Shut Down Defensemen - Part 1
How often have we heard the idea that defensive blue liners are a "dime a dozen" in the NHL? Probably far more than we should frankly. As a skill set, the defensive defender's repertoire is difficult to master at a high level, and in some ways it is even more difficult to quantify effectively. Knowing where to be on the ice, when to be there, and actually being physically capable of playing such a role is extremely demanding. The best defenders take the lion's share of a team's tough minutes, and prevent the best of the opposition from doing much damage offensively. This conveniently allows other less capable defensemen on their team to be "sheltered" from the proverbial storm and makes everyone look better in the process.
Daniel Wagner of the Vancouver Sun has recently been applying this very concept - which he terms 'enabling' - in his breakdown of the Vancouver Canucks usage of 4th line centre Manny Malholtra. He is counted upon to do the dirty work on the ice in the defensive zone so the Canucks more offensively gifted players can spend more time on offense doing what they do best - scoring goals and producing points both on the ice and eventually in the standings. This is basically the same concept I am attempting to get at only for defenders.
So how do we describe the guys that face the toughest minutes? Well generally speaking they'll be counted on to play on the Penalty Kill, and they'll be expected to face the best lines the opposition has to throw on the ice at even strength - for the method I plan on using I'm going to focus on the latter. Using behindthenet.ca we can form a pretty detailed picture of what it takes to be considered a defender in the shut down mold, and even more importantly, who the best players are in that role.
Using the past 4 years worth of data plus what has gone so far this year will allow us to have a relatively robust selection to choose from as well, so we know where we're sitting in terms of recent comparables. For the sake of ease of analysis I made one particularly large assumption, which is that the defenders facing the highest Corsi REL QoC on a team over a large span of games will generally be involved in the top 4 D on their team's PK, and examining the names that come up on the list, this is pretty clearly the case.
As a methodology I structured the analysis in a manner quite similar to the Heavy Lifter Index described by Ryan Poplichak at Hockey Prospectus, which has also been discussed or mentioned by Derek Zona at CopperNBlue and Gabe Desgardins at Arctic Ice Hockey. As I was looking at defenders and not forwards though I decided to change the categories slightly so as to get at what I felt was important.
Firstly, I decided to NOT include +/- QoC as I personally am of the opinion that +/- is an anachronistic statistic that is of little actual value in assessing players due to the large quantity of shooting luck involved season to season. While there is some skill in shooting over the long term, I feel that a defender's key role is to limit goal scoring opportunities which closely correlates to Corsi, thus I stuck with Corsi measures largely.
Thus I did include Corsi REL QoC as in the HLI, but I also decided to factor in Corsi REL QoT. A defenders job is immeasurably easier if the players they share the ice with regularly are more capable of driving play up ice, thus it made sense to me to reward players plying their trade while at a disadvantage and penalize those who are playing with superior line mates. In an effort to manage this fact, I combined Corsi REL QoC and Corsi REL QoT into a differential statistic, comparing the Standard Deviation ratio of both statistics in the given year. Therefore a player who plays against very difficult Corsi REL QoC, while toiling with inferior linemates from a Corsi REL QoT perspective is given a higher index rating.
Secondarily, I included the Standard Deviation ratio of the defender's Corsi ON/60. Unlike in the refined version of Ryan Poplichak's HLI, I felt that D men with negative Corsi ratings could still be present in this index. Given the situations they are placed in and their skill set, I didn't see much point in eliminating them from the analysis.
Thirdly, I included the Standard Deviation ratio of the defender's Offensive Zone Start %, in this case a negative score would be considered a positive contribution to the index. The last category I did include was the Standard Deviation ratio of the D man's penalty differential, but I weighted this statistic lower as I felt defensive D men do tend to rack up penalty minutes at a higher rate than forwards.
So in summary SDI Sit (Shutdown Defender Index Situational) will be the sum of values for Corsi REL Differential STD Ratio and OZ% STD Ratio, while SDI Res will be the sum of values for Corsi ON 60 STD Ratio and the 20% weighted value of Penalty Differential STD Ratio.
