Prioritizing being difficult to play against over pure grit

Nick Zararis
Gotham Sports Network
10 min readJun 16, 2021

--

In the grand scheme of hockey debate, two parties have entrenched themselves in their respective corners of the ring. The eye-test, grit-obsessed class with grey in their beards and the computer-strained eyes of the analytics community are locked in a Joker vs Batman-esque eternal struggle.

While neither party will give an inch, it always manifests a particularly unique way during the postseason. With less space to operate on the ice in the playoffs, the greybeards tout those players who chip the puck below the goal line and go get it.

What the proponents of the eye-test miss in their fetishization of bodies banging along the boards are the true impacts of such play. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of hockey knows that if one team has more hits than the other team, it means they don’t have the puck.

The key to today’s NHL is puck possession, so the best defense is not playing defense at all. If the puck is in the other team’s zone, the team on defense cannot score. That’s where the value of these players who are strong at puck possession comes into play.

Since there’s less space to operate in the playoffs, recovering the puck has even more value. That’s at least in part why certain teams can have a hard time scoring goals that they didn’t in the regular season. The cross-seam pass that got the goalie moving in February just isn’t there in June.

Unpacking this debate typically ends up falling along generational lines. The older hockey fan or analyst has a lifetime of experience using their eyes to assess what does or doesn’t work. On the other hand, the more analytically inclined are looking for specific details and the finer points of the game.

Using the never-ending grit debate as a baseline, there is a productive discussion to be had. The impact of strong-forechecking and puck retrievers on shot metrics is a real factor in team success. If a team can win the puck back in the offensive zone, it has the ability to sustain pressure.

With sustained offensive zone time, scoring chances typically follow. The longer a shift in one zone, the more tired the defending team gets and it's more likely to take a penalty or blow a defensive coverage. All because a pinching forward won a 50–50 puck along the boards and got the cycle engaged.

Being difficult to play against

Puck recoveries

Starting with the most basic of principles, if a team has the puck, it’s not on defense. So, when a team doesn’t control the puck, getting it back as soon as possible is of the utmost importance. This, sometimes, comes by design in the form of dump and chase situations.

If an attacking player carries the puck over the red line and dumps the puck into the offensive zone, the team needs to get it back. Whether the dump was to facilitate a line change or as a means of gaining the zone, the dumping team has to go after the puck.

This is where the puck retriever skillset comes into play. These are the players fleet of foot who can win races against defensemen and still be big enough to win body positioning in the corners or below the goal line. These are the type of players a quality team has in their bottom six.

Visualization of the leaders in puck recoveries for the Tampa Bay Lightning
(Via Corey Sznajder)

The above visualization shows the leaders for the Tampa Bay Lightning in terms of puck recoveries per 60 minutes of ice time. Using stats scaled out to per 60 minutes of ice time is useful because not every player plays the same number of minutes per game.

Now, knowing that the Lightning’s bottom-six is strong at puck recoveries, it’s reasonable to assume that it also controls the puck a decent amount of the time. The shot share metrics (Corsi/Fenwick/Expected goals) support the hypothesis.

The Lightning’s most common third line, Blake Coleman, Yanni Gourde and Barclay Goodrow was dominant at five on five. With strong puck retrievers, the trio out-chanced opponents 408–304, led expected goals 17.71–11.6, high danger chances 88–58 and outscored their opponents 22–11.

While none of the three forwards would be considered high end skill players, their style of play is conducive to offense. The benefit of these types of forwards is their ability to sustain offensive pressure even if they aren’t getting pucks on net.

Sometimes in a tight game, a third line cycling the puck in the offensive zone for 45 seconds is a good counterbalance to take control of the game. It takes pressure off of the defense and goalie with the added bonus of a greasy goal that gets broadcasters fired up.

Controlling the puck

Going off of board play and puck recoveries, it all goes back to the original premise, controlling the puck. Whenever a team doesn’t have the puck, the single focus of everyone on the ice needs to be getting it back. Half of that is system in terms of how they’re supposed to get it back and the other half is how hard the players are working to get the puck back.

Quality hockey teams have a means of imposing their will on a game. This doesn’t necessarily mean hitting anything that moves, but instead forcing the opposition to play a style of game that makes it uncomfortable.

In game one of the Islanders-Lightning series, New York conceded zero rush chances according to Sportslogiq, a proprietary shot tracking website. This means that the Lightning’s high end players weren’t able to use dynamic skating to create easier scoring chances.

Instead, the Lightning had to work extra hard to create offense. While Tampa Bay has the talent base in its bottom six for this type of game, the expectation remains that the top six would be able to generate offense in spite of staunch defense.

There’ll likely be adjustments throughout the course of a best of seven series, but it’s worth giving credit where it’s due. In spite of the Islanders’ talent gap, New York was undaunted and played a style that forced the defending cup champions out of its comfort zone.

The mentality

We can’t get the puck

The most frustrating type of game to watch as a hockey fan is one where the opponent has the puck every time you look up from refreshing Twitter. Simply put, there’s no way around it, if the other team has the puck, pain is likely on the horizon.

On top of just possession, there’s getting the puck to dangerous areas of the ice. In your mind, draw a mental image of a diagonal line stretching from each post to the faceoff circle on each side of the crease. Any scoring chance from within that area, is a high danger chance and one more likely to result in a goal.

