Saturday, September 06, 2008
Role playing games
I'm sure many have you have seen the Sun Media piece on Tanguay that ran earlier this week. Not sure how much more I can say than How Frustrating:
Kent linked it, and Vic brought up something in the comments there that was very similar to my own thoughts.
I've written many times here that in terms of bench management, Keenan's decision to go Huselius w/ Iginla and Tanguay w/ Others was pretty much unimpeachable. You run your bench with the guys you have, to best use their relative talents. Putting Juice -- who needs a lot of help to produce offense at EV, and isn't good defensively -- with Iginla made impeccable sense. It also eliminated a lot of the Blender problems one runs into transitioning from special teams to even strength; Juice really was, and is, the better PP player, and Tanguay turned out to be a really solid penalty killer.
The question is, like Vic says, why didn't every Calgarian and their dogs understand this? If not the folks on the #8 bus on alternate weekday afternoons, at least you'd expect the guys that talk about the Flames all afternoon for a living would be crystal clear on this. But no; in fact you'd have to think, based on events, that not even the relevant parties were terribly clear on it.
Tanguay. For starters, grow up dude. He always seemed like a smart guy to me -- was he really that unable to understand why he was being used the way he was? And secondly, Huselius was on the last year of his contract and was never going to be re-signed. Wasn't it obvious to him that his role would be at least somewhat different (and from his perspective, better) in 2008/09?
Keenan. He had zero trouble extolling Jarome Iginla as a very special player. Would it have been so hard, even just once (so it was out there), talking about what that means for the other Flames' skaters? "Guys have slumps, and sometimes I think they go through stretches where they're not giving their maximum effort. But the fact is, when guys play with Jarome 5-on-5 and on 1st PP unit, they're going to score more points than when they aren't. By putting Tanguay on another line, we know his point totals are going to suffer, but we're OK with that because of everything else he brings."
Sutter. Same gist as Keenan, but maybe with a little less focus on the public statements and more focus on the direct communication with the player. "I'm sorry Alex -- you're saying you want to be traded because the role you want was being filled by a guy who will never play for the Flames after this spring?" In fairness, Sutter was the one guy who made a categorical statement to the media that Tanguay is an excellent player, but he did a lousy job of explaining why.
Iginla. Hey, you're the captain, buddy, and it never should have come to this. Maybe you and Tanguay weren't pals, but an elite player on your team got traded because he wasn't happy with his role. Not sure how that can be anything but an indictment of the captain; it sure isn't a point in his favour.
This whole thing was a giant clusterf**k as far as I'm concerned, but, time to turn the page. Which brings me to Dion Phaneuf. If you're the coach of the Calgary Flames, and you have Robyn Regehr, Cory Sarich, and Dion Phaneuf on your bench, how do you use them?
It would seem from a lot of the Oilfan chatter that since Phaneuf is touted at a Norris candidate, you ought to be focused on using him against the Thorntons and Datsyuks of the world for own-zone draws. Forget that Regehr can handle the toughest competition but gives you nothing at the north end of the rink; since Dion is the best player, you use him in the toughest situations, and go from there.
As you might gather, I think this is wrong. Up by one late and pinned in your own end? Sure, put 'em together. But as an ongoing strategy, using Regehr to neutralize the toughest opposing forwards and Phaneuf for everything else seems utterly sensible. The alternative is to underplay Regehr's greatest skill, for the sake of proving a point.
Coach Mike Keenan used him on a defensive line with Craig Conroy and Owen Nolan which did not please him at all.
"I thought they traded for me from Colorado because I could generate offence," Tanguay said with a bitter smile.
"I was in that sort of a situation for the first time in my career and it was tough.
"I felt out of place in their system and that's why I wanted to leave Calgary and that I waived the no-trade clause (in my contract)".
Tanguay, however, refused to voice any negative comments about Flames head coach Mike Keenan, other than saying he could be "difficult."
Kent linked it, and Vic brought up something in the comments there that was very similar to my own thoughts.
...he never got a single Selke vote from the writers [...] Writers are writers, the thing that would have swayed them is some comments from the coach or Sutter. Some guys need a pat on the back. [...] A coach doesn't play a guy like that unless he rates him. But where was the love to the media? Odd.
