The Hockey PDOcast - Modern hockey tactics with Jack Han

Episode Date: November 14, 2022

Dimitri is joined by Hockey Consultant & Ex NHL analyst/AHL coach Jack Han to discuss modern hockey tactics in depth. They also field some listener questions as well.This podcast is produced by Dominic Sramaty. The views and opinions expressed in this podcast are those of the hosts and guests and do not necessarily reflect the position of Rogers Media Inc. or any affiliate If you'd like to gain access to the two extra shows we're doing each week this season, you can subscribe to our Patreon page here: www.patreon.com/thehockeypdocast/membership If you'd like to participate in the conversation and join the community we're building over on Discord, you can do so by signing up for the Hockey PDOcast's server here: https://discord.gg/a2QGRpJc84 The views and opinions expressed in this podcast are those of the hosts and guests and do not necessarily reflect the position of Rogers Media Inc. or any affiliate.

Blessing to the means with your host, Dmitri Filipovic. Welcome to the Hockey PEOCast. My name is Dimitri Philipovic, and joining me today is my good buddy Jack Khan. Jack, what's going on in? So I'm coming off the bench, eh, Dimitri? You are, yeah. Mondays are usually devoted to our pal Cam Sharon comes here in studio, and we do deep dives, and unfortunately he's under the weather today.

So I had to throw up the bat signal, and you so generously answered. And I'm happy to have you, man. It's always a boss when you come on the PDA cast. yeah well really happy to help out both you and and camp who I work with in Toronto obviously he's been actually putting out some stuff that's really been getting my gears turning recently yes yeah and we are going to talk about Toronto Maple Leafleys today as well so it's a it's all coming together so the plan

for today is we've got some topics that you and I wanted to discuss and bounce around and then hopefully at the end of the show we're going to have some time left over to take some listener questions as well so let's start with the Leafs. Let's start talking about them because I haven't honestly spent much time on the PDOCAS this season discussing them. I feel like there's enough content out there on other platforms where you can get all the Leafs news and reactions and analysis and X's and O's that you want. But, you know, I think there is a lot for us to unpack here. And I'm kind of curious for your take on what we're seeing from them this season. Well, just to recap right now, Jake Muzzin, he's got some serious health issues, may never play in atrial hockey again. I hope that he does, but it's looking unlikely. T.J. Brody now is going to be out for a little bit with an injury. So the Leafs, you know, generally, it's almost like a meme when people say that Leifes need defensemen, but now Leifes actually, they really need defensemen.

Well, there's 16 games into the season. dressed 10 different blue liners so part of the season. There's a lot to unpack there from the perspective of like losing Brody in particular is going to hurt them just because he's such a sort of glue guy for them. You can pretty much pair him with anyone in terms of their configuration on the back end and he's going to make them look better and he's going to cover for a lot of their flaws. Without him, it becomes kind of trickier putting together the best combinations you can. but I still think, honestly, they're going to be fine.

Like when you got that ultra-charged third pairing of Rasmus Sandin and Timothy Lilligridden, just crushing it, I think you're going to be okay. Well, I'm actually not that optimistic just because now they're running a top pair of Morgan Riley and then Jordy Ben. That's right, yeah. Who's the left team playing his offside.

Now, Jordy Ben has played his offside, I think in Dallas and Montreal. on. He's actually done okay. But this is a guy who's in his mid-30s who who's just played one game. Granted, he scored and he looked really good. But, you know,

it's getting a little bit shaky there. Well, here's the thing. The reason why I say it's not that big of an issue, especially in the short term, is because this Leaves team has so fundamentally changed the way they play, both this season and over the past couple. And I think that's kind of why I want to discuss them with you,

because I feel like the way they're generally kind of covered and talked about is so irritating to me for any number of reasons, but especially because it feels like no one who's actually paid to speak about them on a big platform has even watched the Leafs game over the past like two years. Like it's a lot of kind of regurgitating the same talking points of, oh, this team, you know, they're they're so offense first. Can they play enough defense when it matters most? And in reality, when you watch this version of the Leafs team play, that couldn't be sort of further from the truth in terms of stylistically their approach and how they're playing these games and what their strengths and weaknesses actually are. Yeah, absolutely.

And I think, again, it goes back to maybe perception versus reality. And the reality is this is one of the best forechecking teams in the league, at least in the past, you know, season, season and a half. It's, of course, one of the best teams that are creating off the cycle, but actually off the rush, they're pretty middling, I would say. They are. And that's why I say, like, we need to recalibrate based on new information that presents itself, right? Like, they're just simply no longer that freewheeling, run and gun, offense, first team that they were in the early stages of this group's kind of identity when they first came together about five years ago, right? Like, if you look at their statistical profile right now, they're 26 and 515 offense on a permanent basis, just behind the Philadelphia Flyers.

