Defensive Pairings...

[MMPL]

I thought I'd get a discussion going about our Dman pairs.

With Komo out, Gorges has really stepped up (like last year's injury to Komo). He seems very comfortable playing with Markov and we've had success since they've been together. You guys think that pairing should stay together even when Komo comes back? I would not mind that at all. It would balance out the D more.

I mean having Breeze/OByrne/Dandy with Boo boo, and Marky with Komi creates a huge gap. I'd like to see it more balanced out when Komi comes back. I'd go with:

Markov Gorges

Komisarek Boulion

Hammer Breeze/Dandy/Obyrne

Then later in the game and on PK's roll with our top 4 D (Markov, Komo, Hammer, and Gorges).

I know Hammer's icetime will cut a bit but I love how good Marky and Gorges are together and I think Komo and Cube would play good as they are both physical, and having a solid Dman in Hammer playing with a weaker one creates a good balance.

THOUGHTS?

Edited December 8, 2008 by MMPL

[lazy26]

I've also been impressed with the Markov Gorges duo and was wondering how a Hamrlik Komisarek pairing might look.

[RobRock]

I think it's going to depend on how Komisarek plays when he gets back. I'd put him back with Markov initially, because that's where he's most comfortable and that will hopefully get him back into the swing of things quicker. Then I'd put Gorges back with Hammer because that's what the pairs were before Komisarek went out. The fact that Gorges responded so well to the additional responsibilty and ice time means that down the road Carbonneau has another pair he can use to shut down the other teams top lines, making it harder for teams to steer their best lines away from Markov and Komisarek, especially when the Habs are on the road.

If Komisarek isn't up to par right away, then I think you can make the switch between he and Gorges.

[JMMR]

Gorges is playing amazing he is never afraid to take the hit to make the pass and by keeping his game so simple it makes everything easier for the forwards w3hen he is on the ice.

What would really be perfect would be if Gainey could get another top 4 defenseman.

It would allow Gorges to either play with Markov or Hamrlik in the top 4 or push him down to the bottom pairing making the Canadiens defense lethal.

It will be important to see how Komisarek plays when he gest back because he really has not been all that great this year.

[Sir_Boagalott]

I have never wanted to see Markov & Komisarek together.

No clue why so many people want to put 2 eggs in 1 basket. It would be better to split them up. Theres little point of having 1 really solid pairing when you can have 2 semi solid pairings.

[MMPL]

I don't want Komi and Marky together only because that leaves us with a very shaky 3rd pair.

I love JMMR's theory

[Fanpuck33]

I have never wanted to see Markov & Komisarek together.

No clue why so many people want to put 2 eggs in 1 basket. It would be better to split them up. Theres little point of having 1 really solid pairing when you can have 2 semi solid pairings.

Of course there is, it's called putting your best pairing against the other team's best line.

[simonus]

I have never wanted to see Markov & Komisarek together.

No clue why so many people want to put 2 eggs in 1 basket. It would be better to split them up. Theres little point of having 1 really solid pairing when you can have 2 semi solid pairings.

yeah, but that assumes that a hamrlik-gorges pair would be less than semi-solid.

Now, if you split up markov and komisarek and do not put Komi with Hamrlik, there is no guarantee that you get 3 semi-solid pairings. I do not necessarily think that a komisarek-dandenault, komisarek-brisebois, or komisarek-O'Byrne pair would be all that great.

In addition, splitting up komisarek, harmlik, and Markov would necessarily mean that at least one of the three was getting significantly diminished minutes. I don't think a team ought to play each of their three pairings for 20 minutes a game and as such you'd have to have either hamrlik or Komisarek play something more like 15-17 minutes. I think the team is poorly optimized if one of those two is getting such diminished minutes.

If you can trust some combination of Dandenault, Bouillon, Brisebois, and O'Byrne to play around 15 minutes without sucking hard, then it behooves the team to set a top four of markov, gorges, hamrlik, and Komisarek in some combination to play the remaining 45 minutes of a game. If none off the bottom pairing guys I mentioned can be paired to create a replacement-level NHL bottom D line, then it is time to call up a carle or Weber to do so.

