Toews or Kane

[kipwinger 8,492]

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.

[kickazz 5,459]

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.

I said he's not known for his defensive ability. No one here said he's bad. I think you're over exaggerating the argument. Kane is a possession player sure, but he's not a defensive player in the general sense. He's not a good penalty killer, he's not known for takeaways, he's not a good shutdown player. You're ignoring the prime attributes of defense and looking at possession and equating it to having defensive ability. I don't agree with that. To me if someone is defensively astute they would have more than the simple ability to hang on to the puck. When Zetterberg was in the Selke running from 2006-2008 he mostly played as a Left Wing rather than a Center and he was not only a possession player but also a shutdown forward, good at takeaways, and killed A LOT of penalties and blocked a ton of shots.

Also Hossa is quite known for his defense so I'm not sure if you can say he wasn't recognized. He's been voted in top 5 for Selke running in the past. He's been a primary PK guy in his career.

http://nesn.com/2015/04/patrice-bergeron-marian-hossa-among-top-picks-for-selke-tophy-video/

Edited March 5, 2016 by kickazz

[kickazz 5,459]

Possession should count towards defense and so should back checking. I don't disagree with that, but I'm also saying that there are other things primary things that seperate the guys who can play some amount of defense from guys that are REALLY good are defense. Guys like Yzerman and Fedorov in the past and guys like Datsyuk, Toews, Zetterberg etc today.

Edited March 5, 2016 by kickazz

[kipwinger 8,492]

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.

[kickazz 5,459]

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.

By that account then wouldn't Kane be better defensively than Toews since his possession metrics are slightly higher? (if I'm not mistaken)

Edited March 5, 2016 by kickazz

[kipwinger 8,492]

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.

[Izzy24 44]

Kane until his back breaks. After that, Toews.

[Bill Berzeench 310]

Kane is an offensive machine.

[Buppy 1,720]

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.

True to a point.

While possession is an excellent means of playing defense, even the very best possession players will still be playing defense ~40-45% of the time 5v5. Kane is not one of the best, and going off shot metrics, he's playing defense about 49% of the time. Traditional defensive skills are still and always will be very critical.

Any highly skilled player, like Kane or Crosby or Ovie or any other star that gets criticized for poor defense, that puts in an honest effort is going to be at least decent defensively, and probably even above average. That effort is just as or even more important than possession ability.

Comparisons to someone like Glendening aren't really fair. No one is going to say Glenny is a more effective player than Kane, or even Tatar. No one thinks his superior defensive play outweighs his far inferior offense. But his defense is better. Even though his possession metrics are crap, used far more often in the defensive zone, and often matched against top offensive players, he's still on the ice for fewer goals against than Kane or Tatar. People may overrate the defensive ability of players like him, because there's nothing else worth praising, but that doesn't mean he's actually bad defensively. For most teams, whoever fills out the bottom of the roster probably isn't going to generate much offense, so you might as well have the best defensive guy in there. If you can use those guys in the tough defensive situations to save your top players for more offensive use, all the better.

[kipwinger 8,492]

True to a point.

While possession is an excellent means of playing defense, even the very best possession players will still be playing defense ~40-45% of the time 5v5. Kane is not one of the best, and going off shot metrics, he's playing defense about 49% of the time. Traditional defensive skills are still and always will be very critical.

Any highly skilled player, like Kane or Crosby or Ovie or any other star that gets criticized for poor defense, that puts in an honest effort is going to be at least decent defensively, and probably even above average. That effort is just as or even more important than possession ability.

Comparisons to someone like Glendening aren't really fair. No one is going to say Glenny is a more effective player than Kane, or even Tatar. No one thinks his superior defensive play outweighs his far inferior offense. But his defense is better. Even though his possession metrics are crap, used far more often in the defensive zone, and often matched against top offensive players, he's still on the ice for fewer goals against than Kane or Tatar. People may overrate the defensive ability of players like him, because there's nothing else worth praising, but that doesn't mean he's actually bad defensively. For most teams, whoever fills out the bottom of the roster probably isn't going to generate much offense, so you might as well have the best defensive guy in there. If you can use those guys in the tough defensive situations to save your top players for more offensive use, all the better.

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.

Edited March 5, 2016 by kipwinger

[Bill Berzeench 310]

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.

