Official 2019 Offseason Rebuild Thread

[Dabura 12,232]

3 hours ago, kickazz said:

I would hate for all this forward talent to go to waste the next 5-7 years while we’re still waiting and waiting to get better on defense 

Ergo; I think a trade is necessary within a couple of years of this build.

3 hours ago, Jonas Mahonas said:

I agree with your assessment of none of these guys projecting out to 1A/1B though.  So we will need to acquire those 2 spots in the next 2-3 UFA/Draft periods.

I'm starting to think we might not have to wait two or three years to see some weaknesses addressed, because I'm not sure the Wings brass is willing to wait two or three more years. We've got a new arena and fan enthusiasm is at a 25-year low. The Red Wings/Hockeytown brand is taking a beating. We have an exciting new captain who needs and deserves a better supporting cast.

If Yzerman is brought in this summer, it won't be so he can sit on his hands and maintain the status quo. If Holland stays, well, Devellano has basically stated that he and Holland are impatient people. If we get Hughes or Kakko, I could see that being the catalyst for big changes in an attempt to get back into the playoffs next season. If we don't get Hughes or Kakko, I could see the brass being bitterly disappointed and going the "outside the box" route to speed up the rebuild.

tl;dr Changes could be coming sooner than we think.

[krsmith17 7,191]

1 hour ago, Dabura said:

I'm starting to think we might not have to wait two or three years to see some weaknesses addressed, because I'm not sure the Wings brass is willing to wait two or three more years. We've got a new arena and fan enthusiasm is at a 25-year low. The Red Wings/Hockeytown brand is taking a beating. We have an exciting new captain who needs and deserves a better supporting cast.

If Yzerman is brought in this summer, it won't be so he can sit on his hands and maintain the status quo. If Holland stays, well, Devellano has basically stated that he and Holland are impatient people. If we get Hughes or Kakko, I could see that being the catalyst for big changes in an attempt to get back into the playoffs next season. If we don't get Hughes or Kakko, I could see the brass being bitterly disappointed and going the "outside the box" route to speed up the rebuild.

tl;dr Changes could be coming sooner than we think.

Both of these scenarios scare the s*** out of me... I don't think we should be looking for any quick fixes, regardless if we land Hughes / Kakko... A few smart hockey trades, sure. A big free agent splash that we'll regret in two years time, no thanks... I'd much prefer to stay patient, "trust the process", and continue to rebuild through the draft. While also, like I said, making a few small trades that will benefit us long term.

[Dabura 12,232]

1 hour ago, krsmith17 said:

Both of these scenarios scare the s*** out of me... I don't think we should be looking for any quick fixes, regardless if we land Hughes / Kakko... A few smart hockey trades, sure. A big free agent splash that we'll regret in two years time, no thanks... I'd much prefer to stay patient, "trust the process", and continue to rebuild through the draft. While also, like I said, making a few small trades that will benefit us long term.

That's the way I'd go, but lately I'm wondering how much more losing the brass is willing to put up with.

We shall see.

[Jonas Mahonas 1,872]

1 hour ago, krsmith17 said:

Both of these scenarios scare the s*** out of me... I don't think we should be looking for any quick fixes, regardless if we land Hughes / Kakko... A few smart hockey trades, sure. A big free agent splash that we'll regret in two years time, no thanks... I'd much prefer to stay patient, "trust the process", and continue to rebuild through the draft. While also, like I said, making a few small trades that will benefit us long term.

The real problem is that we missed our on sure fire #1 defensemen recently.  Buffalo has tanked well and will be in the driver's seat for the next 10 years as Pitts, Wash, and Tampa slow down.  The Wings need a #1 s*** down D in 2020 and 2021 drafts.  

[kickazz 5,459]

2 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

Both of these scenarios scare the s*** out of me... I don't think we should be looking for any quick fixes, regardless if we land Hughes / Kakko... A few smart hockey trades, sure. A big free agent splash that we'll regret in two years time, no thanks... I'd much prefer to stay patient, "trust the process", and continue to rebuild through the draft. While also, like I said, making a few small trades that will benefit us long term.