I, and I think a lot of other HW'ers think that Gorges merits 20+ minutes, but unless we think he has surpassed Komisarek, the acuisition of a new top four D should drop him to the line as the least of the big 4 rather than relegate a superior player to fewer minutes in order to have a more balanced crew.

In short, when deriving the aggregate value of a d corps configuration, it is best to proportionately value quality at each pairing against average TOI of that pairing -> over the course of a game it is hard create a net gain by decreasing the quality of a top pairing and increasing the quality off a bottom pairing.

[Sir_Boagalott]

Of course there is, it's called putting your best pairing against the other team's best line.

Quite a brilliant theory. The Sens are real smart putting their 3 top forwards on 1 line so I would see why people would want Habs 2 top Dman in 1 pairing. Its so smart.

Its not like any teams 2-4th liners wont run roughshad over all the other Habs D pairings.

Any Dman playing with a realy good Dman will play better. So the top 2 make the top 2 better? Why not put the 1-4 & 2-3 together because then it'd be more like 1-3 and 2 2's, but ya, that'd be dumb.

[simonus]

Quite a brilliant theory. The Sens are real smart putting their 3 top forwards on 1 line so I would see why people would want Habs 2 top Dman in 1 pairing. Its so smart.

Its not like any teams 2-4th liners wont run roughshad over all the other Habs D pairings.

Any Dman playing with a realy good Dman will play better. So the top 2 make the top 2 better? Why not put the 1-4 & 2-3 together because then it'd be more like 1-3 and 2 2's, but ya, that'd be dumb.

again, teams do not play their lines for equal amounts of time.

Any Dman playing with a realy good Dman will play better.

This is not necessarily true. A lesser D-Man might just look better because fewer of his same deficiencies will lead to goals thanks to the presence of the superior d-man.

If nothing else, I could argue that this effect will be negated insofar that a top d-man may be made worse by playing with a lesser D-man since the better d-man will be forced to cover for the lesser d-man.

[Sir_Boagalott]

Well unless a #1 & #2 D paring are playing 60 mins a game that theory is deeply flawed.

Last time I checked hockey was a team sport. 1 line doesnt win championships, just like 1 great D pairing wont either.

One could argue that but the argument wouldnt go for long unless they are really stubborn.

Gretz played on a all star team in Edm and was a 1st ballot all star every year. When Gretz went to a non all star team that sucked in LA, he was still a superstar and a 1st ballot all star every year. Talented players in hockey always make less talented players better, always. Gretz inferior teamates in LA never dragged him down to an under 20G season. It just doesnt work like that.

[Fanpuck33]

Quite a brilliant theory. The Sens are real smart putting their 3 top forwards on 1 line so I would see why people would want Habs 2 top Dman in 1 pairing. Its so smart.

Its not like any teams 2-4th liners wont run roughshad over all the other Habs D pairings.

Not saying it's a great idea to put your top 3 offensive players on one line, but it did get them to the finals a couple years ago.

Still, most teams have one line which is easily the best on the team. Obviously, you want to try to shut that line down so you can put more pressure on lesser lines to produce. When you play Detroit, you try to shut down the Datsyuk line because their other lines are less dangerous. When you play the Caps, you try to shut down the Ovechkin line because their other lines are not as dangerous. Columbus and Nash, Anaheim and Getzlaf, etc. Whenever you can shut down a team's top line, it puts more pressure on the other lines and gives you a better chance of winning.

I believe the Habs finished first in the East with Markov and Komi playing together. That didn't cause Hamrlik, Gorges, and Bouillon to get run over. All three finished even or better.

[simonus]

Well unless a #1 & #2 D paring are playing 60 mins a game that theory is deeply flawed.

Last time I checked hockey was a team sport. 1 line doesnt win championships, just like 1 great D pairing wont either.

One could argue that but the argument wouldnt go for long unless they are really stubborn.

you are hypothesizing some theoretical team that has all-star defensemen on the first pairing, and marginal to bad defensemen on the second pairing. This does not apply to the canadiens. By advocating devaluing the top players by reducing their ice time you are taking away a big strength a replacing it with a relatively minor advantage.