So, if your team is getting constantly out-possessed and the puck is getting into the danger zone, it’s more likely than not going to lose that game. Sure, it can occasionally get an out of body goaltending experience, but long-term, banking on goaltending to be a deciding factor is a fool’s errand.

Preparation and understanding

To state the obvious, there’s a reason that not every team rips off the Islanders’ system. It’s a draining style that requires absolute buy-in from every single player in the lineup. If anyone (that includes Mat Barzal) tries to be a hero, it falls apart.

But, it’s a textbook example of what a team in today’s NHL should look like. Every time an Islander player has the puck, there’s a clear plan as to where it needs to go. There are players moving to make themselves open to receive a pass or provide support on a puck battle.

It’s easy to pin the blame on lack of effort, but in my opinion, bad play away from the puck is reflective on the coaching staff. If the forwards are jumping the defensive zone too early in hopes of creating rush chances, it’s not helping defensemen trying to clear.

There needs to be a total commitment to playing in a constructive, cohesive way.

That’s where the genuine obsession with gritty players stems from. It’s easy to understand their impact because they’re along the boards, winning 50–50 pucks and making simple plays.

These types of players are at a premium to experts because their play is replicable. Since there’s less space to operate in the postseason, skill players can occasionally go dry offensively because they aren’t able to get to dangerous areas of the ice.

In contrast, these gritty Coleman-type forwards are constantly working hard to the naked eye. To the grit-obsessed, this is more likely to eventually result in a goal than a highly-skilled player dangling through traffic and beating the goalie.

Getting the most from your best

This plugging away style more common in the bottom six is less frustrating to watch then what can occasionally happen with more skilled players. When it’s not going right for guys with skill, the game can get choppy and disjointed if teams can’t gain the offensive zone.

So, I understand why these high-end bottom six players are coveted. The more lines a team has come postseason time, the better. It takes at least three quality lines to be a true contender for the Stanley Cup. But since high end talent is considerably more expensive, it requires a variety of skillsets.

However, for all of the importance of a strong bottom six, I think harping on skill vs grit in the bottom six is missing the point. For any team to truly be competitive in the playoffs, it’s going to require elite players capable of playing multiple styles.

So when the high skill cross-seam pass isn’t there, don’t force it to the middle. Instead, keep the puck moving and get the defenders moving. For those without the puck, skate until you’re in open space to be able to receive a pass.

The more the puck is in the offensive zone, especially in the control of a team’s best players, the better that team’s chances of winning. That’s why I feel like grafting gritty players onto a team after it’s already assembled is missing the point.

Yes, it’s helpful for the bottom six to be able to hold its own. However, it’s on any contender’s best players to find a way to create offense when there’s less space to work. Any player is capable of playing within a system or style, it’s just a matter of their willingness to buy-in.

If a coach can articulate a plan for their players to believe in, that’s when something special can truly happen. Getting Barzal to understand what he needs to do as the best player on a heavily structured team is nothing short of remarkable.

If anyone needs an image of what it looks like when this doesn’t work, see Laine comma Patrick in Columbus post-trade. On a team sinking, Laine didn’t see a reason to play outside of his comfort zone and never took coach John Tortorella’s message to heart.

Final Thoughts

It’s not about being the toughest or most fierce team come playoff time. When the Stanley Cup is on the line, it’s about the team that can best adapt to the situation in front of it. Sometimes that means dumping the puck in at the blue line and going to get it. Other times, it means getting the puck to the best player on the ice.

All of that said, it’s important to keep the ultimate purpose of the game in perspective. The team with more goals at the end of regulation or to score first in overtime wins the game when the horn sounds. Sandpaper and intimidation are for Clint Eastwood movies, not winning games in the NHL.

If you take anything away from this, understand that it’s about getting an entire team to buy into playing a certain way. What that way is, it doesn’t matter, it’s about imposing one team’s will upon its opponent to the point it’s suffocating.

Whether that’s controlling the neutral zone and funneling the puck away from the net mouth like the Islanders or coming in non-stop waves with defensemen pinching into the play like the Golden Knights, having that total commitment to a playing style is what makes a difference.

While it’s easy to see the impact of gritty players, insisting they’re a requisite for success isn’t entirely true. In fact, I’d argue the best path is getting high-end players to believe they need to adopt such elements to their respective games.

Asking your top six to exert energy on forechecking and the neutral zone is a tall order when they also have to do a bulk of the lifting offensively. That’s where the value of a competent bottom six that can hold the puck for long stretches comes into play.

The beauty of today’s NHL is that there’s no one style to win. There is no spread offense, three run home run or corner three. That’s why the meshing of styles in the postseason typically produces knee jerk reactions. Just because something worked for one team, doesn’t mean it’ll work for another.

Finding a way to be difficult to play against, whether that’s puck possession, dump and chase, aggressive forechecking, aggressive neutral zone pinching or collapsing on the net, all are viable paths to controlling a game.

It’s simply a matter of whether or not a team’s coach understands what would work best for their players and then getting the requisite buy-in from the entire team.

--

--

Stony Brook ’19, Rangers hockey, if it’s competitive I’ll watch it.