Here are the top performers from the past few years in the NHL by season (oh and keep an eye out for Jan Hejda)
2007-08
|
Player
|
Team
|
Age
|
GP
|
PDO
|
SDI Sit
|
SDI Res
|
SDI
|
|
Jan Hejda
|
CBJ
|
29
|
81
|
1020
|
4.347
|
+0.131
|
4.478
|
|
|
NSH
|
25
|
80
|
997
|
4.189
|
+0.244
|
4.425
|
|
|
PHX
|
29
|
82
|
1017
|
4.962
|
-0.537
|
3.873
|
|
|
COL
|
36
|
75
|
999
|
3.902
|
-0.028
|
3.741
|
|
|
COL
|
27
|
54
|
1049
|
4.866
|
-1.125
|
3.721
|
|
|
PHX
|
25
|
82
|
1011
|
4.533
|
-0.812
|
3.561
|
|
|
OTT
|
25
|
67
|
1019
|
4.351
|
-0.790
|
3.504
|
|
|
NYI
|
31
|
69
|
970
|
3.357
|
+0.147
|
3.181
|
|
|
OTT
|
29
|
81
|
1019
|
3.978
|
-0.796
|
3.181
|
|
|
COL
|
31
|
57
|
1012
|
3.879
|
-0.702
|
3.176
|
2008-09
|
Player
|
Team
|
Age
|
GP
|
PDO
|
SDI Sit
|
SDI Res
|
SDI
|
|
Jan Hejda
|
CBJ
|
30
|
82
|
1030
|
5.531
|
-0.379
|
5.152
|
|
Kurt Sauer
|
PHX
|
28
|
68
|
1012
|
6.412
|
-2.006
|
4.406
|
|
|
CBJ
|
29
|
81
|
1016
|
5.016
|
-0.933
|
4.083
|
|
|
PHX
|
26
|
82
|
988
|
5.477
|
-1.394
|
4.083
|
|
|
MIN
|
26
|
79
|
1015
|
5.490
|
-1.534
|
3.956
|
|
Dan Hamhuis
|
NSH
|
26
|
82
|
993
|
4.449
|
-0.565
|
3.884
|
|
|
BOS
|
31
|
80
|
1023
|
3.001
|
+0.595
|
3.596
|
|
Radek Martinek
|
NYI
|
32
|
51
|
976
|
4.661
|
-1.281
|
3.379
|
|
|
MIN
|
32
|
81
|
1011
|
3.943
|
-0.859
|
3.084
|
|
|
NSH
|
28
|
82
|
1011
|
4.024
|
-1.021
|
3.003
|
2009-10
|
Player
|
Team
|
Age
|
GP
|
PDO
|
SDI Sit
|
SDI Res
|
SDI
|
|
|
STL
|
23
|
78
|
1011
|
5.941
|
-0.253
|
5.688
|
|
|
STL
|
28
|
66
|
1001
|
5.217
|
-0.367
|
4.849
|
|
|
CHI
|
26
|
82
|
979
|
2.379
|
+2.305
|
4.684
|
|
Anton Volchenkov
|
OTT
|
27
|
64
|
996
|
4.362
|
+0.234
|
4.596
|
|
|
PHX
|
33
|
66
|
982
|
5.197
|
-0.983
|
4.215
|
|
Jan Hejda
|
CBJ
|
31
|
62
|
992
|
5.375
|
-1.627
|
3.748
|
|
Zbynek Michalek
|
PHX
|
27
|
72
|
1011
|
4.489
|
-0.766
|
3.723
|
|
Chris Phillips
|
OTT
|
31
|
82
|
998
|
3.470
|
+0.169
|
3.639
|
|
Dan Hamhuis
|
NSH
|
27
|
78
|
993
|
2.047
|
+1.048
|
3.095
|
|
|
CBJ
|
24
|
60
|
992
|
3.850
|
-0.901
|
2.949
|
2010-11
|
Player
|
Team
|
Age
|
GP
|
PDO
|
SDI Sit
|
SDI Res
|
SDI
|
|
|
DET
|
40
|
82
|
1002
|
3.960
|
+0.416
|
4.376
|
|
|
FLA
|
32
|
82
|
997
|
3.529
|
+0.344
|
3.873
|
|
|
TBL
|
34
|
72
|
987
|
5.119
|
-1.334
|
3.785
|
|
|
DET
|
31
|
67
|
1012
|
3.416
|
+0.004
|
3.420
|
|
|
CGY
|
27
|
82
|
995
|
3.263
|
+0.144
|
3.408
|
|
|
TBL
|
26
|
69
|
1004
|
3.782
|
-0.492
|
3.290
|
|
|
FLA
|
26
|
73
