News Article: Why the best defencemen have to be proficient on offence

[joshjull]

Interesting read in light of the debate this season over what we need to jump start our offense. The writer focuses in on breakout transitions and how important they are.


http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/best-defencemen-proficient-offence/

The crux of it is an individual blueliner is responsible for a lot of subtle plays over the course of any given game, which can go a long way towards putting the rest of his teammates in a more optimal situation to succeed.

The most important of these are own-zone breakouts, which in essence transition from defence to offence. It can be easy to lose sight of the fact a defenceman generally acts as the first line of attack for his team. Much like a quarterback in football, he has to read the coverage, maneuver his way through oncoming traffic, and fling an accurate pass that will ideally hit his receiver in stride.

This year’s Pittsburgh Penguins are the perfect example of this idea put into practice. There are a couple of reasons why they immediately took off after making the change from Mike Johnston to Mike Sullivan, most of which point back to the facelift they gave their transition game. It’s no surprise their performance spiked once they shed Rob Scuderi, cut back on Ian Cole’s inexplicable usage on the top pair, and supplemented a finally healthy Kris Letang and Olli Maatta with another legitimate puck-mover in Trevor Daley.


Watching this transition game in action against a polar opposite Rangers team in Round 1 was jarring. The Rangers couldn’t seem to string together two consecutive passes unless Keith Yandle was on the ice. New York’s counterattack was stifled by its inability to break out with any consistency. Had they been able to move the puck from the back end to their skilled forwards more regularly, they surely would have been more competitive.

The writer then breaks down every dman from the first round and their proficiency at breaking out.

Here are the players who appeared on both ends of the extreme (players who appeared only once weren’t included because their low counts threw things out of focus):

Possession % = the percentage of all exit attempts by that defenceman that left the zone either by him carrying it, or successfully passing to a teammate. Failed % = blatant turnovers in the defensive zone, or icings.

TOP GUYS

WORST

It’s fair to say most of the names that appear at both ends of the spectrum are ones you’d generally expect. I’d highly recommend keenly watching a player such as Nick Leddy or Drew Doughty operate in his own zone. They seemingly never get flustered, regardless of the position they’re in or the forechecker who’s bearing down on them. While they carried out a significant percentage of exits on their own, an ability to patiently skate out of trouble and look for a better passing lane is just as important to their sustained success.

LINK TO INTERACTIVE CHART https://public.tableau.com/profile/sean.tierney#!/vizhome/Zoneexits/Dashboard1

Being able to effectively transition the puck out of the defensive zone is an essential quality for a blueliner to wield. Hockey is a fluid game and it can be difficult to differentiate between the different phases of action.

It’s remarkable how much one distinct sequence, like a simple breakout, can affect subsequent plays.

Click to read more...

 

[GameMisconduct]

When you described that article, I thought 'I wonder if that's from Dimitri Filipovic?' and lo and behold it was. He is a pretty solid analytics guy who just recently got hired at sportsnet and he makes variations of this point consistently on his podcast.

It's a very solid article and a very important point that still doesn't get made near enough by many (in general, not on this board) when evaluating defensemen.

 

[Revelate]

I was looking at that top 10 list and thinking..most of these guys are eliminated. But if you look at the full spectrum, 4 out of the 6 Blues defenseman are just below Yandle (with Pietrangelo as almost an outlier in number of attempts).

it also lines up with what i saw in some of the 1st round series. Rangers lost because their defense is terrible. Anaheim's forwards were much more the culprit for their exit.

i am a bit surprised at just how good Fowler's numbers are.

 

[joshjull]

When you described that article, I thought 'I wonder if that's from Dimitri Filipovic?' and lo and behold it was. He is a pretty solid analytics guy who just recently got hired at sportsnet and he makes variations of this point consistently on his podcast.

It's a very solid article and a very important point that still doesn't get made near enough by many (in general, not on this board) when evaluating defensemen.

It is a very solid article. I love his breakdown of the counterintuitive nature of coaches that play it safe yet put out dmen more likely to lose possession even if they clear the zone. He used Polak to make his point.

Take Roman Polak, for example, who I would imagine is viewed in many circles as an ultra-reliable, safe option on the blueline, despite where he appears amongst his peers on the list above.

Polak had 28 such attempts to get out of his zone over the course of San Jose’s five-game first round series against the Los Angeles Kings. He managed to successfully make a play that retained possession for his team just twice.

Plays like this aren’t necessarily the worst outcome in isolation. Getting the puck out of your zone is obviously favourable to the alternative of staying hemmed in if only because it decreases your immediate risk. Polak didn’t have an in-zone turnover that immediately led to a scoring chance or a goal against. I suspect a player of his type is considered to be safe and reliable because there are few instances of plays going completely haywire that are directly traced back to him.

That doesn’t mean he is safe, though. Plays like the one captured above are the norm for Polak and countless other defencemen with similar skillsets (like a Brooks Orpik or a Luke Schenn). When that becomes a recurring theme, it’s generally a red flag of a more troublesome systemic issue. By working hard to get the puck and then willingly giving it back to the opposition, all he really did was get a few seconds reprieve before having to defend again. The difference is this time he and his partner are tired and playing against fresh legs.

 

[Chainshot]

I love that caption. "Why did he pick option 3?"

 

[Snippit]

What was Option 1 though?

 

[Myllz]

Up the boards.

 

[Chainshot]

He doesn't have the feet to make Option 1 the best.

 

[UnrefinedCrude]

He doesn't have the feet to make Option 1 the best.

None of his team mates were in position to make option 2 much better either.

 

[UnrefinedCrude]

What was Option 1 though?

