The Defensive Logjam

[herman]

In light of the above, what's the point in casting traditionals in the bottom of the line up?

The defensive scheme, like the offensive tiki-taka breakouts/transitions and 'Total Hockey' pinch pressure points, seems to be all about calculated risks with support, taking numerical advantage where the evidence says the percentages are in your favour in the long run. I can see why they ponied up for a starting goalie (that gave Babcock comfort and security in Big Positional and Athletic Butterfly) in light of the changes up front (safety net).

What I can't see is why we wouldn't go all in on the process and develop more of the youth to ingraining the quick read and rote-decision making habits, instead opting to shoe-horn in players that play a more traditional, simplified chip-in/chip-out game. Are they too a safety net for when the more skilled players falter or work through the growing pains?

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

While I agree with you herman, that's how I'd go too, I wonder if they don't think they had the horses for the PK.

PK seems like the one area right now that requires a more traditional approach, I wonder if they are throwing Polak and Hunwick to the wolves a little in that regard while the rest learn and develop into physical specimens that can play PK and embrace the grind so to speak.

Again, it wouldn't be my approach, but it looks like it might be Babcock's for now.

 

[herman]

While I agree with you herman, that's how I'd go too, I wonder if they don't think they had the horses for the PK.

PK seems like the one area right now that requires a more traditional approach, I wonder if they are throwing Polak and Hunwick to the wolves a little in that regard while the rest learn and develop into physical specimens that can play PK and embrace the grind so to speak.

Again, it wouldn't be my approach, but it looks like it might be Babcock's for now.

I'd say you have a really good point there. The DZC scheme uses numbers to overcome any size/strength disadvantage, and obviously that'd be far less possible on the PK. Not quite knowing what he had in the rookies at the start, it makes sense to have some options in the vets.

Side note: Jonas Siegel posited another interesting reason for hanging on to some of these players a few Leafs Reports ago: guys like Hunwick and Smith (and I guess Polak) are not just real good pros, but total gym rats. "They are riippped..." according to Siegel.

 

[Kin]

Side note: Jonas Siegel posited another interesting reason for hanging on to some of these players a few Leafs Reports ago: guys like Hunwick and Smith (and I guess Polak) are not just real good pros, but total gym rats. "They are riippped..." according to Siegel.

I don't know how that dynamic specifically plays out but it does bring up the scourge of the analytic community. Either we give guys like Babcock some measure of rope in thinking that interpersonal dynamics have an effect or we don't.

 

[herman]

I don't know how that dynamic specifically plays out but it does bring up the scourge of the analytic community. Either we give guys like Babcock some measure of rope in thinking that interpersonal dynamics have an effect or we don't.

Let me clarify that it was Siegel spitballing ideas why Babcock might want to keep those guys around.

That being said, I'm not fully sure what you said, even though I understood the words.  ;D

 

[Highlander]

I said Hey what?  ???

 

[CarltonTheBear]

So Babcock's thoughts on Hunlack, via Chris Johnson:

Babcock's a goals over corsi guy, we've already talked a bit about that so whatever. I'm most interested about his "they're the best PKers" line. Hunwick has the highest GA/60 on the team at 4v5. He's just a tad higher than Rielly, who admittedly I also don't think should really be on the PK as much as he is.

Also, apparently Marincin has yet to be on the ice for a 4v5 goal against this season, and prior to his injury Hunwick basically took his spot away on the bottom pairing.

 

[herman]

I would facepalm, but whatever. Hunlak is a limited time 'feature' and this year doesn't matter as long as the kids are being developed.

Dubas and co. should point out Hunwick's PDO of 103, which will likely regress to the mean hard at some point. And also if you preach 'shoot the puck lots' on offense, the same principle ought to apply in reverse on defense.

 

[McGarnagle]

I  Either we give guys like Babcock some measure of rope in thinking that interpersonal dynamics have an effect or we don't.

I think this bears repeating, because it really boils down to either accepting an element of first hand knowledge to a situation that can't be reconciled on the surface, or letting a stats program run the lineup.

 

[Arn]

So basically what it all boils down to is we don't have a defensive logjam cos we really only have a couple of decent defensemen?

 

[McGarnagle]

So basically what it all boils down to is we don't have a defensive logjam cos we really only have a couple of decent defensemen?

No, because the definition of a logjam doesn't involve quantifying the quality of the logs within the jam. Just that there's a lot of logs. And they're jammed.

 

[Bill_Berg]

So basically what it all boils down to is we don't have a defensive logjam cos we really only have a couple of decent defensemen?

No, because the definition of a logjam doesn't involve quantifying the quality of the logs within the jam. Just that there's a lot of logs. And they're jammed.

That's what my toilet said the other day.

 

[Tigger]

So basically what it all boils down to is we don't have a defensive logjam cos we really only have a couple of decent defensemen?

No, because the definition of a logjam doesn't involve quantifying the quality of the logs within the jam. Just that there's a lot of logs. And they're jammed.

Mmmmm, softwood jam, lagalagalaga.

 

[Arn]

Fair. But it's the kind of logjam you can easily clear out the dead wood of which there is more than the finest teak? Right?

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

This reminds me, I need to have a vegetable juice in the morning.

 

[bustaheims]

Are we having another semantic discussion, or are we pushing the limit of the metaphor instead?

 

[Highlander]

This reminds me, I need to have a vegetable juice in the morning.

Fibre Ben, Fibre

 

[herman]

https://twitter.com/kerdy19/status/810150656833126401

This conversation is catching some fire with recent defences of Hunwick, Polak, Russell, etc.

 

[herman]

https://theathletic.com/30638/2016/12/19/charting-hockey-the-numbers-arent-kind-to-roman-polak-matt-hunwick/

Prompted by this:
https://twitter.com/hockeyanalysis/status/808726972541059072
www.twitter.com/hockeyanalysis/status/808726972541059072

I like that the Athletic goes into the numbers and the video as a general rule.

Hunlak's CF% have bumped up to above 50% in our last segment of games likely due to deployment changes: their minutes have been scaled down and they largely see their ice time split between line 4 and Kadri's shutdown line which has more recently been matched against secondary offense with the no-duh emergence of Matthews.

Their GA% (which is pretty much a fancy way of saying +/-) has been fueled by their 103ish PDO. Defenders cannot directly influence save percentage to any significant degree, but Hunlak certainly is doing something that reduces high danger scoring chances. However, what they reduce in quality of chances against, is sort of made moot by the volume of chances against, coupled with generating very little going the other way.

Player		TOI		CF60		CA60		CF%
Polak		355		58.18		65.86		46.90
Hunwick		326		55.90		61.31		47.69
Marincin		233		63.59		60.69		51.16
Rielly		537		70.61		60.25		53.96
Zaitsev		534		65.89		59.17		52.69
Gardiner		507		67.78		59.12		53.41
Carrick		398		64.71		57.81		52.82

The linked article demonstrates some of the behaviour in our zone that contributes to Hunlak having difficulty clearing our zone under control. For Polak, it's his grenade-handling style anytime the puck comes anywhere near him. For Hunwick, it looks like he has a lost a significant step and pretty consistently tries moves he cannot pull off.

 

[Kin]

Quiet you. They're good and tough and definitely worth 2nd round picks.