I've written many times here that in terms of bench management, Keenan's decision to go Huselius w/ Iginla and Tanguay w/ Others was pretty much unimpeachable. You run your bench with the guys you have, to best use their relative talents. Putting Juice -- who needs a lot of help to produce offense at EV, and isn't good defensively -- with Iginla made impeccable sense. It also eliminated a lot of the Blender problems one runs into transitioning from special teams to even strength; Juice really was, and is, the better PP player, and Tanguay turned out to be a really solid penalty killer.
The question is, like Vic says, why didn't every Calgarian and their dogs understand this? If not the folks on the #8 bus on alternate weekday afternoons, at least you'd expect the guys that talk about the Flames all afternoon for a living would be crystal clear on this. But no; in fact you'd have to think, based on events, that not even the relevant parties were terribly clear on it.
Tanguay. For starters, grow up dude. He always seemed like a smart guy to me -- was he really that unable to understand why he was being used the way he was? And secondly, Huselius was on the last year of his contract and was never going to be re-signed. Wasn't it obvious to him that his role would be at least somewhat different (and from his perspective, better) in 2008/09?
Keenan. He had zero trouble extolling Jarome Iginla as a very special player. Would it have been so hard, even just once (so it was out there), talking about what that means for the other Flames' skaters? "Guys have slumps, and sometimes I think they go through stretches where they're not giving their maximum effort. But the fact is, when guys play with Jarome 5-on-5 and on 1st PP unit, they're going to score more points than when they aren't. By putting Tanguay on another line, we know his point totals are going to suffer, but we're OK with that because of everything else he brings."
Sutter. Same gist as Keenan, but maybe with a little less focus on the public statements and more focus on the direct communication with the player. "I'm sorry Alex -- you're saying you want to be traded because the role you want was being filled by a guy who will never play for the Flames after this spring?" In fairness, Sutter was the one guy who made a categorical statement to the media that Tanguay is an excellent player, but he did a lousy job of explaining why.
Iginla. Hey, you're the captain, buddy, and it never should have come to this. Maybe you and Tanguay weren't pals, but an elite player on your team got traded because he wasn't happy with his role. Not sure how that can be anything but an indictment of the captain; it sure isn't a point in his favour.
This whole thing was a giant clusterf**k as far as I'm concerned, but, time to turn the page. Which brings me to Dion Phaneuf. If you're the coach of the Calgary Flames, and you have Robyn Regehr, Cory Sarich, and Dion Phaneuf on your bench, how do you use them?
It would seem from a lot of the Oilfan chatter that since Phaneuf is touted at a Norris candidate, you ought to be focused on using him against the Thorntons and Datsyuks of the world for own-zone draws. Forget that Regehr can handle the toughest competition but gives you nothing at the north end of the rink; since Dion is the best player, you use him in the toughest situations, and go from there.
As you might gather, I think this is wrong. Up by one late and pinned in your own end? Sure, put 'em together. But as an ongoing strategy, using Regehr to neutralize the toughest opposing forwards and Phaneuf for everything else seems utterly sensible. The alternative is to underplay Regehr's greatest skill, for the sake of proving a point.
# posted by Matt @ 9:44 am 
Comments:
I dont know about the Phaneuf thing, particularly this year, just because I assume that:
a.) Iginla will be the one facing the tough match-ups this year and
b.) Keenan will want Phaneuf behind Iginla as much as possible again.
Do you go with Phaneuf and parnter (vandermeer) if that happens? Or run Regehr/Sarich behind Iginla?
I guess we'll see how it falls into place.
I think if Oilers fans are suggesting you play Phaneuf against the best possible competition, you can safely expect there's an alternate motive.
I admit I haven't watched Phaneuf that closely, but it's amazing how quick Oilers fans are to trash Phaneuf for perceived poor defensive play. These guys are the same people who will tell you that Iginla is an amazing player, so... I dunno, maybe it's just Phaneuf has become the whipping boy for the "I can't believe people still think the Flames are a good team" bandwagon.
I don't know if that comment on the Phaneuf pondering was aimed at me or not, Matt. I posted my thoughts on Phaneuf here at B of A, in the comments to a Pisani post. Granted I was a bit late to the party, I think that the thread was already a bit down the page when I commented.
