The Defensive Logjam

[herman]

I have leaned hard away from traditional 'stay-at-home' defensemen types in the past 5 years, since the game has gotten faster and faster still.

What I value in defenders are skating ability (forwards and backwards), gap control/disruption, puck retrieval skills, zone exits, and zone entries. A nice to have on top of that would be a good accurate shot. Other than the shot, all those things are heavily reliant on skating agility, mobility, and speed.

I think the Leafs need smart, fast, and patient defensemen. To my eye, and to the numbers, Schenn is unfortunately lacking in those departments. He plays a bit scared of the incoming forecheck and often dumps the puck, or forces a pass that goes errant when the other guy is about 4 sticks away.

This is an excellent post, you've got a keen eye herman and usually articulate yourself very well without mocking, your posts really provide great value to this site, thanks.

Thanks WIGWAL. Just trying to keep up with the fine tradition I encountered here when I first started lurking.

 

[Kin]

I think if we're talking about how the Leafs need to  improve to become contenders then the quality of their depth defensemen is pretty low on the list. Not in the sense that it shouldn't be a high priority(although that's probably true too) but in the sense that there's really not much of a gap between the Leafs and the better teams in the league.

The Penguins won the cup with Ian Cole and Justin Schultz(and occasionally Maata or Pouliot) on their bottom pairing. The Sharks made the final with Polak and somebody named Brenden Dillon in that role. Marincin, Carrick and Hunwick seem roughly of that general quality and Polak is actually here so that seems pretty settled.

The really big question going forward is in the top 4. Whether or not Rielly can become a #1, will Gardiner continue to improve and just what, if anything, Zaitsev becomes. There weren't really any quick fixes for the top four available this year and even drafting where the Leafs did(outside of Matthews) would have yielded longshots.

Right now this year is probably going to be another developmental one with a bottom 10 finish. With any luck they can do well in the lottery and hopefully add a high end defensive prospect next summer.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

PPP with a good article examining Morgan Rielly's partners from last season: http://www.pensionplanpuppets.com/2016/8/9/12331450/examining-how-morgan-riellys-partners-affected-him

Their closing thoughts on the topic aren't exactly earth-shattering news but it's still a nicely researched article:

I think there's a few things to take away from this. The first is that the Hunwick-Rielly pairing really didn't work. I'm sure that's no surprise to anyone who watched the Leafs this year, but the numbers corroborate it. The second is that Marincin-Rielly held their own, though they were certainly not ideal for a 'top pairing' either. That might sound negative, but I actually think it's fairly impressive that Rielly can tread water in tough minutes playing with someone like Marincin. Marincin, much as I love him, is probably not a top pairing defensemen on a team attempting to win. Last year, he was asked to be for a significant portion of the year

So Rielly is no Jake Gardiner, who seemingly carries everyone to impressive shot results, but you know what? Most players aren't. Most players - even "number 1 defensemen" - play with partners who are talented and well above average in their own right. Rielly really hasn't had that opportunity. When Rielly has been played with a good player (Gardiner), he's succeeded. To get a better idea of whether he can play top pairing minutes going forward, they need to pair him with one for the long term.

The Leafs have a ton of really nice pieces in the organization but are still desperately missing a suitable defensive partner (preferably right-handed) for Rielly. We have a massive collection of talented forwards, we have a goalie signed for the next 5 years, Gardiner will stabilize the 2nd pairing regardless of who he plays with. There's just that one piece of the puzzle missing still and it's a big one.

 

[herman]

I think if we're talking about how the Leafs need to improve to become contenders then the quality of their depth defensemen is pretty low on the list. Not in the sense that it shouldn't be a high priority(although that's probably true too) but in the sense that there's really not much of a gap between the Leafs and the better teams in the league.

The Penguins won the cup with Ian Cole and Justin Schultz(and occasionally Maata or Pouliot) on their bottom pairing. The Sharks made the final with Polak and somebody named Brenden Dillon in that role. Marincin, Carrick and Hunwick seem roughly of that general quality and Polak is actually here so that seems pretty settled.

The really big question going forward is in the top 4. Whether or not Rielly can become a #1, will Gardiner continue to improve and just what, if anything, Zaitsev becomes. There weren't really any quick fixes for the top four available this year and even drafting where the Leafs did(outside of Matthews) would have yielded longshots.