 

59 minutes ago, Dabura said:

That's the way I'd go, but lately I'm wondering how much more losing the brass is willing to put up with.

We shall see.

I don't even think we need to go balls for an elite defenseman. Just 1-2 stable defensemen like Mike Green, above-average type guys that would be a good supporting cast for Larkin on the back end. 

And I agree that if we got a new GM; they would be expected to make changes, just like anyone being replaced at a job usually brings "something new" to the table. In our case it would probably be something along the lines of a trade since that's the exact opposite of what the current philosophy is. 

Edited January 25, 2019 by kickazz

[krsmith17 7,191]

2 minutes ago, kickazz said:

 

I don't even think we need to go balls for an elite defenseman. Just 1-2 stable defensemen like Mike Green, above-average type guys that would be a good supporting cast for Larkin on the back end. 

If we can get a 21-25 year old Mike Green type defenseman, I'd be all in. I don't want anymore 28-33 year old Mike Green (Trevor Daley) type defensemen.

[Jonas Mahonas 1,872]

28 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

If we can get a 21-25 year old Mike Green type defenseman, I'd be all in. I don't want anymore 28-33 year old Mike Green (Trevor Daley) type defensemen.

Ain't gonna happen.  Who can we draft in 2020?

[nyqvististhefuture 1,002]

15 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

If we can get a 21-25 year old Mike Green type defenseman, I'd be all in. I don't want anymore 28-33 year old Mike Green (Trevor Daley) type defensemen.

I’m with you on that , first priority is to try and trade for a bean/fabbro type prospect and hope they become a stud dmen for us , we should definitely target fabbro since nashville is rock solid at d win josi,Ellis,eckholm for many years ... subban if they decide to toss a pick or so to Seattle to keep him or if they trade him they can land a top d prospect right back , allard as well ...they always draft good d’s 

 

what if Erik karlsson calls us July 1 though? Tells us alfie told him how great Detroit is and he wants to come , how can we say no ? The guy always gets a ton of pts every season and can still skate .... I’d try and get him closer to 10 x 7 tell him it’s for the best for the team and if he says no , maybe tell him we’ll give you 12.5 but x 4? x 5? 

anyways went off board there he won’t come most likely but as you mentioned getting young top d prospects with offensive upside is a must on this team 

[kipwinger 8,772]

I'm really not as worried about our defense as everyone seems to be, for a couple reasons.

First, we've got genuinely good defensive prospects.  Hronek is scoring at a 40ish point pace as a rookie, and Cholowski's right around 30 points pace as a rookie.  Pretty impressive.  McIsaac battled through injury this season, made Canada's WJC team early (and was a big part of it), and is scoring in line with the top defensive prospects of his draft year while playing a solid defensive game.  See no reason why he can't project as a top four defenseman.  Maybe Gustav Lindstrom does too, though it's a bit more murky.  And then our ranks are loaded with depth guys.  And that's all within our own organization. 

Second, the idea of "you need a elite #1 defenseman" is overblown anyway because nobody seems sure what that means.  Quite a few people around here were positive that John Carlson wasn't a "elite defenseman" on the Caps way to the Cup last year.  Vegas certainly didn't have one.  Pittsburgh has one in Letang, but their most recent Cup was won without him.  Unlike centers, where I really believe you need a game breaking talent, I'm less sure you need a star on defense as I'm sure you need two really good pairs.  I think we've got the makings of that. 

Finally, it's nothing you can't fix in free agency.  While I've loathed the idea of trading for Trouba for years, nabbing him in free agency a year from now probably changes the entire complexion of the blueline.  Same with Josi, Tanev, Muzzin, Spurgeon, Vatanen, Faulk, Barrie.  All are FA's next year.  Many of them will get re-signed, but some won't.  That's what free agency is best for, filling in gaps. 