|
997
|
3.175
|
+0.008
|
3.183
|
|
|
MTL
|
26
|
36
|
996
|
3.299
|
-0.166
|
3.133
|
|
|
TBL
|
31
|
76
|
1007
|
2.872
|
+0.209
|
3.081
|
|
|
NYR
|
24
|
77
|
1005
|
3.441
|
-0.365
|
3.076
|
2011-12 (So Far)
|
Player
|
Team
|
Age
|
GP
|
PDO
|
SDI Sit
|
SDI Res
|
SDI
|
|
|
TBL
|
21
|
31
|
960
|
5.125
|
-0.400
|
4.725
|
|
Eric Brewer
|
TBL
|
32
|
47
|
1008
|
4.806
|
-1.088
|
3.717
|
|
Ryan O’Byrne
|
COL
|
27
|
49
|
1000
|
4.309
|
-1.074
|
3.234
|
|
|
CGY
|
25
|
50
|
1014
|
3.445
|
-0.305
|
3.141
|
|
|
LAK
|
22
|
44
|
990
|
1.486
|
+1.559
|
3.046
|
|
Jay Bouwmeester
|
CGY
|
28
|
50
|
1002
|
3.242
|
-0.261
|
2.980
|
|
Jan Hejda
|
COL
|
33
|
48
|
972
|
3.549
|
-0.647
|
2.902
|
|
|
CHI
|
26
|
46
|
1009
|
1.828
|
+1.011
|
2.840
|
|
|
NYR
|
22
|
47
|
1030
|
3.700
|
-0.885
|
2.815
|
|
|
CAR
|
29
|
51
|
1000
|
3.010
|
-0.220
|
2.790
|
So a couple of thoughts on the lists above: firstly Jan Hejda is easily the most under rated defensive player in the NHL post lockout; secondly while I may need to adjust some of this to prevent the index from penalizing players from good teams, this seems like an excellent tool for identifying potential defensive workhorses on less talented teams. In fact you may notice some UFA targets I have mentioned either on PPP or Twitter for the Leafs to aim for (Jason Garrison and Tim Gleason).
So I'm going to follow up this post tomorrow with a detailed look at how the Leafs D has shaped up over the past 5 years - it paints a picture that goes a long way to explaining their non-playoff results. Luckily though I find some reason for hope, but you'll need to tune in for more on that.
Please discuss your views in the comments and if you have any questions or suggestions I'll get to them when I can.
39 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Where would the Leafs best blueliner (whoever that is) rank on the 2011-2012 list so far?
Sometimes it seems this cycle never ends, we slide from top to bottom then we turn and climb again.
by Chris Stoikoff on Jan 30, 2012 11:18 AM EST reply actions
Or rather, how far down the list
Sometimes it seems this cycle never ends, we slide from top to bottom then we turn and climb again.
by Chris Stoikoff on Jan 30, 2012 11:18 AM EST up reply actions
I'm doing a post on the Leafs D
tomorrow – but to quickly mention it – Phaneuf is currently 36th in the NHL this year and Gunnarsson is around 40th.