Right now this year is probably going to be another developmental one with a bottom 10 finish. With any luck they can do well in the lottery and hopefully add a high end defensive prospect next summer.

That's a very good point.

The Penguins winning defense had some caveats, right? They had a true #1 in Letang chugging up 30ish minutes a night. Sports radio pundits were generally concerned about the sustainability of that (pretty much from preseason and on), but their corps were bolstered as well by premiere goaltending and (eventually) a strategy that sheltered them with strong forward support.

Have there been any (established/projected) top-2 defensemen of the caliber and age we covet hitting the market since the lockout? Seth Jones? The Hall-Larsson trade hopefully is not a price-setting precedent.

 

[herman]

PPP with a good article examining Morgan Rielly's partners from last season: http://www.pensionplanpuppets.com/2016/8/9/12331450/examining-how-morgan-riellys-partners-affected-him

My favourite line (which is exactly what I did before I read it):

Like most charts about the Leafs, you can identify the section where you want to be by finding Jake Gardiner.

 

[Kin]

The Penguins winning defense had some caveats, right? They had a true #1 in Letang chugging up 30ish minutes a night. Sports radio pundits were generally concerned about the sustainability of that (pretty much from preseason and on), but their corps were bolstered as well by premiere goaltending and (eventually) a strategy that sheltered them with strong forward support.

Yeah, but that seems like it might prove to be the rule rather than the exception. Most recent cup winners have been built with one superstar #1 with that sort of workload(Keith, Doughty). The Penguins were a little extreme in that they don't have the #2 and #3 guys those teams had but one of the realities of the cap is teams can't be great everywhere and more and more it looks like teams are willing to cut corners with the back half of their defensemen. Chicago's had terrible 5-6 play the year before and LA's been pretty weak there too.

Have there been any (established/projected) top-2 defensemen of the caliber and age we covet hitting the market since the lockout? Seth Jones? The Hall-Larsson trade hopefully is not a price-setting precedent.

I'm assuming you mean hitting the market as in being traded as opposed to being a RFA.

Anyways, Dougie Hamilton is someone who comes to mind in that sense as is Nick Leddy. Aside from those two, nobody jumps out at me.

 

[herman]

Yeah, but that seems like it might prove to be the rule rather than the exception. Most recent cup winners have been built with one superstar #1 with that sort of workload(Keith, Doughty). The Penguins were a little extreme in that they don't have the #2 and #3 guys those teams had but one of the realities of the cap is teams can't be great everywhere and more and more it looks like teams are willing to cut corners with the back half of their defensemen. Chicago's had terrible 5-6 play the year before and LA's been pretty weak there too.

Oh yeah, them. Other than Chicago (sort of), those winners also rode pretty stellar goaltending, which is a relatively salary cap efficient (albeit rare) method of covering up cut-corners. The non-Penguins had Keith/Seabrook, Doughty/Muzzin. We currently have ?/Rielly/Gardiner. I wish we had a right-handed Gardiner.

I'm assuming you mean hitting the market as in being traded as opposed to being a RFA.

Anyways, Dougie Hamilton is someone who comes to mind in that sense as is Nick Leddy. Aside from those two, nobody jumps out at me.

I just meant moved in general (trade, free agency). Seems like a pretty rare scenario, and the dumb GMs that would do that sort of thing have already done it (c'moooon Benning...).

 

[cabber24]

I wouldn't call the Leafs D a logjam considering how shallow the skill set is as a whole. But who knows, previous year we have had great D on paper but horrific D stats.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

I just meant moved in general (trade, free agency). Seems like a pretty rare scenario, and the dumb GMs that would do that sort of thing have already done it (c'moooon Benning...).

There have been a number of pretty good top-4 options available in free agency the past few years. Stralman, Goligoski, Demers, Martin, Niskanen, Yandle. I wouldn't have signed a Goligoski or Demers this year given where our team is currently at, but those seemed like pretty good signings for Arizona and Florida. In a year or two if Rielly develops even into a lower-end top pairing defenceman and Zaitsev into a top-4 guy, I wonder if signing a Goligoski-equivalent would be enough to give us a more balanced top-6 defence that could compete with the more top-heavy groups that contending teams have been running.