Would you disagree with anything that I've said there?
Having said that, if the folks on the #8 bus (in the parallel universe that is Calgary) are looking at the counting numbers and "trusting their eyes", and declaring that Phaneuf is a far better player than Zubov, Gonchar, Pronger, Bouwmeester, Niedermayer, etc. Then they are ignoring context (who was he playing with and against, in what sort of situations was he frequently coming onto the ice).
I don't include Lidstrom on that list because, in my opinion, he is in a class of his own.
Nobody that I read is saying that Keenan is using Phaneuf foolishly, or that he is crap, just that the stats in the newspaper (goals, points, +/-) flatter him.
I think Kent's point is very valid as well. Especially if Keenan runs primarily three forward lines and wants to keep life simple for his assistant coach.
He may very well go all Hitchcock on us and use Regehr/Sarich for the own zone draws and then have them shift off when/if they get the puck going north. At least in periods when the players bench is on the home net side. I dunno.
Having said all of that, Iginla is easy to like, but there is something about Phaneuf that just grates my tit.
Vic, your comment from that old thread -- "...Phaneuf belongs in the large second tier of high end NHL defensemen who can score on the PP (with Pronger, Gonchar, Chara, Niedermayer, Zubov, etc)." -- sounds about right as of the end of last season, with the obligatory note that he is much younger (and in many cases much much younger) than all those guys, and thus figures to continue to get better.
Kent, I'm not sure about your assumptions. b) is probably true. (a) is not assured at all, IMO -- if Keenan was super keen on that, I think he would have done it more last year. I'd bet he's going to try to establish a new version of Tanguay-Conroy-Nolan, and push it to the point where (if) it is clearly not working.
And Vic, may I say, it's been fantastic to have you back on teh web in earnest the past couple of weeks.
(a) is not assured at all, IMO -- if Keenan was super keen on that, I think he would have done it more last year. I'd bet he's going to try to establish a new version of Tanguay-Conroy-Nolan, and push it to the point where (if) it is clearly not working.
I think so, but do you see any combination up front right now that could accomplish that? Moss-Conroy-Bourque? Glencross-Conroy-Moss? It could be that someone surprises, but, as of right now, there's no Tanguay on the roster than makes that Conroy+other winger shut-down line float.
...do you see any combination up front right now that could accomplish that?
If I was forced to guess it would be:
LW - Langkow - RW
Bertuzzi - C - Iginla
And that Lombardi or Conroy get road tested on the wing in TC.
I never got the impression the "oilfans" were insisting that Phaneuf MUST play the toughest opposition. The gripe to me seemed more like if he is getting consideration for the Norris, shouldn't he be doing the heavy lifting at both ends of the rink? Not that every Norris winner was gold at both ends, but right now I don't think his very good to excellent offensive abilities + his okay/getting better defensive shutdown abilities would make me rate him higher than some of the other top tier defensemen in the league.
I have no qualms about the Flames running Phaneuf out against 2nd tier opposition. If I had Regehr and Dion on the same team, I'd do the same - play to each one's strengths. And like Vic said, I can respect and enjoy watching Iginla play, but Phaneuf chafes my chest too.
As much as it pains me to say it, Phaneuf belongs in the large second tier of high end NHL defensemen who can score on the PP (with Pronger, Gonchar, Chara, Niedermayer, Zubov, etc).
So I'm guessing there's only one defenseman in the first tier. Can that even qualify as a tier?
How I see it as an Oiler fan is that Phaneuf's nomination for the Norris is hard to understand, since, unlike the Lidstroms, Prongers, and Charas, Dion doesn't line up against the top line on a regular basis. How can he be the considered the best dman in the league when he his own team chooses to play someone else against the opponenet's top line. Sure he scores a lot and throws some wild hits, but even Paul Coffey was being criticized for his Norris Trophies and he was finishing top 10 in the league in scoring. Dion finished a distant 63rd, and was 5th in dmen scoring. Not Paul Coffey type ranking. So to me a guy who is so-so defensively, doesn't play on against the toughest competition, puts up lots of points in the new NHL, but isn't head and shoulders above the rest of the competition...to me that doesn't add up to a traditional Norris candidate. Maybe this year the were only 2 performances head and sholders above the rest and 10-15 guys (inclduing Dion) that were a cut below. I know he's young. I know he creates a lot of excitement. I know he's extermely talented, but to me he's not Norris material yet.