The rest of the Leafs D are far down in the rankings.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Jan 30, 2012 11:30 AM EST up reply actions
Phaneuf is not the prototype of a “shutdown defender” which is what you are measuring here but he is an effective defender in game situations because he is drives a lot of shots at the opponents net. A balanced measure of scoring chances for and against will give a different picture. That is instead of measuring shutdown capability (players that minimize SA), defenders can be measured by how they minimize SA/(SA+SF) which can be generalized for Corsi and Fenwick by including blocked and/or missed shots. I think in this case Phaneuf would appear to be “better” defender because it incorporates his offensive game. Though like you said you are measuring shutdown specifically which will may make more gifted puck carriers appear worse on defence then they are in game situations.
Well
I’m comparing their Corsi ON and their usage in this, so the fact that Phaneuf is productive offensively is mitigated by the fact that he isn’t facing the hardest OZ% starts.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Jan 30, 2012 11:43 AM EST up reply actions
so realistically
this isn’t “making them” appear worse at all – it’s just recognizing the fact that they aren’t being used in a shut down role particularly. Sure they’re contributing a lot, but they aren’t being asked to face the toughest comp in the D Zone constantly with crappy line mates.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Jan 30, 2012 11:44 AM EST up reply actions
Ok see what you mean, the measure of shutdown capability is ranking defencemen by those who face the hardest opponents in their own D zone adjusted for the quality of teammates.
yep
and then I just factored in their corsi on as a measure of results… most of them are negative because the opposition and teammate effects are so massive they’re lucky if they just REDUCE the attempts against.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Jan 30, 2012 11:54 AM EST up reply actions
I don’t really understand the ratings here. Could you provide an example using a specific player? I think that might make things a bit more clear.
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".
Internet Champ. I'm on Twitter too! - draglikepull
I don't have the numbers in front of me
to give you a detailed run down but I’ll attempt to explain it as simply as I can:
Everything is indexed as a ratio of Standard Deviations from the avg in each category for every D man in the NHL in each season.
Basically SDI Sit is determined by Corsi REL QoC minus Corsi REL QoT plus the OZ% number.
SDI Res is just the Corsi ON/60 and a 20% weighting of the index for their penalty differential.
Add SDI Sit and SDI Res together and you get the final value. So basically it’s a sum of standard deviations from the mean – so the guys with the highest score work out to dealing with the most extreme situations and managing them the best from a Corsi and Penalty perspective.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Jan 30, 2012 11:34 AM EST up reply actions
My problem with this analysis (thought maybe it was your point)
Is that it focuses on guys who only play tough minutes: the Volchenkov’s of the world. On the other hand a guy like Keith or Bouwemeester who just never get off the ice does play very tough minutes at times (being a shutdown defender) but is also playing some softer minutes (just because they are on so much). That is why I think an adjustment for TOI somehow would be useful.
About time that people finally realized how awesome Gunnar is...
Certified Gunnar & Kule lover!
My new goal: To get the nickname Hebrew Hammer for Mike Brown to take off.
to be perfectly honest
I haven’t checked… and the reason I included PDO is because I think the luck factor would go a long way to affecting that GA/60 value anyway. Goaltending has such a high impact on +/- numbers that I don’t even know if there’s much value in factoring it in when assessing the D… but that’s just my personal take on it.
When I’m looking at these guys, my main objective is just to assess who is dealing with the most difficult comp from a Corsi perspective, while playing with the worst line mates, and then how they handle that situation – again from a Corsi and Penalty perspective.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Jan 30, 2012 11:36 AM EST up reply actions
Seems like there is a lot of pairing going on.
How do you separate the contributions of say, Girardi and McDonagh (who have spent well over 85% of the time together at even strength)?
Blueshirt Banter - Where Rangers' Fans Matter
Tracking the Rangers - Numbers don't lie. They just don't agree with you.