Obviously I'd love to draft Liljegren next year and see him become a legitimate top-15 defenceman in the league but given how rare those opportunities are the team needs to have some type of back-up plan ready. If our number 1 defenceman isn't on the level as other recent Cup winners then we can at least make sure our 2 through 6 guys can match up better.

 

[herman]

I just meant moved in general (trade, free agency). Seems like a pretty rare scenario, and the dumb GMs that would do that sort of thing have already done it (c'moooon Benning...).

There have been a number of pretty good top-4 options available in free agency the past few years. Stralman, Goligoski, Demers, Martin, Niskanen, Yandle. I wouldn't have signed a Goligoski or Demers this year given where our team is currently at, but those seemed like pretty good signings for Arizona and Florida. In a year or two if Rielly develops even into a lower-end top pairing defenceman and Zaitsev into a top-4 guy, I wonder if signing a Goligoski-equivalent would be enough to give us a more balanced top-6 defence that could compete with the more top-heavy groups that contending teams have been running.

Obviously I'd love to draft Liljegren next year and see him become a legitimate top-15 defenceman in the league but given how rare those opportunities are the team needs to have some type of back-up plan ready. If our number 1 defenceman isn't on the level as other recent Cup winners then we can at least make sure our 2 through 6 guys can match up better.

I'd say 3-4 defensemen get moved with regularity (even Dion Phaneuf and his contract). I think you're right in that the most readily available option to us is to develop the heck out of Rielly and hope he hits Doughty-lite, and bolster 2-6 with as much talent as possible with those 3-4D signings. I think Babcock's system helps a lot in this regard with forwards synched to the defense.

The other options: lottery win/lower round draft homerun are very much outside our direct control. Players of projectable talent and still early in their development curve to line up with our forwards is even harder to find.

 

[Kin]

Obviously I'd love to draft Liljegren next year and see him become a legitimate top-15 defenceman in the league but given how rare those opportunities are the team needs to have some type of back-up plan ready. If our number 1 defenceman isn't on the level as other recent Cup winners then we can at least make sure our 2 through 6 guys can match up better.

See, except I think this is where we run into the different ways you and I are looking at this building process. To my mind, Plan B is patience. It's sticking around the bottom of the league until you find a player like that and making moves to help it along. Much like how if the Leafs hadn't won the lottery, there shouldn't have been a "hey, can we win without a #1 C?" plan B.

Because absence that patience, trying to cobble together an alternative that doesn't have much in the way of successful precedent seems like a perfect recipe for building a team like St. Louis or the Islanders where you can reach a certain level before the cap forces you to start looking around and wondering how you can take the next step.

Signing Kadri, keeping JVR, trading for Andersen...all of those decisions are risks where the team very well might be prolonging the issue. Earlier in the year when we talked about timetables for the rebuild I didn't make mine longer than yours because I'm a pessimist or because I secretly want to watch the Leafs stink for five years, it's because when I look at really successful teams I do see a sort of pattern in terms of how long it really took them to build what they wanted while allowing for the occasional Thomas Hickey or Cam Barker(or, conversely, Duncan Keith and Jake Muzzin).

Like I said, not going all in on this would be a risk. A calculated one maybe but personally it's not something I'd flirt with.

 

[Frank E]

Obviously I'd love to draft Liljegren next year and see him become a legitimate top-15 defenceman in the league but given how rare those opportunities are the team needs to have some type of back-up plan ready. If our number 1 defenceman isn't on the level as other recent Cup winners then we can at least make sure our 2 through 6 guys can match up better.

See, except I think this is where we run into the different ways you and I are looking at this building process. To my mind, Plan B is patience. It's sticking around the bottom of the league until you find a player like that and making moves to help it along. Much like how if the Leafs hadn't won the lottery, there shouldn't have been a "hey, can we win without a #1 C?" plan B.

Because absence that patience, trying to cobble together an alternative that doesn't have much in the way of successful precedent seems like a perfect recipe for building a team like St. Louis or the Islanders where you can reach a certain level before the cap forces you to start looking around and wondering how you can take the next step.