You assume that if the top two pairings are off the ice the team instantly transforms into a doormat, getting scored on non-stop. This is obviously not the case, if for no other reason than other teams also need to ice their third pairings as some point. If other teams choose to ice those third pairings (the 5th and 6th defensemen in a draft/salary cap league being necessarily inferior to the #1 and #2 defensemen) at some other time than when the canadiens are icing their's, the canadiens would enjoy the advantage that you credit to the other team when the habs' 3rd pairing is on the ice.

If the Canadiens broke up the top pairing in order to create an above-average 3rd pairing, the first and/or second pairings would perforce be made relatively inferior (as you note in your first post on the subject). The advantage that the canadiens would have otherwise had when the first pairing was on the ice would be nullified and perhaps the canadiens would be put at a disadvantage compared to the first pairs of other teams.

You advocate creating a 15 minute advantage at the expense of creating a 23 minute disadvantage.

If another team chose to break apart their top pairing in order to allocate more minutes to inferior players and fewer minutes to superior players, the Canadiens would enjoy a tactical advantage for a plurality of the ice time.

Obviously concentrating assets has diminishing returns and on a team filled with sub-nhl quality defensemen below the top pairing it makes sense to forgo the 20-25 minute first pairing advantage to avoid a 35-40 minute significant disadvantage, but this is simply not the scenario confronting the Canadiens or the majority of NHL teams.

Similarly, concentrating all top forwards on a team with no secondary scoring produces diminishing returns, and teams with two or three able forwards supplemented by 9 borderline AHL quality forwards will perform poorly (although a team with that much rubbish would likely not succeed even if the 2 or three good forwards were distributed through the lineup).

The key takeaway is that where a team can field a serviceable third pairing, it makes sense to maintain an advantage on the high-minute top pairings. As it is unusual for a team to have a 3rd pairing significantly below replacement level, a strong top four stratgey generally is the most efficient allocation of resources. This is the opposite of looking at hockey as an individual sport - this is about allocating individual players on a roster so as to ice the greatest aggregate team.

Gretz played on a all star team in Edm and was a 1st ballot all star every year. When Gretz went to a non all star team that sucked in LA, he was still a superstar and a 1st ballot all star every year. Talented players in hockey always make less talented players better, always. Gretz inferior teamates in LA never dragged him down to an under 20G season. It just doesnt work like that.

Your original argument (reiterated above) was that a good player always improves the quality of his linemates' play. I stated that this need not be true a pointed out a contradicting example of a possible negative effect a bad player can have.

The anecdotal point about Gretzky is not elucidating at best and obfuscates reality at worst:

1) "all good players make their linemates better"

2) "Gretzky was one of the greatest players who originally played with very good players"

3) "Gretzky maintained his level of play when paired with players who were less good (such as Luc Robitaille)"

4) "ergo, all good players make bad players play well and are never limited by the inferior play of bad linemates"

Does your maxim apply simply all-star players? To above average players? Does it apply equally to all of them?

Also, there is something of a truism to your maxim. What if a good player plays well with a certain set of linemates and is later unable to produce at the same rate with a different (perhaps inferior) set of linemates? What if the other inferior players simply perform as well as they always had? Is this post-hoc proof that the good player wasn't really good to begin with? If so, your statement is meaningless because it is not disprovable.

What if the improvement of the inferior player is negated by the fact that the good player simply not have as talented a partner with which to execute plays? Perhaps Saku Koivu can feed Kostopoulos such that he can score a few more goals than he would otherwise, but certainly it is a better use of Koivu to have him feed to players such as Andrei Kostitsyn, who can cash in on more of those opportunities.

That goes more to my point in my previous post - is Kostopoulos really better or does he look better for being fed to by Koivu. Ought we assume that Kostopoulos becomes a superior player because of playing next to Koivu or just appears to be one because Koivu gives him more space and time to work with.

This is an important distinction - if you believe the former (that Koivu improves Kostopoulos) - then perhaps loss of sending Kostitsyn to the fourth line can be mitigated by having a better Kostopoulos... perhaps Kostitsyn could also improve Begin? In that case we might be sorry to see only 8-9 minutes of Kostitsyn, but perhaps in the end the team is better because while we lose more than half of Kostitsyn's ice time, we gain a 15% better Begin and a 20% better Kostopoulos. If Kostopoulos and Begin are not getting better - and perhaps Koivu and Kostitsyn have to put up with being double teamed - then the team is almost certainly made worse by cutting Kostitsyn's ice time and depriving Koivu of a guy who can put the puck in the net.