Twitter: RangerSmurf
"Oh, that sensible and sober* Rangers fan guy who is cool, actually" - Dominik, Lighthouse Hockey
*Statement has not been verified nor regressed
Yeah I've noticed that also
and realistically I’m not sure how I can get away from that aside from pointing out that I did account for Corsi REL QoT.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Jan 30, 2012 11:36 AM EST up reply actions
the problem with D partners
is they play so much together that separating them and getting meaningful data over a long enough term is pretty much a wasted effort.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Jan 30, 2012 11:37 AM EST up reply actions
that being said
using year over year data may be useful as D partners do often change year to year.
I will get to that in tomorrow’s posting though…
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Jan 30, 2012 11:37 AM EST up reply actions
in light of this
if you notice Hejda’s numbers, and then notice how frequently Columbus and Colorado (this year) players pop up in the top 10 alongside his… yeah his impact is huge… seriously the guy is a defensive masterpiece.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Jan 30, 2012 11:38 AM EST up reply actions
the interesting thing to me
about Girardi is, he’s appeared lower on the list than either of his recent D partners – Staal and McDonagh. Realistically it’s quite plausible that he’s being propped up by his D partners rather than the opposite.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Jan 30, 2012 11:40 AM EST up reply actions
I’ve made that argument for a while, but nobody wants to hear it. Girardi is a guy that does a lot of dirty work, and is seriously loved by the MSG scorer (hits/blocked shots), so it shows up on the stat page. He is very good in his own zone at clogging up passing and shooting lanes, he just struggles to actually take the puck away and turn it into the offense. That’s where Staal/McDonagh are much better.
Blueshirt Banter - Where Rangers' Fans Matter
Tracking the Rangers - Numbers don't lie. They just don't agree with you.
Twitter: RangerSmurf
"Oh, that sensible and sober* Rangers fan guy who is cool, actually" - Dominik, Lighthouse Hockey
*Statement has not been verified nor regressed
by George E. Ays on Jan 30, 2012 11:46 AM EST up reply actions
he's actually
a quantifiably worse shot blocker than McDonagh (and possibly Staal – though I haven’t checked the numbers).
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Jan 30, 2012 11:47 AM EST up reply actions
Than McD? I know I showed him worse than Sauer, haven’t checked it recently though, and I was only looking at ES blocks. I doubt he’s worse than Staal, Staal’s a guy that doesn’t let you shoot period, so his blocks aren’t great, I don’t think.
Blueshirt Banter - Where Rangers' Fans Matter
Tracking the Rangers - Numbers don't lie. They just don't agree with you.
Twitter: RangerSmurf
"Oh, that sensible and sober* Rangers fan guy who is cool, actually" - Dominik, Lighthouse Hockey
*Statement has not been verified nor regressed
by George E. Ays on Jan 30, 2012 11:49 AM EST up reply actions
His percentage
blocked of all attempts is higher – he has more blocked shots total, and the number of attempts when he’s on the ice is lower.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Jan 30, 2012 11:53 AM EST up reply actions
and yeah
I was only looking at ES blocks also… no easy access to SB totals on the PK makes that hard.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Jan 30, 2012 11:55 AM EST up reply actions
Possible Concern
If you try to account for teammates with Corsi REL QoT, since top pairing d-men tend to play together (on the top pair), won’t this metric favour anyone who outperforms their role? So, in other words, it wouldn’t measure absolute value but rather value relative to the circumstances in which they play? Which theory might account for the fact that there are a lot of players in the top 10 lists from less than stellar teams.
In the court of public opinion, Steve Simmons is Lionel Hutz.
But that's
exactly why I’m looking for their value relative to circumstances.
I want the guys that perform the best in the most challenging situations… and if they perform well in easy situations then that’s to be expected?
Why would I bother going the other way?
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Jan 30, 2012 12:33 PM EST up reply actions
and I'm not sure you're correct
on your less than stellar teams theory – remember this is purely from a corsi perspective… and it doesn’t include goaltending or shooting percentage in the accounting… because frankly I don’t think D have a huge impact on either number.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Jan 30, 2012 12:35 PM EST up reply actions
for instance
despite the widely held belief that Columbus is a “less than stellar team” due to their record, they’re actually in the top half of the NHL in their close Fenwick percentage numbers… which isn’t what most people would expect.