They're 23rd in all situations scoring overall. Now, I don't think those two figures are necessarily representative of the talent level moving forward because they've got a really low 5-on-5 shooting percentage. Austin Matthews has two 5-on-5 goals so far, I believe, after scoring 38 last year. And either of them were actually like clean shots. One was a tip off a point shot. The other was kind of jamming it in on the side of the net. So you figure he's going to eventually start actually beating goalies cleanly and scoring goals himself. And so that's going to write itself.

But this team is kind of. gradually, I think, over the past couple years, changed its identity, and it's interesting that the kind of conversation around them hasn't really caught up to that, in my opinion. Yeah, and, you know, speaking of our buddy Cam, he put out a tweet suggesting, you know, a couple of possible options that the least could look at on defense now that, you know, now that they have these injuries. and he mentioned Dimitri Kulikov and Scott Mayfield. And this is generally the directions at least have gone in the past few years.

They've gotten older, they've gotten tougher, they've gotten slower, and they've gotten, I would say, less skill. Yes. Yeah, I think that is certainly fair to say. You know, that is the potential concern that I have about this team moving forward, all the numbers aside. Like when you watch them play these days, how much more plotting and methodical they are when they're attacking.

You know, they used to kind of just be this like shot of adrenaline in the early stages of this course tenure. And now aside from the occasional kind of dose of brilliance from Willie Nealander where he just kind of goes by himself, everything they create seems so much more intentional. And I'm kind of curious for your take on that from like a just approach perspective, right? We can we can talk about the negatives in terms of creating yourself and then kind of the positives in terms of the trickle-down effect how it improves your team defense. But it feels like for them to create offense these days at 5-15, it's like they just basically

have to get a low kind of grinded out and almost like will the puck into the net as opposed to just sort of playing this this open style of hockey. And I feel like whether it's a net positive or net negative just in terms of the offensive side of things, like it's a pretty clear step in the wrong direction for me. well it's interesting like i don't know what the exact quote is but essentially what i'm thinking is like history doesn't change only the names do because basically you know like i haven't worked in toronto for a couple of years now but it seems like we're right back to like 2017 when the lease were trotting out

you know matt martin and ron hansy and roman polack and it's it's like you know, whereas they had a number of kids who were ready to contribute in the HL or players that they weren't playing as much as they should have. And I think they're right back to the same spot. Like if I go back to the whole, like, finding some more defensemen to replace Mazen and Brody, well, if they trade for a guy like Scott Mayfield, who, by the way, 6'5, he's right-handed, plays very tough and front of net, has pretty decent shot impacts, play tough minutes, like, you know,

in a vacuum, a really good option for them. this team. But, you know, like Scott Mayfield's 30 years old. And if he gets hurt, then what that, right? Like, the thing that I keep thinking of when I watch this team now is if you don't bring up some Marley's players and you don't give them minutes now, well, they're going to get minutes in the playoffs once the vets get hurt because inevitably, vets, you know, older players, especially those with injury histories, they will get hurt in the postseason. And then you're going to have to bring up kids. And then if you don't trust them now, you're not. not going to trust him later and that's going to hamstring your entire team, especially if

you're looking to, you know, play with the puck and create offense. So, you know, for instance, they brought up Matt Hollowell right now to skate as a 7-8. Like, for me, if he doesn't play this week, that's not a good sign at all because that means that they don't trust him to play any sort of minutes and, you know, Hollislewell is already 24. He is an undersized D who moves the puck extremely well, can defend with his skating and his stick, not a big guy whatsoever. But now is the time to see what they have because the further this season goes along, the more they're going to run into this problem of getting slower, getting older, getting hurt, and they're not going to have enough time to recover.

Yeah. Well, I think what's really interesting about them is their expected goal numbers offensively still look fine because, you know, as a team philosophy, they really don't waste any time with point shots, and they still funnel a lot of their shot attempts through high danger areas from in tight around the net. And so I think, like, the specific geographical location of where they're shooting from is going to result in high expected goal totals, and they have talented players, so they're going to turn those shots into goals. But I think, you know, the way, like, the part of this equation that is so fascinating to me is over the past five years,

there's pretty clearly been a trajectory they've been on in terms of slowing it down and specifically attacking less off the rush as a result, right? If you look back at that sort of 2017 era that you're mentioning 2016, 2017, 2018 or so, they were first in the league in terms of the pace they were playing at a 5-1-5 in terms of just, you know, shot events. They were going both back and forth, and they were kind of embracing that faster style. This year, they're down to 24th in terms of 5-1-5 pace. If you look at, I asked our buddy Kevin Woodley to get into his clear site analytics platform to give us some rush, rush data.