Glendening vs. Tatar?

Neither of these guys makes the blackhawks roster. That's why we are in this crappy position. Because Ken Holland signs Tatar and Richards to play 2nd line. Bowman signs Toews and Hossa. See the difference?

[e_prime 1,936]

Glendening vs. Tatar?

Neither of these guys makes the blackhawks roster. That's why we are in this crappy position. Because Ken Holland signs Tatar and Richards to play 2nd line. Bowman signs Toews and Hossa. See the difference?

Actually Dale Tallon picked Toews, and Kane and signed Hossa... Bowman just lucked his way into those guys.

Edited March 5, 2016 by e_prime

[kliq 3,755]

Actually Dale Tallon picked Toews, and Kane and signed Hossa... Bowman just lucked his way into those guys.

Even though he's trolling, good point. You got to feel bad for Tallon, he does all the work in turning the Hawks around, and then Bowman walks in and gets all the credit. Not to say Bowman has done nothing, but he was handed an amazing core to work with.

[Bill Berzeench 310]

Bowman signed Toews most recently. Tallon signed Hossa. My point isn't necessarily who's doing what in Chicago. It's who's doing nothing in Detroit. We're talking about who's best suited to play 2nd line wing so we can make the playoffs. They're talking dynasty. Ken Holland has let our organization completely fall out of the picture. The Red Wings are no longer a measuring stick. They are a game every team is optomistic about winning. Tatar's metrics vs Glendening's metrics? Ha!

[kipwinger 8,492]

Firstly, I was making a large point about how people perceive "defensive ability". Not comparing Tatar vs. Glendening with some point about our roster.

Also, Quite a lot of our players are as good or better than Chicago's. Tatar wouldn't crack their roster but Tomas Fleishmann does? Lol. Chicago is better than us because their top players are WAY better than our top players. Not because their secondary players are better. Toews, Kane, Keith, and Seabrook are much better than Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Kronwall, and Dekeyser (?). Much.

With that said I think there are a number of ways in which we can improve our lot given our current lineup. And i think there are lots of ways I think we can improve our secondary guys. But we're not likely going to compete for a Cup until we have high end players (in their prime) again. And I'm not talking about good complimentary players, I'm talking about guys who can carry a team night in and night out (kinda like Kane and Toews do).

Switch all our none core guys with Chicago's and we're still not any good. So it's not like their roster moves are what's putting them over the top. If anything, the fact that they've torn their team apart three times and won three Cups is proof that it doesn't matter who they put around their good guys, not that they've got some winning recipe for player acquisition.

[Bill Berzeench 310]

Firstly, I was making a large point about how people perceive "defensive ability". Not comparing Tatar vs. Glendening with some point about our roster.

Also, Quite a lot of our players are as good or better than Chicago's. Tatar wouldn't crack their roster but Tomas Fleishmann does? Lol. Chicago is better than us because their top players are WAY better than our top players. Not because their secondary players are better. Toews, Kane, Keith, and Seabrook are much better than Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Kronwall, and Dekeyser (?). Much.

With that said I think there are a number of ways in which we can improve our lot given our current lineup. And i think there are lots of ways I think we can improve our secondary guys. But we're not likely going to compete for a Cup until we have high end players (in their prime) again. And I'm not talking about good complimentary players, I'm talking about guys who can carry a team night in and night out (kinda like Kane and Toews do).

Switch all our none core guys with Chicago's and we're still not any good. So it's not like their roster moves are what's putting them over the top. If anything, the fact that they've torn their team apart three times and won three Cups is proof that it doesn't matter who they put around their good guys, not that they've got some winning recipe for player acquisition.

Agreed to an extent. Their core is bigger than 4 guys though. Hossa is pat of the core. Hjalmersson is part of the core. They've been able to off secondary guys because they have more coming up right behind them. Panarin takes over for Sharp. Teravainen takes over for Saad. Etc etc etc. We need to bring up guys, and ship them out if they dont cut it. Pulkinnen, Nyquist, Tatar, and Richards are not giving us what we need. They need to be replaced.

[barabbas16 499]

I hate them both. I hate Kane more. But, I might just hate Toews more than Crosby now. I'll definitely root for any team against the Blackhawks.