They just have atrocious goaltending and their shooting has been amazingly unlucky this year.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Jan 30, 2012 12:36 PM EST up reply actions
and defensively
you could say the same thing about Tampa Bay. Their D hasn’t been good aside from the two guys listed at the top of this year’s numbers, but their biggest problem has been in goal – not the blue line.
Dwayne Roloson has been atrocious this year.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Jan 30, 2012 12:37 PM EST up reply actions
Ok, I’ll concede the point about the teams being less than stellar.
My concern with the performance relative to circumstance issue is this: imagine there are two players, A and B, who play for different teams. Player A is actually a better defensive defenseman. (For the sake of argument, imagine that we know this.) He also plays on a defensively stronger team and with a better d partner than player B. Player A also plays on the top pairing for his team, but player B plays on the second pairing. However, relative to player B, his partner is significantly worse than he is (the gap between him and his partner exceeds the gap between player A and his partner). Suppose finally that player B isn’t much worse than the top pairing on his team, and so he plays relatively difficult minutes for a second pairing guy.
Because of the nature of his team and the weakness of his partner, B will show up in your ratings as being better than A, even though we assumed the opposite.
In the court of public opinion, Steve Simmons is Lionel Hutz.
Ugh that's sort of a mess.
In other words, your ranking is of players relative to their circumstances, but because it doesn’t seem to account for the relative difficulty of the circumstances(as in relative to other circumstances), a guy holding his own on the first pairing and a guy holding his own on the second pairing would show up as being roughly the same, even though one may actually be far better.
In the court of public opinion, Steve Simmons is Lionel Hutz.
yes that's exactly my point
and the part you’re missing is the results aspect… if player A is so much better than player B his impact should show up in the SDI Res column… if his impact isn’t so distinctive then it won’t.
And since we’re talking Standard Deviations from the avg, we’re looking at how they compare respectively to all of their peers, it’s not a counting statistic. Playing more minutes or with better line mates once in a while doesn’t really shift things drastically.
This stat basically says you play quantifiably more difficult minutes and have quantifiably superior results then you rank higher.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Jan 30, 2012 2:37 PM EST up reply actions
Hawerchuk has noted that Columbus has gathered a team of players that have fairly low career shooting percentages.
OPERATION TANK IS A GO. It’s the only explanation for Mike Weber. He’s on a secret mission.
yep
and that hurts them… for sure… which would hurt +/- assessments.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm."
- Sir Winston Churchill
I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Leafs.
by Steve Burtch on Jan 30, 2012 2:39 PM EST up reply actions
Just thinking about how the different systems also play a factor in this… I mean remember Franson talking about how much more aggressive the Leafs defensive system was than Nashville’s and thus being a problem with him adjusting to it. Like for instance teams that play more of a defensive and counter attack system would yield different results than if the same players were on a run’n’gun type tema/system as an example.
I know that they might not be a way to take this into consideration but might lead to why a certain player is so low or high on a list… teams’ systems might be a contributing factor as a deterrent to a players ability or enhance it.
"There's been four different Cup winners the last four years, and I got one of them (Anaheim) and it was a fighting team. We're playing it that way regardless." - B. Burke, Toronto Maple Leafs GM
I find it interesting to see Ballard in there (highly rated in Florida, traded for a huge package than benched on his new team) as well as Commodore (waived and bought out by Columbus of all teams), and of course Mike Weaver last year. He is a surprisingly effective player.
One thing I think your ranking needs is some sort of TOI analysis. Playing a lot of minutes is a defensive skill IMHO.
About time that people finally realized how awesome Gunnar is...
Certified Gunnar & Kule lover!
My new goal: To get the nickname Hebrew Hammer for Mike Brown to take off.

by 






