I would be really really loathe to reach too far on a defenseman in this year's draft given all the offensive talent that will be available. I still think that our center depth is our biggest organizational weakness at the most important position. 

Edited January 26, 2019 by kipwinger

[Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083]

Give me 4 Brad Stuarts on our D corp and I am happy with that. Maybe none of the kids turn into high end top pair guys, but I do believe that all of Hronek, Cholowski, McIsaac, and Lindstrom turn into solid 2nd pair D at least, and I am ok with that.

[Jonas Mahonas 1,872]

37 minutes ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

Give me 4 Brad Stuarts on our D corp and I am happy with that. Maybe none of the kids turn into high end top pair guys, but I do believe that all of Hronek, Cholowski, McIsaac, and Lindstrom turn into solid 2nd pair D at least, and I am ok with that.

Agreed.  But I think Hronek will be 1B in a few years.  Rafalski type.

[Dabura 12,232]

We need all the things. And even when/if we get all the things, that probably won't be enough and we'll have to get more things.

Winning Cups is hard.

[kipwinger 8,772]

31 minutes ago, Jonas Mahonas said:

Agreed.  But I think Hronek will be 1B in a few years.  Rafalski type.

These kinds of distinctions are essentially meaningless though.  If "1A" is a guy who plays offense and defense equally well, and at basically an elite level, then there are only like 5 of those guys in the league.  And if almost no teams have them, then they can't be all that vital to success.  If Filip Hronek starts putting up 50 points a season he's a top pair defenseman.  If he does that AND plays really good defense then he's elite.  If Cholowski plays 20+ minutes a night, plays solid defense, and is good on special teams then he's a top pair defenseman.  If he does all that and score 40+ points he's an elite defenseman.  Labeling is so arbitrary.  It's basically a popularity tool more than a useful categorization. 

Edited January 26, 2019 by kipwinger

[Dabura 12,232]

36 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

These kinds of distinctions are essentially meaningless though.  If "1A" is a guy who plays offense and defense equally well, and at basically an elite level, then there are only like 5 of those guys in the league.  And if almost no teams have them, then they can't be all that vital to success.  If Filip Hronek starts putting up 50 points a season he's a top pair defenseman.  If he does that AND plays really good defense then he's elite.  If Cholowski plays 20+ minutes a night, plays solid defense, and is good on special teams then he's a top pair defenseman.  If he does all that and score 40+ points he's an elite defenseman.  Labeling is so arbitrary.  It's basically a popularity tool more than a useful categorization. 

I would roughly define a 1A defenseman as a Norris-caliber bus driver and I would say it's brutally difficult to win a Cup without a guy like that -- unless, perhaps, you have Crosby & Malkin at center and/or unreal goaltending.

I'm all for being optimistic about our defense and I'm open to the possibility that we already have all the components of a future Cup-winning defense, but at this point it's speculation. Lindstrom hasn't played a single NHL game. McIsaac hasn't played a single NHL game. Cholowski and Hronek have performed pretty well as rookies, but it's early days. If the situation at center looks better at the moment, it's because we have a proven 1C in Larkin and a solid prospect in Veleno and we'll probably be adding a high-end pivot in the upcoming draft.

Realistically, if winning Cups is the goal, the centers we currently have in the system probably won't be enough and the defensemen we currently have in the system probably won't be enough. If I had the choice between adding a powerhouse centerman or a powerhouse defenseman, I'd *probably* go with the centerman and hope that our outstanding center depth cancels out any shortcomings we might have on the blue line. Ideally, we get both the C and the D. Though, even then, we're probably still at least one key piece away from being as good as the 2018-19 Lightning.

[kipwinger 8,772]

58 minutes ago, Dabura said:

I would roughly define a 1A defenseman as a Norris-caliber bus driver and I would say it's brutally difficult to win a Cup without a guy like that -- unless, perhaps, you have Crosby & Malkin at center and/or unreal goaltending.