Carry it out.

 

[Punished ROR]

Yeahhh, it's hard for me to point my finger at Polak when the FWDs are all within 2 feet of the same Kings forechecker.

Gotta make sure that puck gets out of the zone before you start heading off for a line change. RW isn't even looking when Polak is trying to skate it up the boards. No support!

 

[Chainshot]

None of his team mates were in position to make option 2 much better either.

It's likely intercepted in the neutral zone or some sort of board battle while the Sharks are trying to change. Per that example, I would have wanted him to exactly what he did -- get it the hell out to allow the Sharks a change. Carrying it is likely to result in him being caught by the forechecker, the reverse doesn't allow for anyone to immediately gain possession (and pausing to allow them to close on the boards will put the forechecker on him in a contested board 1-on-1 deeper in his zone than if he still tried to advance the puck himself).

Given the photo... no issue with what he did given his skills. Now if that's say Brian Campbell, he puts a hitch in his giddyup and can skate it out. But he's Roman Polack...

 

[joshjull]

It's likely intercepted in the neutral zone or some sort of board battle while the Sharks are trying to change. Per that example, I would have wanted him to exactly what he did -- get it the hell out to allow the Sharks a change. Carrying it is likely to result in him being caught by the forechecker, the reverse doesn't allow for anyone to immediately gain possession (and pausing to allow them to close on the boards will put the forechecker on him in a contested board 1-on-1 deeper in his zone than if he still tried to advance the puck himself).

Given the photo... no issue with what he did given his skills. Now if that's say Brian Campbell, he puts a hitch in his giddyup and can skate it out. But he's Roman Polack...

"Given his skills" is part of the point.

 

[Jame]

So how many of the top guys are effective with someone who rates significantly lower? Are there more examples (maybe less extreme) like Josi/Weber? Or Fowler in the past being highly successful with Lovejoy.

 

[jBuds]

Love.

It's so important. All of it. Being able to skate; make a good tape to tape pass while skating at a high speed, knowing when to leg it out yourself, know how to read a forecheck over your shoulder (or anticipate), stay a step ahead; have to be able to take a hit, take a ****ing beating; have to be quick with your feet and your mind; work and change direction in a small area that is limited by the net...

Now the dopey delay of game penalty to be leery of. And that's after you've decided that going off and out is your best option... It's a lot of things that go under appreciated...

Like Cam ****ing Fowler

that perfect first pass though....

Or when you catch a streaking winger with a neutral zone pass on a line change ... Drool

 

[jBuds]

So how many of the top guys are effective with someone who rates significantly lower? Are there more examples (maybe less extreme) like Josi/Weber?

I actually - and this is rare - believe that this falls under a metric that you can look at without the partner caveat swaying you strongly...

It's a good look at individual guys

 

[jBuds]

Separately/nitpicky.... Is it "old school" of me to disagree that he looks at all icings as a collective fail?

It's not ideal, but it does happen within a game, as the game goes on, that icing it is the play to make.

 

[joshjull]

Separately/nitpicky.... Is it "old school" of me to disagree that he looks at all icings as a collective fail?

It's not ideal, but it does happen within a game, as the game goes on, that icing it is the play to make.

I think based on his idea of measuring ability to breakout and keep possession that's a failure.

 

[jBuds]

I think based on the idea of measuring ability to breakout and keep possession that's a failure.

Right. Which makes sense based on the article. I just wouldn't want that to bleed into the judgement of a dman's ability to make decisions.

 

[Yatzhee]

So, based on that list, of those d men, Fowler may be available. Yea, I'd look at that trade.

 

[Woodhouse]

Eh, the reversal via option two was arguably the best choice for Polak to maintain SJS possession there. No outlet options, no foot speed to skate it out, and a lob anywhere cedes possession, possibly catching them in a line change, or even icing. With that LAK forward near him, Polak simply needs enough puck poise and pass weight to reverse to his d-partner or opposite wing. LAK forwards were looking for the change there too it seems. Either pass should keep possession and resets the breakout from behind the net while getting in a clean change. A lob, icing, or wayward hard-around get a brief zone exit at best, as pictured, but it also looks like McNabb is going to dump that in anyway and SJS had the numbers there for puck retrieval, so no harm?!

 

[Jame]

I actually - and this is rare - believe that this falls under a metric that you can look at without the partner caveat swaying you strongly...

It's a good look at individual guys

I think you misunderstood where I was going.

I was taking the "ah this ties in to our Brodin conversation" angle.

 

[jBuds]

I think you misunderstood where I was going.

I was taking the "ah this ties in to our Brodin conversation" angle.

Got it

 

[struckbyaparkedcar]

I love that caption. "Why did he pick option 3?"

Because his team was on a change and Polak didn't have the passing options Filipovic pretended there was.

Honestly, this exercise vastly overstates the importance of possession relative to in-zone defensive abilities in the playoffs. Roman Polak, for all his deficiencies leaving the zone, has been on the ice for a much lower rate of goals against than Brian Campbell, even just relative to other defensemen on each team.

When you have zero possession driving from your blueline like the Rangers do, sure, you pine for the fjords of Keith Yandle because your stay at home guys are reducing neither shots nor goals. But if you can get guys whose presence vastly reduces goal-based events regardless of shot counts - and those people exist for 2-4 year spans regardless of what possession-only nerds tell you - you prefer those to possession drivers who introduce additional goal-based-variance.

 

[struckbyaparkedcar]

Cam Fowler, super dope at breakouts, super bad at having those breakouts mean anything tangible for the Ducks unless Getzlaf is on the ice.