff was on the right side. Trying to give Hanifin and Faulk every opportunity to produce. But there were times when Hanifin-TVR were the second pairing. With Faulk on the first pairing, it removed the reason to have Fleury get some second line pairing.

If the team has three shutdown defensemen (Slavin, Pesce, and Fleury,) one defensemen who isn't really good at anything (Dahlbeck), and another who is just not terrible at anything (TVR,) it makes sense that Hanifin would get a boatload of offensive zone starts.

But yeah, when Hanifin and Faulk were together, the Fleury-TVR pairing was used as something of a shutdown-lite pairing, because they just weren't good offensively.

With Pesce out, Faulk ended up spending a lot of time with Slavin. Had that not happened, Faulk's zone starts and QoC stats would likely be pretty close to Hanifin's.

And going off of zone start ratios, Dahlbeck would have had the 3rd most difficult. Despite that, he was by far our worst defenseman.
ZSR is not a great stat in general. For example, if you look at Columbus' stats from last season, Werenski and Jones had the highest zone start ratios on their team, by far. Werenski was 0.6, Jones was 0.58, and #3 was 0.52. They were kind of the opposite of the Canes' in that regard. Jones was 0.06 away from third highest. Pesce was 0.07 away from the third lowest.

If he was on the third pairing for most of the season, he would not have been 4th in EV TOI by over a minute per game. Because math.

And I apologize if I came off as an ass. I've had a long few weeks, and that combined with sleep deprivation leads to me being much more irritable than normal.

 

[BrindAmours Army]

Hanfin is a left shot with limited offense. Both Bouchard and Dobson are right shot with higher offensive potential.

I do not want to give up 7th pick for a #3 defenseman as a Canuck fan.

Yeah, #23 among defensemen with >40 GP in G/60 and #42 in P/60 is just miserable offensive production.

 

[Estlin]

I would not be surprised to see Hanifin in Boston. The Bruins coveted him in the 2015 draft and reportedly attempted to move up with two or all of its first-round picks to select him. The interest has probably not wavered much since then. What could happen is that Torey Krug is dealt in a separate deal and that Hanifin is brought on board to replace him.

 

[Chan790]

I would not be surprised to see Hanifin in Boston. The Bruins coveted him in the 2015 draft and reportedly attempted to move up with two or all of its first-round picks to select him. The interest has probably not wavered much since then. What could happen is that Torey Krug is dealt in a separate deal and that Hanifin is brought on board to replace him.

It's been discussed before.

Main issue is the lack of assets of the right value range for the Bruins to offer.

Canes don't need picks at this point of their rebuild, probably have little interest in a package of lesser similar-value assets, and I can't see Bruins doing a "Hanifin plus a lot for Pasta"...which is probably what Carolina would be asking from Boston.