I'm all for being optimistic about our defense and I'm open to the possibility that we already have all the components of a future Cup-winning defense, but at this point it's speculation. Lindstrom hasn't played a single NHL game. McIsaac hasn't played a single NHL game. Cholowski and Hronek have performed pretty well as rookies, but it's early days. If the situation at center looks better at the moment, it's because we have a proven 1C in Larkin and a solid prospect in Veleno and we'll probably be adding a high-end pivot in the upcoming draft.

Realistically, if winning Cups is the goal, the centers we currently have in the system probably won't be enough and the defensemen we currently have in the system probably won't be enough. If I had the choice between adding a powerhouse centerman or a powerhouse defenseman, I'd *probably* go with the centerman and hope that our outstanding center depth cancels out any shortcomings we might have on the blue line. Ideally, we get both the C and the D. Though, even then, we're probably still at least one key piece away from being as good as the 2018-19 Lightning.

Even that's problematic to use as a guidepost.  Is "Norris Caliber" a guy who could realistically win the Norris, or someone who received a Norris vote? Because if the former, then only about 5 guys in the league are 1A, and if the later then you have to include guys like Jacob Slavin, Josh Monson, Shane Gostisbehere, and Mark Eduard Vlasic...according to last year's voting anyway.  And none of those guys are realistically better than, say, Werenski, McAvoy, Yandle, Ekman Larsson, Byfuglien, etc. etc. etc. 

That's the thing I hate about this type of labeling.  If it's sufficiently strict enough, it'll necessarily leave out guys we all know are top defensemen; and if it's not strict enough then anybody can be one. 

https://www.hockey-reference.com/awards/voting-2018.html

[Dabura 12,232]

27 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

Even that's problematic to use as a guidepost.  Is "Norris Caliber" a guy who could realistically win the Norris, or someone who received a Norris vote? Because if the former, then only about 5 guys in the league are 1A, and if the later then you have to include guys like Jacob Slavin, Josh Monson, Shane Gostisbehere, and Mark Eduard Vlasic...according to last year's voting anyway.  And none of those guys are realistically better than, say, Werenski, McAvoy, Yandle, Ekman Larsson, Byfuglien, etc. etc. etc. 

That's the thing I hate about this type of labeling.  If it's sufficiently strict enough, it'll necessarily leave out guys we all know are top defensemen; and if it's not strict enough then anybody can be one. 

https://www.hockey-reference.com/awards/voting-2018.html

For me, it's someone who can reasonably be considered one of the ten best defensemen in the league (e.g. Keith in his prime, Doughty) or someone who's managing to put himself in that conversation with an amazing season or two (e.g. Carlson last season). A "franchise player," or something close to it.

Labels can be dumb, but I'd wager most people are thinking of roughly the same player when they talk about how badly their team needs That Guy.

[kipwinger 8,772]

Just now, Dabura said:

For me, it's someone who can reasonably be considered one of the ten best defensemen in the league (e.g. Keith in his prime, Doughty) or someone who's managing to put himself in that conversation with an amazing season or two (e.g. Carlson last season). A "franchise player," or something close to it.

Labels can be dumb, but I'd wager most people are thinking of roughly the same player when they talk about how badly their team needs That Guy.

For sure, and I don't disagree.  I just think once you get outside the top 5ish players there enough variability to make it meaningless.  Like, I doubt anybody would bat an eyelash if I said Alex Pietrangelo or Aaron Ekblad were a 1A defenseman.  Those same people were likely the ones saying for years that Kronwall wasn't a top defenseman, despite him being their equal (in the case of Pietrangelo) or better (in the case of Ekblad) across his career. Likewise Karlsson or Burns might reasonable be considered a 1A defenseman, but probably few would say the same of Byfuglien. 

I spent a good amount of time looking at all the various top defensemen's HERO charts today. One thing I found really interesting was comparing guys who everyone would consider "elite" with guys who most people wouldn't.  The numbers just don't support the narrative.  You'd be surprised who's better or worse than who when you take perception out of the judgement and just look at the numbers. 