Is this the way it's gonna go this year? Anonymous posters actually making rational comments?
I'm not sure I'm comfortable with this.
Well, it's literate, but this is exactly what I'm saying is wrongheaded. Even if Phaneuf is better defensively than Regehr this year, it still doesn't make sense to move Regehr out of a primary, tough comp defensive role.
And "He's no Paul Coffey offensively" is even less of an indictment than "He's no Nick Lidstrom".
No, maybe it doesn't, but the Norris isn't given to 'the two best defensemen in the NHL who collectively handle the top offensive and defensive roles of their team,' if Regehr is going to be the top defensive defenseman so Phaneuf can run up crazy offensive numbers that's fine and probably the best way to use him... but it doesn't mean he shouldn't take a hit in Norris voting...
Unless we're going to go two years into the past and retroactively make Vanek the Selke winner, did you see how high his plus/minus was?!
Three things:
1) I wonder what kind of odds you can get in Vegas on Lidstrom winning the Norris every season from now until he ends his NHL career? Barring injury, he probably SHOULD.....
2) This Phaneuf/Regehr debate maybe exposes that they need a speciality trophy for the best offensive defenseman, just like they have an award for "defensive forward". Keep giving the Norris to guys like Lidstrom, and then have Phaneuf winning the award given to guys who produce offense but aren't necessarily pulling the double duty that the super-elite guys like Lidstrom and Pronger do (offense while playing the minutes against the other team's top offense).
3) Might the Flames revisit the concept of playing Regehr with Phaneuf at some point this season, or does that leave their 2nd pairing exposed?
2) This Phaneuf/Regehr debate maybe exposes that they need a speciality trophy for the best offensive defenseman, just like they have an award for "defensive forward". Keep giving the Norris to guys like Lidstrom, and then have Phaneuf winning the award given to guys who produce offense but aren't necessarily pulling the double duty that the super-elite guys like Lidstrom and Pronger do (offense while playing the minutes against the other team's top offense).
The opposite might make more sense -- leave the Norris as is, since it's already going to the d-man who's racking up points AND being sound in his own end, but make up a new award for the d-first stay at home guy who pots maybe 20 points a year.
I think mirtle calls it the rod langway award.
The opposite might make more sense -- leave the Norris as is, since it's already going to the d-man who's racking up points AND being sound in his own end, but make up a new award for the d-first stay at home guy who pots maybe 20 points a year.
Sounds like another award the press will get wrong every single year to me.
It would seem from a lot of the Oilfan chatter that since Phaneuf is touted at a Norris candidate, you ought to be focused on using him against the Thorntons and Datsyuks of the world for own-zone draws. Forget that Regehr can handle the toughest competition but gives you nothing at the north end of the rink; since Dion is the best player, you use him in the toughest situations, and go from there.
As you might gather, I think this is wrong. Up by one late and pinned in your own end? Sure, put 'em together. But as an ongoing strategy, using Regehr to neutralize the toughest opposing forwards and Phaneuf for everything else seems utterly sensible. The alternative is to underplay Regehr's greatest skill, for the sake of proving a point.
I'm going to assume that's partly aimed at me.
My belief is that Keenan is absolutely right to put Regehr-whoever out against the toughs, and use Phaneuf against the second order of opposition.
However, I also believe that Phaneuf's quality of competition should be taken into consideration when the Norris trophy is mentioned. Here's Phaneuf's 5-on-5 numbers, from Behind the Net:
Phaneuf: 0.95 PTS/60, +0.50 per 60
and here are some other guys who lead their teams in difficulty of opposition:
Chara: .95 PTS/60, +.61 per 60
Regehr: .71 PTS/60, +.52 per 60
Hedican: .81 PTS/60, +.98 per 60
Keith: .91 PTS/60, +.71 per 60
Lidstrom: 1.54 PTS/60, +1.92 per 60
Coburn: .94 PTS/60, +.88 per 60
Gonchar: .84 PTS/60, +.79 per 60
Kubina: 1.03 PTS/60, +.31 per 60
Now, this chart doesn't account for the powerplay (where Phaneuf is exceptional) but even so, I don't think he's a top-three defenseman in the NHL. He probably will be someday, but not now, because guys facing tougher minutes are still doing a better job.
