kipwinger

While I'm definitely not an expert with regards to advanced stats, my understanding is that usage (much like quality of competition) tends to wash out over time and has only a small effect on possession metrics. But again, I'm not good enough with the numbers to verify that. I correspond pretty regularly with the "math freaks" who do, and I'm just repeating what they tell me. And I'm not even trying to suggest that Tatar (or Kane) is better defensively than Glendening. Just that the difference is smaller than people think. Glendenings GA/60 is 2.12, while Tatar's is 2.4. That's the difference of about 16 goals per season. Glendening's TMGA/60 (measuring how much more your teammates get scored on when you aren't playing with them) is .08 better than Tatar's. Both are on the bottom end of the team. That's a difference of about 6 goals per season. So again, not huge, and almost entirely washed out by Tatar's offensive contributions. My only point in all of this was not to directly compare the two players. They do different things, in a different way. I was just trying to cast doubt on the notion that being good at "traditional" defensive aspects of the game is all that much better than just being decent defensively, and good at possession. I picked those two guys because the knee jerk reaction by most would be that Luke Glendening is WAY better defensively than Tomas Tatar. That they're at opposite ends of the "defensive" spectrum. But they aren't really. You could do the same thing with Pulkkinen and Glendening, and Pulkkinen actually buries him (weirdly, Andersson does too). Yet pretty much everyone thinks Pulkkinen is awful defensively, and Glendening is much better.

He is probably no worse. Toews gets the love because he's a center and has the hardware, but on the whole the Blackhawks are an excellent defensive team precisely because they're such a strong possession team. Its their system, which everyone buys into, that keeps them playing in the offensive zone and away from their own net. Hence they don't get scored on nearly as much as they score. This is one of the reasons (not the only one) that drove me crazy about Babcock. He specifically wanted our forwards playing back further in our zone. Making breakouts and transition harder, and making dump and chase more necessary. He even stated at one point that he wanted our team to be more conservative back when Lids, Rafalski, Kronwall, and Stuart were our top four, but didn't do it "because we could get away" with not playing that way. Not surprisingly we had more success back then. A big part of the fall off was on personnel, which wasn't his fault, but its telling that his preferred system would have had those great luck movers playing more conservatively as well.

And I disagree, I think being a good possession player is WAY more important than being a "shutdown" guy...whatever that means. Henrik Zetterberg was good defensively precisely because be was a great possession player. If you recall all his great defensive moments he was playing against centers (Crosby in 2008, Toews in 2013). He wasn't doing anything in the defensive zone that Kane doesn't regularly do. Also, I don't think that being a good penalty killer is some indicator of defensive acumen. Any more than I think being good on the power play necessarily makes you a great offensive player. Drew Miller and Luke Glendening are decent penalty killers, but their "defensive" game is wildly overrated. They play defense CONSTANTLY because they're terrible at moving the puck out of their zone. And as a result the puck is in our zone whenever they're on the ice. I also think takeaways are a wildly overrated defensive metric. Pulkkinen is one of our better takeaway players, yet I don't think he'd be considered good defensively by most. Conversely Datsyuk has lots of takeaways too but because he is so effective at then taking it into the ozone and keeping it there, he is a better "defensive" player. Google "Dave Tippett and thinking about defense differently". Its a great article on the importance of puck movement for effective defending, while also implicitly identifying why traditional notions of defense are so overrated in today's game.

Kanes main defensive responsibilities are to backcheck, pick up the puck carrier if it gets kicked to the point in the Chicago zone, and be available to take a quick pass from the defensemen or diggers and advance the puck up the ice (and keep it there). He's good at all those things.

Someone on the last page said Kane had no innate defensive ability. Which is a crock. People don't understand how defense has changed from the old days. Theres a great quote by Dave Tippett which explains it. Sadly I can't attach it from my phone. But essentially it says possession matters more than traditional "defensive skills" like checking and blocking shots. People think Glendening is a good defensive player, and Tatar a bad one, despite the fact that Glendening plays the entire shift in his zone and Tatar plays in the other end. Same with Kane. Trying to justify hating on him by saying "he's bad defensively" demonstrates an insanely archaic way of thinking about hockey.