[Jonas Mahonas 1,872]

4 hours ago, kipwinger said:

These kinds of distinctions are essentially meaningless though.  If "1A" is a guy who plays offense and defense equally well, and at basically an elite level, then there are only like 5 of those guys in the league.  And if almost no teams have them, then they can't be all that vital to success.  If Filip Hronek starts putting up 50 points a season he's a top pair defenseman.  If he does that AND plays really good defense then he's elite.  If Cholowski plays 20+ minutes a night, plays solid defense, and is good on special teams then he's a top pair defenseman.  If he does all that and score 40+ points he's an elite defenseman.  Labeling is so arbitrary.  It's basically a popularity tool more than a useful categorization. 

The only point I'm trying to make is that I don't think any of our current d prospects show Lidstrom type prowess.  Meaning - anybody that plays with him looks great.  Hronek strikes me as the type of defenseman that could be stellar if he was paired with an elite 1A guy.  But getting that 1A on the team is the real challenge.  Holland completely blew it by not tanking hard in 2018 and landing Dahlin.

[kipwinger 8,772]

17 minutes ago, Jonas Mahonas said:

The only point I'm trying to make is that I don't think any of our current d prospects show Lidstrom type prowess.  Meaning - anybody that plays with him looks great.  Hronek strikes me as the type of defenseman that could be stellar if he was paired with an elite 1A guy.  But getting that 1A on the team is the real challenge.  Holland completely blew it by not tanking hard in 2018 and landing Dahlin.

Lol.  None of our current prospects has shown that they'll turn into a 7 time Norris trophy winning, hall of fame, all time legendary defenseman?  Whelp...I guess we're screwed. 

 

Edited January 27, 2019 by kipwinger

[Jonas Mahonas 1,872]

4 hours ago, kipwinger said:

Lol.  None of our current prospects has shown that they'll turn into a 7 time Norris trophy winning, hall of fame, all time legendary defenseman?  Whelp...I guess we're screwed. 

 

Sorry, but if you look at all the cup winners since 2007, they all have a Norris trophy winner on em except last season.  And I wouldn't be surprised if Jon Carlson wins the Norris this year and makes it a 12 year streak.  We need a 1A bad and blew it by not tanking for Dahlin last season.  That stupidness could haunt us for 20 more seasons.

[kipwinger 8,772]

9 hours ago, Jonas Mahonas said:

Sorry, but if you look at all the cup winners since 2007, they all have a Norris trophy winner on em except last season.  And I wouldn't be surprised if Jon Carlson wins the Norris this year and makes it a 12 year streak.  We need a 1A bad and blew it by not tanking for Dahlin last season.  That stupidness could haunt us for 20 more seasons.

No, they haven't.  Pittsburgh has won the Cup three times in that span without a Norris winner.  Same with Washington.  Since 2000, only 11 teams have won the Cup.  Of those, 5 did not have a Norris defender (Colorado, Tampa, Carolina, Pittsburgh, Washington), and  6 did (Detroit, New Jersey, Anaheim, Boston, Chicago, and Los Angeles).  So it's hardly that cut and dry. 

I'm not saying having a Norris caliber defender isn't good, or even preferable.  I'm saying you need a good defensive group to win a Cup.  I'm not convinced that having the single best defenseman makes that much difference (as opposed to having the best center for instance) because they don't really touch the puck enough to have that big an effect.  I think it's way more important that the defense collectively influences the game at a really high level rather than have one stud and a bunch of other guys that are ok. 

[Jonas Mahonas 1,872]

1 hour ago, kipwinger said:

No, they haven't.  Pittsburgh has won the Cup three times in that span without a Norris winner.  Same with Washington.  Since 2000, only 11 teams have won the Cup.  Of those, 5 did not have a Norris defender (Colorado, Tampa, Carolina, Pittsburgh, Washington), and  6 did (Detroit, New Jersey, Anaheim, Boston, Chicago, and Los Angeles).  So it's hardly that cut and dry. 