Signing Kadri, keeping JVR, trading for Andersen...all of those decisions are risks where the team very well might be prolonging the issue. Earlier in the year when we talked about timetables for the rebuild I didn't make mine longer than yours because I'm a pessimist or because I secretly want to watch the Leafs stink for five years, it's because when I look at really successful teams I do see a sort of pattern in terms of how long it really took them to build what they wanted while allowing for the occasional Thomas Hickey or Cam Barker(or, conversely, Duncan Keith and Jake Muzzin).

Like I said, not going all in on this would be a risk. A calculated one maybe but personally it's not something I'd flirt with.

I honestly don't even know what the template is anymore...the basics seem to be 3 legit elite forwards, and at least one 30 minute defenseman that can do everything.

 

[herman]

See, except I think this is where we run into the different ways you and I are looking at this building process. To my mind, Plan B is patience. It's sticking around the bottom of the league until you find a player like that and making moves to help it along. Much like how if the Leafs hadn't won the lottery, there shouldn't have been a "hey, can we win without a #1 C?" plan B.

What's the cut-off point, i.e. when we begin 'wasting' Matthews/Nylander/Marner/Rielly? Presumably their peak (if history holds true) is around the 24-26 year old mark, so that's around 4-6 years from now for the forwards, coinciding with Rielly's later peak as a defenseman. The best bang for the buck years comes earlier than that though.

At some point, I think we do have to play the cards we're dealt and try to nab a 1RHD (or whatever) at full retail price, or heavily pad the depth talent, if drafting duds out or is too slow.

If we still didn't have Matthews, this would probably be a full patience build.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

See, except I think this is where we run into the different ways you and I are looking at this building process. To my mind, Plan B is patience. It's sticking around the bottom of the league until you find a player like that and making moves to help it along. Much like how if the Leafs hadn't won the lottery, there shouldn't have been a "hey, can we win without a #1 C?" plan B.

Well, just to clarify I don't think I'm saying "can we win without a #1 D?", I'm saying "can we win with a #1 D who isn't on a Keith/Doughty/Letang level?". If I felt that Rielly topped out as a 2nd pairing guy then this would be a different story. And if next season shows that he tops out as a 2nd pairing guy then we'll very likely be in lottery contention again so that balances out a little bit.

And of course had we lost the lottery then it'd be a different story as well. But that gave us a potential top-10 centre and a potential 1-2-3 punch as good as anyone else in the league. That makes me feel like we'd be less reliant on a top-10 defenceman.

Because absence that patience, trying to cobble together an alternative that doesn't have much in the way of successful precedent seems like a perfect recipe for building a team like St. Louis or the Islanders where you can reach a certain level before the cap forces you to start looking around and wondering how you can take the next step.

Signing Kadri, keeping JVR, trading for Andersen...all of those decisions are risks where the team very well might be prolonging the issue. Earlier in the year when we talked about timetables for the rebuild I didn't make mine longer than yours because I'm a pessimist or because I secretly want to watch the Leafs stink for five years, it's because when I look at really successful teams I do see a sort of pattern in terms of how long it really took them to build what they wanted while allowing for the occasional Thomas Hickey or Cam Barker(or, conversely, Duncan Keith and Jake Muzzin).

Like I said, not going all in on this would be a risk. A calculated one maybe but personally it's not something I'd flirt with.

Now don't get me wrong though, I do love your plan in theory. I would absolutely take another 2 or 3 seasons at the bottom of the standings if it meant we got to continue accumulating high draft picks and high-potential prospects. I just never felt that was realistic, or something other teams have done successfully before. Teams like PIT/CHI/LA were bad for the right amount of time, and got very lucky with their draft selections, and they allowed their group to improve naturally over time. I don't really think they actively tried to make their team worse every offseason to remain in the bottom of the standings.

Now like I said it does sound like a good plan in theory and if that option was on the table I would have definitely considered it. But it would have probably required the Leafs to remove at least 2 of JVR, Kadri, and Gardiner. That hasn't happened. It would have also helped if the Leafs went into this season with below-average goaltending, and the team actively went out to improve their goaltending situation this summer. So to me those decisions signal that the team isn't really going to follow that plan. So we may as well consider the other options.

 

[rdowdall]

I think if we're talking about how the Leafs need to improve to become contenders then the quality of their depth defensemen is pretty low on the list. Not in the sense that it shouldn't be a high priority(although that's probably true too) but in the sense that there's really not much of a gap between the Leafs and the better teams in the league.