[Sir_Boagalott]

you are hypothesizing some theoretical team that has all-star defensemen on the first pairing, and marginal to bad defensemen on the second pairing. This does not apply to the canadiens. By advocating devaluing the top players by reducing their ice time you are taking away a big strength a replacing it with a relatively minor advantage.

You advocate creating a 15 minute advantage at the expense of creating a 23 minute disadvantage.

Your comming to bizare conclusions that I never said or implied. Markov and Komi play how much? 25 mins/game?

So therefore it must be impossible to play Markov + Gorges 25 mins and Komi + Hammer 25 mins? Thats a huge disadvantage because Cube and O'burned only get 10mins?

Jeebus, wheres my head at.

You completely missunderstood my point aboot Gretz. Gretz in LA had the exact same shot as he had in Edm. Its true.

All Gretz other skills were the same too. They at no time decreased because he played with pylons. The majority of players Gretz played with all had carreer high stats. Gretz probably could have easily banked in 20 goals off Dean Semenkos head in a season, that doesnt make Semenko a 20 goal guy.

This is true with all players at all levels. Are you going try to tell me its harder to score when your at the right side of the net and the G is hugging left post if your linemate can pass the puck right on the tape of your stick? Than with a linemate who can only pass the puck in your general direction? Of course you will score more goals when your linemate can pass you the puck right on the tape of your stick every time.

With Dman its a bit different but same principal. You learn better hockey sense playing with linemates who have lots of it. It will rub off on them, they just need to see it to learn it. oh, thats how you do that, or nice move, etc. Plus inexperienced Dman are kinda shaky in the NHL. Playing a young Dman with a vet is great because then they always know what a safe decision is. i.e. pass the puck to the vet, he'll know what to do with it.

[CerebusClone]

I guess we haven't learnt from our experiences with guys like Bouillon and Begin. I agree that Gorges has done a very good job playing alongside Markov so far, and that's what makes him a great asset for the Canadiens... as a quality 3rd pairing defenseman capable of playing a higher role on a temporary basis. If we keep using him in a bigger role, his flaws will eventually come up, and teams will begin better preparing against him.

We've also made this mistake with Chris Higgins and probably also with Tomas Plekanec. Higgins has never been an offensive force nor a goal-scoring machine in the past, and was always supposed to become a Jere Lehtinen type-player, a quality 2-way forward who can be used in all situations and who will give you some decent offence (45-60 points). Unfortunately for him he did extremely well with Saku Koivu during a couple of hot streaks, and we've been overusing him as an offensive leader ever since... on one hand he's failing becauce he doesn't have the required skills to be that type ofp layer, and on the other he's also failing because his offensive "struggles" haven't allowed to work on improving his overall game.

[BTH]

If we're going to put Komisarek back on the top pairing then I don't want Gorges with Hammer, I want him with Bouillon on the third pairing. Hamrlik would play with Brisebois/O'Byrne.

If we aren't going to take Gorges off the top pairing then I don't want Komisarek playing with Hammer either. I like the idea of having Markov, Komisarek and Hamrlik on three separate pairings, especially if Gorges is a proven success with Markov. Komisarek and Bouillon are both physical defenseman and I'd have just as much confidence sending them out against a star line as I would sending out Markov-Gorges. I've never had a problem with Hamrlik playing with Brisebois and O'Byrne. Hammer's such a reliable guy, he makes the job so much easier for his D partner. And that's the value of this system - at all times we have one of Markov, Komisarek and Hamrlik on the ice and I trust all three of those guys totally.

[RobRock]

There's one flaw in your argument, it being that Gorges is a 3rd pair defenseman, a 5th or 6th defenseman. Clearly he's not, and he hasn't been since last season. On this team, he's probably 3rd on the depth chart, proven by his movement up to take Komisarek's spot when he got hurt. Why he's being relegated to the 5th or 6th spot is beyond all comprehension, quite honestly. When you shorten your bench late to hold a lead or force overtime, the guys that normally sit are your 4th liners and your 5th/6th defensemen. Those guys don't normally get regular PK duty either. Gorges was getting that, and has been for a while.