I'm not saying having a Norris caliber defender isn't good, or even preferable.  I'm saying you need a good defensive group to win a Cup.  I'm not convinced that having the single best defenseman makes that much difference (as opposed to having the best center for instance) because they don't really touch the puck enough to have that big an effect.  I think it's way more important that the defense collectively influences the game at a really high level rather than have one stud and a bunch of other guys that are ok. 

Letang hasn't won yet.  Oops.  You are right.

[Dabura 12,232]

21 hours ago, kipwinger said:

For sure, and I don't disagree.  I just think once you get outside the top 5ish players there enough variability to make it meaningless.  Like, I doubt anybody would bat an eyelash if I said Alex Pietrangelo or Aaron Ekblad were a 1A defenseman.  Those same people were likely the ones saying for years that Kronwall wasn't a top defenseman, despite him being their equal (in the case of Pietrangelo) or better (in the case of Ekblad) across his career. Likewise Karlsson or Burns might reasonable be considered a 1A defenseman, but probably few would say the same of Byfuglien. 

I spent a good amount of time looking at all the various top defensemen's HERO charts today. One thing I found really interesting was comparing guys who everyone would consider "elite" with guys who most people wouldn't.  The numbers just don't support the narrative.  You'd be surprised who's better or worse than who when you take perception out of the judgement and just look at the numbers. 

(Note: None of the following is really directed at you, it's just a rambly anecdotal response that kind of fits with the stuff we're talking about.)

I was big into advanced stats for a few years. They led me to totally re-evaluate my understanding of the game, made me believe that so much of what so many people say is underinformed bulls***. That NHL coaches get so much wrong. That scouts get so much wrong. That general managers get so much wrong. That pundits and talking heads are, in fact, professional fools. That the exalted have been rendered obsolescent by the analytics revolution and its keen insights.

Lately, I find myself becoming increasingly disillusioned with analytics. It's not really the stats themselves, it's more the way I see them being (mis)used by a lot of people. I find they inspire intellectual laziness in a lot of people who rail against decidedly "old-school" hockey people for being closeminded -- and I find the irony delicious. "Ericsson should be sitting instead of Cholowski because look at their HERO charts." "Blashill mistakenly believes scoring chances are more important and revealing than shots-on-goal and shot attempts and this is just more proof that the Wings are out of touch and behind the curve." I see people make these cases. I myself have made similar arguments. It's cringey.

Weirdly, it's actually our D corps and their performance this season that has me questioning my convictions (souring on the analytics community) and thinking our D situation might not be so bad. We don't win many games, but our broken-ass defense generally plays well enough to give us a chance to win every night. We allow a lot of goals, but so many of our losses are one-goal squeakers. We allow a lot of shots, but I think Blashill might really be on to something with his strategy of playing extremely deep in the D-zone and conceding the perimeter to the opposition as an acceptable price for focusing more intently on clogging the high-danger areas. Maybe we're not doing an especially good job of limiting high-danger chances, but the logic behind what Blashill's trying to do makes sense. If we can assemble a D group that's a bit more mobile and a bit more offensively capable and is able to play this kind of zone D a bit better, we might have something.

Edited January 27, 2019 by Dabura

[kipwinger 8,772]

3 hours ago, Dabura said:

(Note: None of the following is really directed at you, it's just a rambly anecdotal response that kind of fits with the stuff we're talking about.)

I was big into advanced stats for a few years. They led me to totally re-evaluate my understanding of the game, made me believe that so much of what so many people say is underinformed bulls***. That NHL coaches get so much wrong. That scouts get so much wrong. That general managers get so much wrong. That pundits and talking heads are, in fact, professional fools. That the exalted have been rendered obsolescent by the analytics revolution and its keen insights.