The Penguins won the cup with Ian Cole and Justin Schultz(and occasionally Maata or Pouliot) on their bottom pairing. The Sharks made the final with Polak and somebody named Brenden Dillon in that role. Marincin, Carrick and Hunwick seem roughly of that general quality and Polak is actually here so that seems pretty settled.

The really big question going forward is in the top 4. Whether or not Rielly can become a #1, will Gardiner continue to improve and just what, if anything, Zaitsev becomes. There weren't really any quick fixes for the top four available this year and even drafting where the Leafs did(outside of Matthews) would have yielded longshots.

Right now this year is probably going to be another developmental one with a bottom 10 finish. With any luck they can do well in the lottery and hopefully add a high end defensive prospect next summer.

That's a very good point.

The Penguins winning defense had some caveats, right? They had a true #1 in Letang chugging up 30ish minutes a night. Sports radio pundits were generally concerned about the sustainability of that (pretty much from preseason and on), but their corps were bolstered as well by premiere goaltending and (eventually) a strategy that sheltered them with strong forward support.

Have there been any (established/projected) top-2 defensemen of the caliber and age we covet hitting the market since the lockout? Seth Jones? The Hall-Larsson trade hopefully is not a price-setting precedent.

Just to add to the Penguins argument, if you look at the Blackhawks last cup win, the defence was really powered by Duncan Keith playing 30 minutes a night.  It seems that you need to have that #1 d-man that can play 30 minutes a night, and then a couple of pretty good d-men to round out a top 3 so to speak.  I think that Reilly and Gardiner fall in to that really good category, but they are still lacking that defenceman that can log heavy minutes in all situations.   

 

[Kin]

What's the cut-off point, i.e. when we begin 'wasting' Matthews/Nylander/Marner/Rielly? Presumably their peak (if history holds true) is around the 24-26 year old mark, so that's around 4-6 years from now for the forwards, coinciding with Rielly's later peak as a defenseman. The best bang for the buck years comes earlier than that though.

I'm excited about all four of those players and think they all have the potential to become players who make you think about things like taking full advantage of their peak years but none of them, not even collectively, are more important than the Leafs doing this properly.

I watched the Quinn years. They were fun, with a lot of great moments but I don't think there's anything aspirational about building a team of also-rans without real options for taking the next step.

 

[Kin]

Now don't get me wrong though, I do love your plan in theory. I would absolutely take another 2 or 3 seasons at the bottom of the standings if it meant we got to continue accumulating high draft picks and high-potential prospects. I just never felt that was realistic, or something other teams have done successfully before. Teams like PIT/CHI/LA were bad for the right amount of time, and got very lucky with their draft selections, and they allowed their group to improve naturally over time. I don't really think they actively tried to make their team worse every offseason to remain in the bottom of the standings.

See, I don't think those teams did get particularly lucky with their draft selections and I think that you're underestimating how long they were bad for. Each of those teams has someone like Barker on their resume as they muddled through the bottom of the league. I mentioned Barker and Hickey, for Pittsburgh it's Whitney. Pittsburgh had five straight years of top 5 picks and those picks yielded two superstars, two decent but unspectacular players and one not very good player. The Kings 2004-2008 draft history is also one with just as many misses on first rounders as it is hits.

So to me those teams aren't really stories about how "good" teams only have to rebuild for a year or two, it's that when patience(or incompetence, both might apply) begins to pay off it can pay off in a hurry. You're right that those teams weren't playing with house money the way this Leafs' team is and a lot of their success was borne out of necessity rather than strategy but I don't think that changes that they only took off once the right pieces were in place.

So, sure, the Leafs didn't have to trade JVR or Kadri the way the bankrupt Penguins had to shed everything they had but I don't think that luxury makes half-measures any better a strategy.

Now like I said it does sound like a good plan in theory and if that option was on the table I would have definitely considered it. But it would have probably required the Leafs to remove at least 2 of JVR, Kadri, and Gardiner. That hasn't happened. It would have also helped if the Leafs went into this season with below-average goaltending, and the team actively went out to improve their goaltending situation this summer. So to me those decisions signal that the team isn't really going to follow that plan. So we may as well consider the other options.