It's also very rare to have three consistently dangerous forward lines in this NHL, so having a "shut-down" guy on each pairing isn't really necessary. In addition, Markov's primary role isn't as a shut down guy, but a puck control guy; someone who can grab loose pucks in the defensive zone and start the breakouts. When situations arise, he can be more of a defensive d-man than he normally is, but playing with Komisarek and now Gorges makes his primary job easier. Ideally each pairing would have a similar pairing: one guy to move the puck out and one to bang bodies. Gorges, Komisarek and Hamrlik bang bodies, Markov, Bouillon and now Dandenault move the puck. Taking a banger away from Markov does more harm to Markov's game than it does good, I think.

[BCHabnut]

Gorges is our #4 D man. I have been very happy with his performance, and I think that he has eased some of our dependence on Komi. You guys are crazy talking about splitting up our four top D. Play Marky and Komi together, Hammer and Gorges together, or you can even split up Hammer and Gorges, but the top D line needs to be just that. We don't have a stud defensive centre and a shut down third line. We have three scoring lines and a fourth line. We rely on our defense to shut down the other team's top guns, and our top two defensemen. I don't think that splitting up our defense would make us any more competent against the other team.

[BTH]

There's one flaw in your argument, it being that Gorges is a 3rd pair defenseman, a 5th or 6th defenseman. Clearly he's not, and he hasn't been since last season. On this team, he's probably 3rd on the depth chart, proven by his movement up to take Komisarek's spot when he got hurt. Why he's being relegated to the 5th or 6th spot is beyond all comprehension, quite honestly. When you shorten your bench late to hold a lead or force overtime, the guys that normally sit are your 4th liners and your 5th/6th defensemen. Those guys don't normally get regular PK duty either. Gorges was getting that, and has been for a while.

It's also very rare to have three consistently dangerous forward lines in this NHL, so having a "shut-down" guy on each pairing isn't really necessary. In addition, Markov's primary role isn't as a shut down guy, but a puck control guy; someone who can grab loose pucks in the defensive zone and start the breakouts. When situations arise, he can be more of a defensive d-man than he normally is, but playing with Komisarek and now Gorges makes his primary job easier. Ideally each pairing would have a similar pairing: one guy to move the puck out and one to bang bodies. Gorges, Komisarek and Hamrlik bang bodies, Markov, Bouillon and now Dandenault move the puck. Taking a banger away from Markov does more harm to Markov's game than it does good, I think.

If you were talking to me then I never said Gorges was a 5th or 6th d-man.

Taking Komisarek away from Markov doesn't necessarily weaken his game. He's proving that right now with Gorges (whom you also list as a banger) on his pairing. Really, my combos also have someone who can hit and move the puck on each pairing as Gorges, Hamrlik and Bouillon do both. Those are the three most likely to join the rush. Are you saying that Komisarek and Bouillon wouldn't be able to start a counter attack? Bouillon can skate with the puck and there's nothing wrong with Komi's passing or skating.

You say I want a shutdown (why the quotation marks? I never said this) defenseman on each pairing but this isn't true. I wouldn't consider Markov a shutdown defenseman. But splitting up our big 3 gives us at least one guy on each pairing that we can have full confidence in. True, most teams don't have three threatening lines but why should that matter? It's often the big third and fourth liners that give us trouble because they're playing against a small Bouillon-Gorges combo. Komisarek would be able to handle them and Markov will be okay no matter who he's playing with.

[RobRock]

In normal circumstances, your pairings are made based on the individual players' abilities and chemistry, similar to how you set your forward lines. That's why you get those labels as players. In most cases, you don't put out your third defensive pairing against their top line because they don't have the ability to limit their chances. That's why Komisarek and Markov almost always match up against the other teams top lines. The third pairing usually goes with the other teams' bottom two lines. That makes your middle pairing guys who can take that odd match-up when the rotations don't necessarily synch up to what the other team does.