In 2019-20, the Leafs were averaging over 10 rush chances per 60 minutes of play, which was fourth best in the league. 2021, they were third best. Then that goes down to this year where they're averaging just 6.6 rush chances per 60, which is 16th best in the league. And that doesn't really line up with the names that you'd think they have in terms of. the way they should be playing. And the question that raises for me is how much of that do you think is just kind of a natural byproduct, as you're saying, of the players getting older and kind of their habits changing along the way?

And that or how much of it do you think is an actual calculator approach by the Leafs to sort of compensate for whatever perceived flaws they've had that have fallen short in the, in the playoffs and feeling like they need to play that way in the regular season to kind of change their, change their outlook. Well, I mean, I think there's a lot of criticism, you know, toward just NHL decision makers in general for being overly safe and sticking with players that, you know, quote-unquote, we know are bad versus players who are maybe younger, inexperienced,

and who we don't know are bad yet. And I think that that's what I'm seeing with the least. Like the example, the prime example this season is Callie Yon Crook. So, you know, I don't know Yon Crook. I don't have anything against him personally, but I just think that his usage is a case and point of, you know, of least decision makers being more risk-averse than ever because this is a player who's at 45% course right now, who's basically hamstrung whatever lines found himself on, but because he's, you know, quote-unquote, a good teammate, a hard worker, a guy who's trusted, he keeps getting minutes, whereas, you know, guys like Morgon or Robertson or you name it are getting rotated in and out of the lineup, you know, based on merit.

Yeah, I will say that they seem to have recently kind of stumbled upon whether it's Aston Reese and Kemp playing with one of Mugan or Engball, basically. Whenever they've done that, it's worked. And it kind of makes sense because those last two and Muggan and Engball are kind of more. depth at carrying the puck up the ice and kind of doing the heavy lifting that way and just leaving all the defensive responsibilities and more traditional defense responsibilities to to astin-reasing camp but yeah with the way they started the year with their bottom six i thought it was a big whiff because you look at the success that group had last year for them and not only did it provide actually an infusion of speed that might have been missing in the top six but it also helped them win so many

territorial battles where they'd basically start in their own zone throughout a shift they chip away and get it to where they wanted to tire out the opposition, and then all of a sudden the top line would be coming out in an advantageous position because they'd be going against opponents who were already burnt out and kind of reeling and playing on their heels. And instead, they kind of went in a bit of a different direction this summer in trying to kind of cobble together that top six

after some of the players they lost, and the result was not a good one. Yeah. And I mean, in years past, that was the whole idea of having, you know, Tyler Ennis on the fourth line, who could drive play, or Trevor Moore, or Jason Spetzel, or, you know, Pierre Engball,

like you name it. This year, the Leafs really, they haven't had that bottom six advantage. And the top six, you know, I was looking on Twitter with some of the questions that we've received, you know, someone was asking, you know, who could the Leafs insert into their top six?

And, like, you know, they need an actual, legit, top six player, not like a Michael Bunting who can play up and play with players who are top scorers or an Alice Kerfoot, but I'm talking about a guy, let's say, you know, something like Val Nishchuskyn, who's like an entirely different class of player or Andre Burekowski or, you know, someone like that who's a legit top six player instead of a middle or bottom six player who's a filler. Yeah, no, I agree with that. There was another question in there, which I thought was a really kind of astute one by a

listener to latch on to and to ask us about was, you know, I think where that distinct lack of rush element or attacking team speed has become a specific issue for them in these games has been late in these tight talk contests against good defensive teams where that team, if they're up, can all of a sudden, you know, intentionally sit back in a defensive posture and basically just put up a series of roadblocks either through the neutral zone and transition or in front of their own net and they haven't really had a way to problem solve for that. I remember you and I right after game seven against Tampa Bay last year had a conversation about this and it was it was kind of eye-opening to see how Tampa Bay basically just put up a

line at their own blue line. It was like you are not carrying this puck into the zone and force them to keep dumping it in and wasting time and they were never able to really cobble together anything of meaning. And then in one of their most recent games against Pittsburgh, I saw a very similar phenomenon where in that third period, once Pittsburgh went up, it felt like they had no real kind of tangible way of creating offense against that. I'm kind of curious for your take on

sort of finding ways to creatively problem solve for those neutral zone traps in those specific game states and kind of how you work around that because that's something that it's whatever in a regular season game, but in a playoff series, we'll come back up again, and if you don't have an answer for it,

it's going to be tough to overcome. Well, you need legs, you need hands, you need skill. You need body parts? You need body parts. And generally speaking, if you go back throughout hockey history and you look at teams

that overachieve in the playoffs or win cups, these are teams that are on the younger end of the spectrum because players come out of nowhere, right? And then they make a reputation for themselves, whereas players with established reputations, maybe they're not able to play at that level anymore and they kind of fall off.