Sure, and I am. And it really is only after careful consideration that I've arrived at "You probably need a real legit top 15 #1 D and they're almost impossible to find outside of the draft, ergo, be bad for a few more years and use more high draft picks on high ceiling defensemen and fewer on 37 year old Russian forwards and trading for goalies". 

Short of that, their best hope is to develop multiple top level forwards and peel one off and try to make a trade for as good as a defenseman as you can find. The Hall trade calls that into question as a good value proposition maybe but I still think that was exacerbated by Edmonton's particular handicaps. I think if signing free agents was less of a problem for Edmonton then Hall would have at least turned into Shattenkirk.

I'm really not trying to sound dogmatic or didactic here. I just think it's important to maintain that the option to proceed at the bottom for a while wass available to this group(and still is! JVR's still ripe for a tradin') and that their seemingly choosing not to take it is probably a bad decision on their part.

 

[herman]

I'm excited about all four of those players and think they all have the potential to become players who make you think about things like taking full advantage of their peak years but none of them, not even collectively, are more important than the Leafs doing this properly.

I watched the Quinn years. They were fun, with a lot of great moments but I don't think there's anything aspirational about building a team of also-rans without real options for taking the next step.

That's a good point about the Quinn years. I loved (most of) that team and those playoff series against Ottawa (ha) made me a fan for life, but never once did I believe they had what it took to take it all the way. I hated the way they sold the farm and piled on name players to push them over the top, when really they were just adding more players that were over the hill.

 

[herman]

http://theleafsnation.com/2016/8/10/on-handedness-and-the-maple-leafs-defence-corps

As Galamini has pointed out in his written work, shot handedness on the point is one of those things that has a proven value. Back in March, he wrote a piece on Hockey-Graphs where he mapped out the value of playing on your natural side.

His findings were as follows.

It turns out that an unsuitably handed defenseman must have a CorsiRel that is greater than or equal to 6.83 Corsi events / 60 better than a suitably handed alternative in order to be the better option to pair with a partner-less defenseman on the roster."

That's an incredibly steep number, considering that any +6.83 relative Corsi defenceman would be praised as being near the top of their class. For those who are more interested in the "eye test" than the numbers, there's a lot of logic backing the end result of this.

Curious as to what kind of impact this made on the Leafs, I took a look at how they did this year when deploying two left-handed defencemen compared to using a left-handed player with a right-handed one.

Situation	CF	CA	CF%	CF%Rel	TOI	CF60	CA60
Left+Left	2105	2100	50.06	-1.29	2114.13	59.75	59.6
Left+Right	1441	1360	51.45	0.11	1486.73	58.16	54.89

The gap is pretty decent; not quite as big as the one that Dominic saw while using the league-wide, 8-year data, but you can see that the Leafs do a better job of suppressing shots when they have a right-handed player (Roman Polak, Connor Carrick, or Frank Corrado) on the right side. I wondered what could be keeping the left-handed shooters this close, especially when you consider that Hunwick/Rielly was the team's de-facto first pair.

Situation	CF	CA	CF%	CF%Rel	TOI	CF60	CA60
Jake Gardiner + Left	832	718	53.68	2.34	777.83	64.18	55.39
Jake Gardiner + Right	475	453	51.19	-0.16	500.98	56.89	54.26

But then it hit me. Jake Gardiner breaks everything. The 26-year-old was the one sent out to make Dion Phaneuf look good, and it worked in spades; the two put up a 52.9% CF over 572 minutes before the former captain was traded to Ottawa. He also made basically everyone he played with better on both sides of the ice. It blows my mind that this fanbase still questions the kid; he is objectively the cheat code of this defensive corps.

So Rielly has been our defacto 1D kid, but he's still quite raw. Gardiner, however, is magic and we need to bottle whatever he's doing.

Of the three big trade chips (JvR, Kadri, Gardiner), Gardiner was the one I wanted to keep the most. Do you think we can re-sign him to a friendly contract due to his suppressed box stats?

 

[Kin]

It's funny, the LHD/RHD stuff makes a ton of sense but it's still hard to absorb given how little it was talked about back in the day.

And I'm guessing Gardiner will be in line for a pretty healthy raise if the team improves.