Also, Lidstrom isn't human.
Also, Lidstrom isn't human.
Looking at that stats line, ain't that the truth.
I missed out on seeing Bobby Orr, but 20 years from now, I'm going to tell my kids about how exceptional an NHL defenseman Niklas Lidstrom was for the Detroit Red Wings.
Top five blueliner all-time, up there with Orr, Doug Harvey and Eddie Shore? Who WOULD be the top five all-time? Coffey and Bourque are both in the 6-10 range in my books.
Denis Potvin? Larry Robinson? This is a bit of a tricky one...
hbomb - I'd say Bourque and Lidstrom would be in my top five. The year the Bruins beat the Habs in the playoffs for the first time in decades Bourque's performance was one for the ages. Best I'd ever seen
2) This Phaneuf/Regehr debate maybe exposes that they need a speciality trophy for the best offensive defenseman, just like they have an award for "defensive forward". Keep giving the Norris to guys like Lidstrom, and then have Phaneuf winning the award given to guys who produce offense but aren't necessarily pulling the double duty that the super-elite guys like Lidstrom and Pronger do (offense while playing the minutes against the other team's top offense).
Phaneuf isn't even top three for the Defenseman Art Ross, but yeah, he was definitely a worthy Norris candidate. For sure.
Post a Comment
<< Home
I dont know about the Phaneuf thing, particularly this year, just because I assume that:
a.) Iginla will be the one facing the tough match-ups this year and
b.) Keenan will want Phaneuf behind Iginla as much as possible again.
Do you go with Phaneuf and parnter (vandermeer) if that happens? Or run Regehr/Sarich behind Iginla?
I guess we'll see how it falls into place.
I think if Oilers fans are suggesting you play Phaneuf against the best possible competition, you can safely expect there's an alternate motive.
I admit I haven't watched Phaneuf that closely, but it's amazing how quick Oilers fans are to trash Phaneuf for perceived poor defensive play. These guys are the same people who will tell you that Iginla is an amazing player, so... I dunno, maybe it's just Phaneuf has become the whipping boy for the "I can't believe people still think the Flames are a good team" bandwagon.
I don't know if that comment on the Phaneuf pondering was aimed at me or not, Matt. I posted my thoughts on Phaneuf here at B of A, in the comments to a Pisani post. Granted I was a bit late to the party, I think that the thread was already a bit down the page when I commented.
Would you disagree with anything that I've said there?
Having said that, if the folks on the #8 bus (in the parallel universe that is Calgary) are looking at the counting numbers and "trusting their eyes", and declaring that Phaneuf is a far better player than Zubov, Gonchar, Pronger, Bouwmeester, Niedermayer, etc. Then they are ignoring context (who was he playing with and against, in what sort of situations was he frequently coming onto the ice).
I don't include Lidstrom on that list because, in my opinion, he is in a class of his own.
Nobody that I read is saying that Keenan is using Phaneuf foolishly, or that he is crap, just that the stats in the newspaper (goals, points, +/-) flatter him.
I think Kent's point is very valid as well. Especially if Keenan runs primarily three forward lines and wants to keep life simple for his assistant coach.
He may very well go all Hitchcock on us and use Regehr/Sarich for the own zone draws and then have them shift off when/if they get the puck going north. At least in periods when the players bench is on the home net side. I dunno.
Having said all of that, Iginla is easy to like, but there is something about Phaneuf that just grates my tit.
Vic, your comment from that old thread -- "...Phaneuf belongs in the large second tier of high end NHL defensemen who can score on the PP (with Pronger, Gonchar, Chara, Niedermayer, Zubov, etc)." -- sounds about right as of the end of last season, with the obligatory note that he is much younger (and in many cases much much younger) than all those guys, and thus figures to continue to get better.
Kent, I'm not sure about your assumptions. b) is probably true. (a) is not assured at all, IMO -- if Keenan was super keen on that, I think he would have done it more last year. I'd bet he's going to try to establish a new version of Tanguay-Conroy-Nolan, and push it to the point where (if) it is clearly not working.