last last year again if we just go back to colorado the most recent example you know bowen byram and alice new hook step up in big ways yeah well you basically i mean for many for any number of reasons but you need you need those established star players and then you need to find a way to supplement them with young cheap players who can come in and provide a spark not necessarily in lead roles but in kind of you know those depth roles and then when injuries come up they can potentially move up the lineup but yeah I mean, that goes without a question. You need that next wave coming in that can help supplement your existing stars. Yeah, and I think the Leafs have maybe two, three, or even four of these players on the Marley's right now.

I can't exactly say who they are. But I'm sure that there's a handful of players as call-ups who could outperform players who are getting into the lineup today. So when you say something like that from an organizational perspective, who like where is that line of communication falling apart then right because i imagine if if you're a gm who has you know either drafted well or has found creative ways to add talent into your into your minor league system into your prospect pipeline like you'd like to see those guys come up and play because it'll it'll it'll you know it'll validate you it'll vindicate you it'll make you

look good um is it is it a matter of like a coach just you know trusting players that he's more familiar with and not willing to put his own name to that kind of uncertainty that comes with young players who are never played in the league? So this is the super strange thing because we normally would think that teams would overvalue their own players, right? Like there's this well-known psychological bias where you like what you have and you tend to overvalue what you have as opposed to, you know, things that are kind of freely available on the market.

But I actually find that in some instances it's kind of the opposite. opposite where maybe you undervalue the players that you've had around for a long time. And again, I go back to Mack Hollowell. You know, like Kyle Dubis and Shelton Keith had him in St. Marie. And then the Leafs drafted Hollowell as an overager to mostly to play in the HAL. He's been called up a few times that never actually gone into the game. And I wonder, you know, if Hollilaw was on another team and would have gotten maybe 20, 30, 50 NHL games, you know, maybe he would be seen differently.

But because we're, you know, as a front office or as a coaching staff, we know this player so well and we've never trusted him before, it goes to reasons that maybe we still shouldn't trust him now. And I don't think that's entirely correct. Yeah. Yeah. That's how I treat my fantasy teams, Jack. I'm always super critical of my guys and I'm always out there trying to try to acquire other

people's players that they probably don't value as much. Yeah, it's like the grass is always greener phenomenon, right? So again, you know, now we see Jordy Ben on the first pair with Morgan and Riley. Let's see how this goes. But, you know, here's an example of basically the new lease philosophy, which is, you know, we have our stars and we're just going to complete kind of the lineup with these older, experienced, established guys whose hockey is most likely. behind them.

All right. Is there anything else on the Leafs that you figure we should touch on here before we move on to listener questions? I think that's about it for me. I mean, I get quite fired up when I talk about it still just because, you know, I've worked with these people and I've been in this environment. And I just think, you know, it would be such a shame if they lost a window of contention

because they kind of regress back to, you know, traditional hockey thinking and kind of kind of just became another team. I think that would be a shame. Yeah. Well, I mean, it's so strange. Yeah, this idea is like you've got to keep getting tougher and tougher than you just see. It's like, well, when our fourth line is Kyle Clifford and Wayne Simmons, they're clearly not two of our 12 best players and we're hurting ourselves as a result of dressing them and having them in the lineup. And then, so it's, it's, it's unfortunate. It's kind of a part of the expectations, part of the market. It's part of when you have that playoff failure, you're going to sometimes kind of overreact or overcompensate to the critiques that you get as a result of it as opposed to, you know, starting

with a clean slate and actually just being able to utilize who you believe the best players are, regardless of kind of being defined by whatever role they have to play in the lineup. Yep. Okay, Jack, we're going to take a break here, and then when we come back, we've got a bunch of really fun listener questions that we're going to dive into. So let's take that break here. You are listening to the HockeyPedocast here on the Sportsnet Radio Network. We're back here on the HockeyPedio cast, join Bad Jepad.

Jack, we did the first block talking about the Leafs. We're going to have some fun here and close out the show by taking some listener questions. I've got a question here from Luke Hawking asks, what does effective forechecking look like to you? Oof, that's a really difficult question to answer because it's going to be very different depending on whether you're an analyst or a coach or a player, right? Okay, well, let's take it step by step. Right. So from an analytical point of view, the purpose of forechecking is to prevent your opponents from leaving their zone in control of the puck.