Lately, I find myself becoming increasingly disillusioned with analytics. It's not really the stats themselves, it's more the way I see them being (mis)used by a lot of people. I find they inspire intellectual laziness in a lot of people who rail against decidedly "old-school" hockey people for being closeminded -- and I find the irony delicious. "Ericsson should be sitting instead of Cholowski because look at their HERO charts." "Blashill mistakenly believes scoring chances are more important and revealing than shots-on-goal and shot attempts and this is just more proof that the Wings are out of touch and behind the curve." I see people make these cases. I myself have made similar arguments. It's cringey.

Weirdly, it's actually our D corps and their performance this season that has me questioning my convictions (souring on the analytics community) and thinking our D situation might not be so bad. We don't win many games, but our broken-ass defense generally plays well enough to give us a chance to win every night. We allow a lot of goals, but so many of our losses are one-goal squeakers. We allow a lot of shots, but I think Blashill might really be on to something with his strategy of playing extremely deep in the D-zone and conceding the perimeter to the opposition as an acceptable price for focusing more intently on clogging the high-danger areas. Maybe we're not doing an especially good job of limiting high-danger chances, but the logic behind what Blashill's trying to do makes sense. If we can assemble a D group that's a bit more mobile and a bit more offensively capable and is able to play this kind of zone D a bit better, we might have something.

Analytics, old or new, are an objective way to evaluate players across a set of metrics.  You can argue that the measurements are bad, or misleading, or incorrectly applied, but you can't argue with the results because they're empirical.  If any stat is good, bad, or in between it's good, bad, or in between for all players equally.  And so for comparative purposes it has value.  HERO charts just measure points per game and shot effects. Saying "Ericsson should be sitting instead of Cholowski because look at his HERO" is no different than saying "Ericsson should be sitting instead of Cholowski because he scores less per 60 minutes, gives up more shots on goal, and doesn't shoot as much". Seems pretty reasonable to me.  Note: this is kind of a bad example because Cholowski, being a rookie, doesn't have a HERO chart yet so I don't know whether he's better in these areas than Ericsson. 

Secondly, I don't think there's anything wrong with Blashill's system (best I can tell being an amateur).  Our defensemen do a good job with all the defensive parts of the game.  Unfortunately defensemen in today's game need to jumpstart the transition, jump up into the rush, and produce on the powerplay consistently as well.  Ours doesn't.  Weird as it is to say, defenses can't just play defense anymore and that's where we need to improve.  It's not that gap control, shot blocking, zone coverage, and board battles aren't important, it's just that they aren't enough anymore. 

Edited January 27, 2019 by kipwinger

[Jonas Mahonas 1,872]

23 minutes ago, kipwinger said:

Analytics, old or new, are an objective way to evaluate players across a set of metrics.  You can argue that the measurements are bad, or misleading, or incorrectly applied, but you can't argue with the results because they're empirical.  If any stat is good, bad, or in between it's good, bad, or in between for all players equally.  And so for comparative purposes it has value.  HERO charts just measure points per game and shot effects. Saying "Ericsson should be sitting instead of Cholowski because look at his HERO" is no different than saying "Ericsson should be sitting instead of Cholowski because he scores less per 60 minutes, gives up more shots on goal, and doesn't shoot as much". Seems pretty reasonable to me.  Note: this is kind of a bad example because Cholowski, being a rookie, doesn't have a HERO chart yet so I don't know whether he's better in these areas than Ericsson. 

Secondly, I don't think there's anything wrong with Blashill's system (best I can tell being an amateur).  Our defensemen do a good job with all the defensive parts of the game.  Unfortunately defensemen in today's game need to jumpstart the transition, jump up into the rush, and produce on the powerplay consistently as well.  Ours doesn't.  Weird as it is to say, defenses can't just play defense anymore and that's where we need to improve.  It's not that gap control, shot blocking, zone coverage, and board battles aren't important, it's just that they aren't enough anymore. 

So how do we relate this info back to the topic?