And Vic, may I say, it's been fantastic to have you back on teh web in earnest the past couple of weeks.
(a) is not assured at all, IMO -- if Keenan was super keen on that, I think he would have done it more last year. I'd bet he's going to try to establish a new version of Tanguay-Conroy-Nolan, and push it to the point where (if) it is clearly not working.
I think so, but do you see any combination up front right now that could accomplish that? Moss-Conroy-Bourque? Glencross-Conroy-Moss? It could be that someone surprises, but, as of right now, there's no Tanguay on the roster than makes that Conroy+other winger shut-down line float.
...do you see any combination up front right now that could accomplish that?
If I was forced to guess it would be:
LW - Langkow - RW
Bertuzzi - C - Iginla
And that Lombardi or Conroy get road tested on the wing in TC.
I never got the impression the "oilfans" were insisting that Phaneuf MUST play the toughest opposition. The gripe to me seemed more like if he is getting consideration for the Norris, shouldn't he be doing the heavy lifting at both ends of the rink? Not that every Norris winner was gold at both ends, but right now I don't think his very good to excellent offensive abilities + his okay/getting better defensive shutdown abilities would make me rate him higher than some of the other top tier defensemen in the league.
I have no qualms about the Flames running Phaneuf out against 2nd tier opposition. If I had Regehr and Dion on the same team, I'd do the same - play to each one's strengths. And like Vic said, I can respect and enjoy watching Iginla play, but Phaneuf chafes my chest too.
As much as it pains me to say it, Phaneuf belongs in the large second tier of high end NHL defensemen who can score on the PP (with Pronger, Gonchar, Chara, Niedermayer, Zubov, etc).
So I'm guessing there's only one defenseman in the first tier. Can that even qualify as a tier?
How I see it as an Oiler fan is that Phaneuf's nomination for the Norris is hard to understand, since, unlike the Lidstroms, Prongers, and Charas, Dion doesn't line up against the top line on a regular basis. How can he be the considered the best dman in the league when he his own team chooses to play someone else against the opponenet's top line. Sure he scores a lot and throws some wild hits, but even Paul Coffey was being criticized for his Norris Trophies and he was finishing top 10 in the league in scoring. Dion finished a distant 63rd, and was 5th in dmen scoring. Not Paul Coffey type ranking. So to me a guy who is so-so defensively, doesn't play on against the toughest competition, puts up lots of points in the new NHL, but isn't head and shoulders above the rest of the competition...to me that doesn't add up to a traditional Norris candidate. Maybe this year the were only 2 performances head and sholders above the rest and 10-15 guys (inclduing Dion) that were a cut below. I know he's young. I know he creates a lot of excitement. I know he's extermely talented, but to me he's not Norris material yet.
# posted by 
: September 07, 2008 1:52 pm
: September 07, 2008 1:52 pm Is this the way it's gonna go this year? Anonymous posters actually making rational comments?
I'm not sure I'm comfortable with this.
Well, it's literate, but this is exactly what I'm saying is wrongheaded. Even if Phaneuf is better defensively than Regehr this year, it still doesn't make sense to move Regehr out of a primary, tough comp defensive role.
And "He's no Paul Coffey offensively" is even less of an indictment than "He's no Nick Lidstrom".
No, maybe it doesn't, but the Norris isn't given to 'the two best defensemen in the NHL who collectively handle the top offensive and defensive roles of their team,' if Regehr is going to be the top defensive defenseman so Phaneuf can run up crazy offensive numbers that's fine and probably the best way to use him... but it doesn't mean he shouldn't take a hit in Norris voting...
Unless we're going to go two years into the past and retroactively make Vanek the Selke winner, did you see how high his plus/minus was?!
Three things:
1) I wonder what kind of odds you can get in Vegas on Lidstrom winning the Norris every season from now until he ends his NHL career? Barring injury, he probably SHOULD.....
2) This Phaneuf/Regehr debate maybe exposes that they need a speciality trophy for the best offensive defenseman, just like they have an award for "defensive forward". Keep giving the Norris to guys like Lidstrom, and then have Phaneuf winning the award given to guys who produce offense but aren't necessarily pulling the double duty that the super-elite guys like Lidstrom and Pronger do (offense while playing the minutes against the other team's top offense).