Right. So we're looking for at a team level, a team that's able to force a lot of turnovers up ice or force a lot of dumpouts and whatever formation that's going to facilitate that or whichever players are going to facilitate. facilitate that, well, that's what good forechecking looks like. Okay. Why would your answer be different from a coaching or a player level then? It seems like you would kind of follow the line with that, no? Right. So one of the tradeoffs that you're making when you're building kind of your team's forecheck is do you finish your checks, for instance, or do you peel off and then have a second

player replaced you? And from a player's point of view, let's say your defenseman trying to make that breakout play, obviously you would feel a lot more pressure psychologically if someone was coming in to put you through the boards every single time you try to make a play. However, it doesn't mean that that forechecking approach is actually more effective at preventing you from making these exit plays. So maybe over a seven-game series, the fact that you're getting hit 5, 10, 15 times a game, means that you're not going to feel your legs and your torso anymore. But over the course of a regular season,

you'll find that the most effective forechecking teams are actually not the ones are the most physical. Yeah, certainly. I think our perception of that or the way we think about it has changed quite a bit over the past couple years. I mean, I think the gold standard for this now, in terms of forechecking, the impact and it can have, is that most recent example,

which you cited earlier in our conversation with what Valen-Chushkin did to the lightning in the Stanley Cup final. final last year, right, where he just completely obliterated almost single-handedly every plan they might have otherwise had for what they wanted to do exiting their zone. And now it was a unique situation where they didn't have the personnel on the blue line to beat him as an F1 and skate the puck out of the zone himself. So he almost didn't even need to factor that into the equation of like what they could possibly do. And so eliminating that allowed him to basically just go aggressively after whoever

had the puck and using his reach he was able to basically cause disruptions and turnovers all over the ice and i think it's interesting that you mentioned that kind of accumulation effect of all right if you get hit over the course of a game or series you're going to start feeling it physically i think dealing with someone's reach like that where they're just kind of deflecting and poking away everything and getting in the passing lanes has just as much of a mental effect on you where all of a sudden now you start second guessing those passes maybe you're clutching on to it and you're not just you know freely firing that puck up the ice, you're overthinking it, and that can lead to even more mistakes down

the road that might not even have anything to do with the way a guy like Valen-Trucchkin was fore-checking in the moment, but it's kind of a byproduct of what he'd done already earlier in the game and in the series. So I think disrupting a game that way as a fore-checker is almost what you have to do in today's game. Yeah, and I think there's a lot more respect for that sort of a skill set where you have maybe a bigger guy, but who's not super physical and who's, you know, quote-un-un-quote, lying by a lot instead of finishing his checks. But we see that statistically it's effective. And coaches and players and teams are catching on to that.

And they're deploying more of those players. And they're no longer essentially penalizing players for not finishing their hips. Yeah. I mean, there's two distinct qualities. And then when they come together, they make for an absolutely ruthless forechecker. But one of them is that reach for me that you can use to disrupt and get in passing lanes and tip points.

And the other is just the motor in terms of being able to give multiple efforts and keep hounding the puck carrier and not really giving up as opposed to just, you know, going for broke once. And if you miss out, all, you're peeling off and then going for a change or letting someone else inherit that responsibility. And so Nchushchechen was kind of a great example of that. Now, there's a reason why the avalanche were comfortable giving him the contract that they did. And he's a hell of a player. And he does a lot more than that. He's very unique in that regard. I don't think that's necessarily a reasonable expectation

to just assume every foreshaker to be able to do that. There's a reason why he was so effective. But that's kind of what I'd be looking for in terms of my forechecking much more than that sort of traditional element you mentioned, which was going in and just making sure you throw a hit and make them feel it because I really think

in today's game, that's not going to be nearly as much of the turn as you might think. Yeah, well said. It's interesting, though, because I mentioned, and I think you and I have spoken about this the past how much I value reach as a physical trait the more and more I think about it and the more and more and more I see and you know I cited a player like matia samuelson for example defensively who

uses his wingspan so well to to defend and i think it's it's it's vital for being a great neutral zone defender in terms of defending against the rush and being able to cover your own blue line but i got a question here from um from a listener that kind of notes a conversation that i've had in the past about smaller defensemen and wondering whether there's stuff that they can do beyond just being undervalue just because they're smaller, that they can actually do better than big guys in terms of defending that maybe we don't necessarily value enough as well. Do you have anything on kind of this idea that smaller defensemen might actually be able to defend better in certain instances beyond just, I guess, being more mobile than their

bigger counterparts? So I think smaller players in general, first of all, there's a survivorship bias where by that, you know, if you're not incredibly skilled and smart and brave, you're not even going to stiff me in HL if you're, you know, 5 foot 8 or below, right? So that's the first thing. The second thing is if you watch, you know, Cole Cawfield or, you know, players kind of around that stature, like, they do a really good job of getting under. bigger, taller defensemen.