Most wingers never get much recognition for being good defensively. They just have so much less responsibility in that regard. Think about Hossa for instance, excellent defensively but never talked about the way Datsyuk, Bergeron, of Kopitar is. So its easy to see why people overlook Kane's defense. That and because " he's bad defensively" has become the most overused pejorative in the hockey universe. But Kane isn't really bad defensively. He's not a future Sellke winner (neither are any wingers) but he backchecks hard and picks up his man on the rush. What else is he supposed to do? He's also such a good possession player that he's almost never playing defense. So what's it matter? "He's bad defensively" is right up there with "Red Wings fans are spoiled" on the list of dumb cliches that irritate the hell out of me.

I really like Toews and think he's a very good player. But Kane is on another level. Toews is one of then 10 best centers in the league. Kane is one of the three best wingers. Despite the fact that its harder to be a good center than a good winger, if forced to choose I take Kane every time.

The comparison is apt. Crosby scored 102 points as a rookie. Toews scored 54 as a rookie. Neither were stalwart defenders. Not too different than McDavid and Larkin's scoring rate and defensive ability this season. And no, I wouldn't take Larkin over Mcdavid. But that wasn't an option. We have Larkin and I'm extremely happy with him. I'm not pining for Mcdavid one iota.

I wonder how much of Pulkkinens success in the AHL had to do with Meile? Because he's making Frk look just as good right now. Also, while Frk is a long, long, way from an NHL player, his shot seems just as good as Pulkkinens, he's no slower (or faster), and his size alone will help him protect the puck better. I will make a bold prediction that he could we a decent third line winger and power play guy one day. Still needs a little development, but he finds spots well, shoots well, and is a decent in high traffic areas. Late bloomer no doubt, but I don't think he's a bust at all.

I don't care if we don't have the next Crosby. We have the next Toews. And as overrated as everyone says he is, he's good enough to win Cups. McDavid is a great player and all, but wishing Larkin was more like him is splitting hairs. They've both got very nice looking careers ahead of them. Who cares if McDavid scores more so long as Larkin wins more?

What a side show. A bunch of 50 year olds jawing about something that happened 20 years ago. Foote should put his varsity jacket on, start blasting "Glory Days", and tell the Wings to meet him in the parking lot. McCarty would be there in a heartbeat given how badly he wants to live in the past.

Holy hell AA is awesome

Glendening out in OT? Jesus Christ.

By comparison he's a regular David Lee Roth of charisma.

AA looks good, the rest of the team looks wretched. I assume that's on account of these retarded lines. Why is Jurco out?

You're awfully surly tonight. Everything OK at home?

LGW changed me back for some strange reason. I'll probably switch to AJ Styles in the coming days.

Sweetwater Tavern for the wings (chicken), Bucharest for the Shwarma, Atwater Brewery, Lafayette coney (f*** American), Southern Fires.

Yikes, I was way off on his contract. Goes to show what I know.

As long as he's willing to sign a contract I'd want him in a heartbeat. Because I heart Big Buf.

Didn't see Juco's goal. Was it a beauty?

I thought Jurco looked really good both games. So that's a plus. Otherwise we were brutal. We never shoot, and when we do we never hit the net. No wonder we don't score.

I've really soured on anyone who can't get the puck and do something with it. I don't care how many shots you block or how gritty you are. If you don't possess the puck you suck in the modern game. What good are you doing if you block a shot or break up a pass and the give the puck back to the other team for another try? Our WORST possession forwards are on the pk. How do you clear the puck if you can't get it from the other team?

I have a dream...of a roster without Glendening or Anderson. Its rough knowing I'll inevitably be disappointed. Nyq-Z-Abby Lark-Dats-Tatar Richards-Sheahan-Pulk Jurco-Helm-AA

$$$$$$? Bettman doesn't care about the integrity of the league. He cares about money. And Scott's story just made this All-Star game a wild success.