I like Bouillon a whole lot, but the fact is that he's a small guy who plays big, and when he gets into a standing battle with some of the bigger forwards in the league, he can be ineffective, that's why I put him more in the role of a puck mover than a banger. He can also rush the puck when the pass isn't immediately available, or to make quick transitions off turnovers. Gorges can do the same things that Bouillon does, as can Hamrlik for that matter, but he matches up better in those 1-on-1 battes in front of the net. The thing that puts Gorges into that second pairing, for me, is that he's more consistent from game to game, shift to shift, and has a bit more impact that maybe the pairing of Bouillon/Dandenault/Brisebois/O'Byrne would.

Of course, now we'll get to see if O'Byrne can make more of a positive impact than his last couple of games, with Dandenault out indefinitely with a broken arm. If he doesn't step up, then Brisebois makes this debate pointless.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

I'm inclined to agree with CerebusClone. I agree that Gorges has been a warhorse for us in Komisarek's absence. But it's FAR from certain that he can play like this for 82 games. Gorges may be occupying a nebulous zone - the type of guy who *can* step it up as a top-4 defenceman for stretches of time, but who is fundamentally better equipped for a third-pairing role.

Having said that, I wouldn't be adverse to experimenting to see if this is the case, and keeping him with Markov for a while after Komi's return. If Gorges flags, then you go back to square one.

Not sure I'd be as quick as CerebusClone to dismiss Plekanec and Higgins as top-6 forwards, though...but that's another argument.

[Habsfan]

But it's FAR from certain that he can play like this for 82 games. Gorges may be occupying a nebulous zone - the type of guy who *can* step it up as a top-4 defenceman for stretches of time, but who is fundamentally better equipped for a third-pairing role.

Agreed. Maybe Gorges is a solid #4 or 5 d-man. I don't know if he could keep this up for an entire season!

[CerebusClone]

I'm inclined to agree with CerebusClone. I agree that Gorges has been a warhorse for us in Komisarek's absence. But it's FAR from certain that he can play like this for 82 games. Gorges may be occupying a nebulous zone - the type of guy who *can* step it up as a top-4 defenceman for stretches of time, but who is fundamentally better equipped for a third-pairing role.

Having said that, I wouldn't be adverse to experimenting to see if this is the case, and keeping him with Markov for a while after Komi's return. If Gorges flags, then you go back to square one.

Not sure I'd be as quick as CerebusClone to dismiss Plekanec and Higgins as top-6 forwards, though...but that's another argument.

I didn't say they can't be top 6 forwards, however they are not offensive leaders. I think ideally they should be luxury third liners, but can also be very quite effective on a second or even a first line if they're well supported, and have a role where they must complete must stronger players. They have good overall skills that give us a lot of flexibility, but we shouldn't be counting on them to lead the way.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

I didn't say they can't be top 6 forwards, however they are not offensive leaders. I think ideally they should be luxury third liners, but can also be very quite effective on a second or even a first line if they're well supported, and have a role where they must complete must stronger players. They have good overall skills that give us a lot of flexibility, but we shouldn't be counting on them to lead the way.

Oh, yeah, I'd agree with that 100%.

Higgins has this thing where he always hurries the play. As long as he does that, he'll be the player you describe. If you put the head of a Ribeiro or Kyle Wellwood on Higgins' wheels, you'd have a star. But he just doesn't have the patience, or the vision.

Pleks? An enigma. I always thought he'd be Guy Carbonneau redux, a smart and shifty third-line C. Instead he surprised me and emerged as an effective scoring centreman. Now he's not playing especially well either defensively or offensively.

Higgins is the frustrating one, though, because there's always the thought that you might be able to trade him as part of a deal for a real elite player. And you just know he's probably got one or two 40-goal seasons in him (the sort of season like Jason Blake had a few years back). Plus he brings plenty of intangibles. He's one of those guys who, if you don't trade him, you might regret that deal you didn't make; and if you do trade him, you might regret that deal you did make. Bah!

Good players, though. Like you say.

Final thought on the Gorges discussion - I think our return to form has less to do with any one individual performance and more to do with a team commitment to defence. If that's the case, then specific details like D pairings probably matter less than we think.

Edited December 11, 2008 by The Chicoutimi Cucumber