And, you know, they can kind of win these battles because they're closer to the puck. They can initiate contact again and then cut through the defender's hands. And it's easier to do that if you're a smaller player and you're not afraid of initiating contact. On the flip side, if you look at the league as a whole, there aren't a whole lot of defensemen under 5 foot 10. And I think, you know, the market is a pretty good indication that there's a lot of, there are a lot of significant downsides to being very short if you're a defenseman in terms of not having the reach

or in terms of being not as heavy on the puck. Certainly I think, you know, in isolated instances, these smaller skilled defensemen, they can do a really good job of defending, but as a whole, you know, if you look at the direction that, let's say, teams such as Montreal going toward or Buffalo,

it seems like teams still value that size and the heaviness on the back end. And, you know, in front of the net, sometimes it's really difficult to replace, you know, pure heft in terms of moving people out of the way. Yeah, I guess what, you know, what Buffalo has done, though, is they're not at all sacrificing mobility in particular, but I guess you could argue skill as well in those, you know, preferences or priorities, right? So now to get those types of players, if you're going to get a skilled guy who's six-foot-five,

six-o-six-six, you're probably going to have to be invested. absolutely elite draft capital to do so, right? Like it's going to be tough to find that as sort of an undervalued asset that you get for free as a free, as a, you know, undrafted free agent or something like that. So I guess that would kind of go into the calculus. But yeah, I think for the most part, if you can get a player who can, who can defend physically one-on-one without limitations while also being able to keep up in open ice, that would be ideal. In most instances, you generally have to kind of pick one over the other and then pinch

your nose in the other circumstances. But I wonder with smaller defensemen, you know, you mentioned how, you know, generally to make it into the NHL, if you're going to be undersized, you have to have a pretty high skill level. I wonder if it would give you a bit of an advantage of defending that we don't necessarily think about as much just because you, not only are you seeing the ice better, but just as a skill player yourself, when you have the puck, you would do something. And then when you don't have it in your defending, you can kind of put yourself in those shoes easier in terms of sniffing out what the opponent's going to try to do, as opposed to if you're a puck. you're just kind of like a big plotting physical defender who has no idea what to do with the puck.

It's tougher to kind of understand or put yourself in the shoes of the opponent in terms of what they're actually trying to accomplish. Yeah, and the whole idea of being one step ahead because you have that hockey IQ, like that's exactly what Jared Spurge has been doing for so many years. That's how Adam Fox is able to play tough minutes and still thrive. You know, that's what Chris Latang did for a number of years and only recently do seem really slowing down. So it's absolutely a must if you're going to be undersized. Okay. Random Task 68 asks,

biggest tactical change you've seen teams adopt in the last five to ten years. I mean, you could take this any number of directions, but what do you have for this one? Well, 10 years is a long time. Yes. Okay, let's say, yeah, let's say five more likely. The last five years, I would say there's a few. but I see more teams playing man to man in the defensive zone now than before, less zone, more aggressive. I see teams moving their F3 higher and higher.

So instead of having that third fourth in the pile battling for the puck, now he's standing kind of closer to the D's as almost like a third defenseman and then attacking downhill on opportunity. So it actually mirrors a lot of what's been happening in soccer. if you think about like Messi in his heyday in Barcelona he was kind of playing that

high F3 role where he was running into space instead of getting defended and just standing there looking for headers so yeah like those two would be a big one for me okay well let's get into that

because I know you were going to you're going to write about that if you haven't already right the kind of differences between man to man and zone defense yeah and it's funny because it's such a basic concept that, you know, soccer fans or basketball fans will be familiar with, but I feel like in hockey it's very misunderstood or it's very poorly explained. And the nature of the game makes it so that basically no team is ever playing pure man to man

and no team is ever purely playing zone either. It's always sort of a mixed coverage that has these specific trigger points, which again, it varies from team to team, but you can see. some overall themes. So I have a question for you then about that. Is it fair to say that if you have, like you, if you don't have a certain,

let's say, talent level in terms of your personnel, um, defensively, would bigger issues prop up if you're trying to go more heavy towards man to man just because it can lead to more kind of catastrophic mistakes where players are just blowing assignments and getting mixed up and lack of communication or,

or does it kind of vary depending on? depending on the system. Okay, so this is, I think it's a common, it's a common concern with man to man, and it's a very valid one. But the problem is, is that you're always making tradeoffs when you're playing defense, right? And if you commit to zone defense,

which basically means that you're just standing in strategic areas, you're either waiting for the other team to shoot the puck right into you or to Bob Wall Pass so that the puck just leaves the zone. Like you're never going to be able to, to make defensive stops if you play a pure zone because you're just waiting for the other team to run into you. Right. So was I fair to say that then?