3) Might the Flames revisit the concept of playing Regehr with Phaneuf at some point this season, or does that leave their 2nd pairing exposed?
2) This Phaneuf/Regehr debate maybe exposes that they need a speciality trophy for the best offensive defenseman, just like they have an award for "defensive forward". Keep giving the Norris to guys like Lidstrom, and then have Phaneuf winning the award given to guys who produce offense but aren't necessarily pulling the double duty that the super-elite guys like Lidstrom and Pronger do (offense while playing the minutes against the other team's top offense).
The opposite might make more sense -- leave the Norris as is, since it's already going to the d-man who's racking up points AND being sound in his own end, but make up a new award for the d-first stay at home guy who pots maybe 20 points a year.
I think mirtle calls it the rod langway award.
The opposite might make more sense -- leave the Norris as is, since it's already going to the d-man who's racking up points AND being sound in his own end, but make up a new award for the d-first stay at home guy who pots maybe 20 points a year.
Sounds like another award the press will get wrong every single year to me.
It would seem from a lot of the Oilfan chatter that since Phaneuf is touted at a Norris candidate, you ought to be focused on using him against the Thorntons and Datsyuks of the world for own-zone draws. Forget that Regehr can handle the toughest competition but gives you nothing at the north end of the rink; since Dion is the best player, you use him in the toughest situations, and go from there.
As you might gather, I think this is wrong. Up by one late and pinned in your own end? Sure, put 'em together. But as an ongoing strategy, using Regehr to neutralize the toughest opposing forwards and Phaneuf for everything else seems utterly sensible. The alternative is to underplay Regehr's greatest skill, for the sake of proving a point.
I'm going to assume that's partly aimed at me.
My belief is that Keenan is absolutely right to put Regehr-whoever out against the toughs, and use Phaneuf against the second order of opposition.
However, I also believe that Phaneuf's quality of competition should be taken into consideration when the Norris trophy is mentioned. Here's Phaneuf's 5-on-5 numbers, from Behind the Net:
Phaneuf: 0.95 PTS/60, +0.50 per 60
and here are some other guys who lead their teams in difficulty of opposition:
Chara: .95 PTS/60, +.61 per 60
Regehr: .71 PTS/60, +.52 per 60
Hedican: .81 PTS/60, +.98 per 60
Keith: .91 PTS/60, +.71 per 60
Lidstrom: 1.54 PTS/60, +1.92 per 60
Coburn: .94 PTS/60, +.88 per 60
Gonchar: .84 PTS/60, +.79 per 60
Kubina: 1.03 PTS/60, +.31 per 60
Now, this chart doesn't account for the powerplay (where Phaneuf is exceptional) but even so, I don't think he's a top-three defenseman in the NHL. He probably will be someday, but not now, because guys facing tougher minutes are still doing a better job.
Also, Lidstrom isn't human.
Also, Lidstrom isn't human.
Looking at that stats line, ain't that the truth.
I missed out on seeing Bobby Orr, but 20 years from now, I'm going to tell my kids about how exceptional an NHL defenseman Niklas Lidstrom was for the Detroit Red Wings.
Top five blueliner all-time, up there with Orr, Doug Harvey and Eddie Shore? Who WOULD be the top five all-time? Coffey and Bourque are both in the 6-10 range in my books.
Denis Potvin? Larry Robinson? This is a bit of a tricky one...
hbomb - I'd say Bourque and Lidstrom would be in my top five. The year the Bruins beat the Habs in the playoffs for the first time in decades Bourque's performance was one for the ages. Best I'd ever seen
2) This Phaneuf/Regehr debate maybe exposes that they need a speciality trophy for the best offensive defenseman, just like they have an award for "defensive forward". Keep giving the Norris to guys like Lidstrom, and then have Phaneuf winning the award given to guys who produce offense but aren't necessarily pulling the double duty that the super-elite guys like Lidstrom and Pronger do (offense while playing the minutes against the other team's top offense).
Phaneuf isn't even top three for the Defenseman Art Ross, but yeah, he was definitely a worthy Norris candidate. For sure.
Post a Comment
<< Home