Or do you disagree with it? But I mean, look, you play man to man because it allows you to pressure pucks and to force these one-on-one turnover that you can then turn into zone exits. There was one goal that Boston scored against Vancouver. Vancouver has been, have been defending in their zone,

about a minute and they went to pure zone defense where basically all five players just packed a slot and then eventually Boston recovered three pucks they moved it around and then they scored Connor Clifton came downhill and slapped it by the goalie who was screened yeah so this is the kind of issue you run into in zone defense which is you're basically on survival mode and eventually you bleed out whereas if you're playing man to man and you're overaggressive you get beat back to the net you kind of die, you know, via blunt first trauma. Yeah, I thought you were actually to bring up the example. They had a very similar instance in the game before that against the Leafs,

where it was kind of a scramble in front of the net, and then eventually after a long shift, there was just such a breakdown, and then it wound up with, like, a wide open. I think it might have actually been Jordy Ben's goal, where he kind of came down and was just uncovered, and was able to score because after a long shift, there was just such chaos and miscommunication,

and it was almost like they were getting closer and closer and closer into packing in front of their own net and then eventually they were done and Jordy Ben was able to skate into one and just score very easily. Yeah and one of the nuances I think is really that you've got to consider as a coach is this is why your best

defenders should be your best well should be your fittest players because the more fit you are the more you're able to pressure even if you've been hand in for a long time right? So you can still sort of try to play man-on-man defense, even though you've been added for 40, 50, 60 seconds. Whereas if you're gassed after 30 seconds, basically the only thing you can do is to fall back

and stand in the slot somewhere so that you're at least preventing a free carry into the high danger area, right? But ideally, again, you would have kind of the physical conditioning and the stamina to keep pressuring for extended periods of time. Yep, that's all said. All right, moldy turn up. What a name. asks, what's the most overrated statistic, whether it's for an individual or for a team? You're not allowed to say a plus minus. Sorry for Hank.

Oh, man. Points? Yeah. Especially for defensemen. Yeah, I would say points for a defenseman. Because a lot of these points for defensemen you will get, either on the power play or just because you just kind of touched the puck before Ford made a highlight real play to score. So points for defense.

Yeah. Yeah, I would say like on ice goals for defensemen is much more valuable or telling in terms of a offensive ability for a defenseman just because if their team's scoring a lot while they're out there, chances are they're probably doing at least something at one end of the ice that's allowing, they're putting them in position to do so. Whereas, yeah, pure raw points is without context is very useless. Yeah, I guess for, what about from a team perspective? I guess I would go just like raw, raw shot attempts.

I mean, I guess throughout the regular season, if you have high volume, chances are you have the puck a lot, and eventually you're going to play poor teams or bad goalies, and those shot attempts will transfer at least to some correlation to goals scored. But especially come to postseason, I feel like raw shot attempts and even raw shots on goal without accounting where they're coming from or what's happening to create them is almost entirely useless. Well, I would say especially now because teams are getting better and better at not wasting pucks at at at least gaining the offensive zone. So, you know, you could very well step across the blue line, throw it on net and then, you know, go about your business. Yes. Because teams now, you know, it seems like there's a way better understanding that, you know, Corsi drives future results and that, you know, zone entries drive future results. So at least they're not getting rid of the puck too prematurely.

And now they're just kind of throwing it on that from the offensive zone as opposed to throwing it out of the D zone. So I'm curious about this. You know, you mentioned soccer and how some of the tactical advancements have kind of come from them or mirrored them over the years. We see this much more clearly at three on three where puck possession truly is at the utmost premium. And you don't want to give it away unless you're creating the best scoring chance possible, basically, because you might not get it back. Do you think at five on five we'll see more teams exploring with that?

actually intentionally leaving the zone and regrouping and being able to kind of, you know, intentionally manufacture more downhill rush attempts that way as opposed to, like, I can think of very few examples where I've seen teams actually do that. It feels like you're much more likely to actually cycle it in. And then if you're, if you're getting tired and you can't go for a change, just kind of force a face off by throwing it at the goalie, as opposed to doing that kind of more premeditated regroup where you either pass it back to your goalie or you actually pass it out of the zone or skate it out and allow yourself to change? So there is, I would caution against kind of importing soccer tactics wholesale because there are

a loss of particularities in hockey. You know, we have fewer players. The pace of play is faster. The field is smaller. We have boards, which are really important. But certainly I think more and more teams now understand the importance of holding out to possession, of circling back, building speed. I was at the Montreal Canadiens practice today,

and a lot of their drills are very forward-thinking in terms of having players choose between circling back and continuing a rush attack or using movements from the outside to the inside and the offensive zone. Yeah, I mean, in terms of results, I think Montreal has been surprisingly good, and I think the way that they practice is a very helpful. healthy indicator of where this team is going.

That's a good plug. I think on tomorrow's show, I'm actually having Andrew Berkshire on to talk about the Montreal Canadian. So that's a good little plug there from you. Nice. All right, one final one here from Flyard. I asked, do you feel that expected goal stats should be adjusted for game state,

given the teams generally change their tactics based on whether they're leading or trailing? I think a much more interesting component of that is that exact conversation about changing your tactics when you're leading and trailing and how kind of score effects influence the way you're either deploying your players or the way you're actively attacking.

Do you have any thoughts on kind of countering that and actually being able to basically maintain your premium or your ideal version of the way you want to play regardless of whether you're up by three or down by three? I actually think that

as a whole, the league has gotten way better at managing score stakes. Like, you know, Michael Blake McCurdy did some research a couple of years ago that found that certainly score effects, as we know, you know, trailing teams, they do control the game and they do get a bigger proportion of shots, but it doesn't necessarily translate into goals at the same proportion. So by and large, it seems like NHL teams do a pretty good job of finding a balance between still playing the game that got them there versus being a little bit safer. So I actually don't think it's as much as an issue as it used to be, especially now that teams have gotten away from dressing the forces on their fourth line or guys who can't play with the puck at all.

They're still rolling four lines that can play. And even though they're getting out of a little bit more, they may be just choosing to retreat into their own zone and set up their defensive structure to avoid those rush chances. And at the end of the day, they're still doing, for the most part, decent job at holding on to leads. You clearly did not watch last year's Dallas Stars under Rick Bonus. By and large.

Yeah. Okay. Well, I think that's going to be it for the questions. We got a bunch of, we're not a bunch, but we got some, including our pal Jack Fraser asked about the Florida Panthers. I think last time I had you on, we kind of deferred this as well. I feel like we should actually do a proper kind of tape study and deep dive of them because it's actually a very interesting conversation I have after the code.

change they had and how much of an outlier they were last year. And then now statistically, they're also being an outlier for, I think, you know, slightly different reasons under Paul Maurice. And I kind of like to actually just go fully into their tape and crunch it before we have this conversation. But I think this is something that you and I should kind of assign ourselves as a homework assignment. Yeah. And I still think it's more of a developing story because I don't know where this team is

going. Yeah. Yeah. It's only been 15 games, right? Let's give it 25 game mark. and then I feel like we can kind of revisit it. All right, Jack, I'll let you plug some stuff. Where can people check out your work?

What are you been working on? And I think most importantly, when is hockey tactics 2023 coming out? Okay, so in case you've never heard of me before, I used to work in the Toronto Maple Police Organization. I now coach as a consultant with several different teams at the pHF level and in the Swiss League. on Twitter you can find me at J-H-A-N-H-H-K-Y. Today I just posted a thread with videos of the drills that I saw at the Montreal Canadiens practice.

Really interesting stuff if you're a hockey coach or a hockey parent. So check me out on Twitter. And then any announcements about my future e-books or my most recent newsletter articles, you will find it on my Twitter. So just check me out there. Okay. Well, first off, I think 100% of people listen to. to today's show have heard of you before

based on how frequently you've been on the podcast. But secondly, you neatly deflected that in terms of providing an actual timeline. And I asked selfishly for myself because I'm curious when it's coming out as opposed to informing the listeners. January 2013 for Hockey Tactics, 2013.

Sorry, 2020. My God, wrong decade. Yes. But yeah, so next January and Dimitri, you'll be one of the first to get a copy to review and to discuss. and we'll talk that. We'll certainly be doing a deep dive of it. Can you give me a teaser of what kind of main concepts you're interested in focusing on this year?

Because was it 2021 or 2022 the one that had like the, you know, how Kucharov receives the puck and how Pavelski Roberts and Hints work together? Because I think that one was like one of my favorite rates. So that's 2021. But the next one is going to be the 5-on-5 tactics of all 32 teams, also with special teams content and a few essays on how to best adapt those tactics to create better hockey for you and your team. I love it.

So people who enjoy today's conversation, it was like a nice little taster for what they can expect in that book. So highly recommend that. Jack, this is a blast. We're going to certainly have you back on soon, and hopefully we'll do that Florida Panthers Deep dive. Thank you to everyone for listening to the show. If you're enjoying it, you can continue to help us out

by going and smashing that five-star review button on whichever podcast platform you listen. to us on and we will be back soon with more of the Hockey PDO cast here on the Sportsnet Radio Network.