Let's settle the debate: Nils Lundkist versus Jani Hakanpaa

Is it complicated?

Nothing riles up fans like a debate about who deserves a healthy scratch. It’s one of the rare black and white decisions a coach makes that is subjected to black and white scrutiny. After all, if you decide that Player X belongs in the lineup over Player Y, then the table is set: is Player X better than Player Y?

Or in this case, is Nils Lundqvist (X) better than Jani Hakanpaa (Y)?

I want to skip past the part where we talk about what will happen. We all know that Hakanpaa will be the player DeBoer and the coaching staff rolls with when the playoffs start. Hakanpaa was basically a top four defender last season. The only reason he’s not is because Dallas brought in someone better. Lundkvist wouldn’t even be top seven on this staff’s list of playoff defenders if Joel Hanley were still here. So let’s move on.

Let’s also skip the part where we talk about either one of these players as difference makers. Hakanpaa is what he is: a big player who can sometimes defend in the defensive zone and not much else at this point in his veteran-ish career. Lundkvist is what he is: a depth defender who can sometimes make plays in the offensive zone but not much else at this point in his young-ish career.

I emphasize this because while I believe it’s a very relevant debate, it’s also not something I’d expect to change the ultimate outcome for the team. Whatever Stars fan think of Lundkvist, the reality is that his development curve doesn’t align with the Stars’ current Cup window.

Because of that, my thoughts are very similar to Sean’s…

Who should round out the Stars third pair? Nils Lundkvist or Jani Hakanpää?

…but not completely.

I’m not here to make a mountain out of a molehill within the tiny spaces where I disagree. (I should note I also didn’t intend to write today’s piece as a response.) Rather, I think this discussion is instructive for general analysis. We’re talking about two depth defenders. What’s a thin margin worth? What truly determines who skates, and who sits? And how do we figure that out?

Quick key, since I’ll be using it a lot. STS = Shift-to-Shift.

Impact on goals above expected

First let’s talk about some numbers.

What this shows: imagine putting together a plus/minus for every shift in which there should be a goal. Now split that into different parts: blue for expected goal impact, orange for expected defensive impact, purple for xG on the power play, powder blue for xG against shorthanded, green for takeaways, and yellow for penalties drawn.

This is kind of like a deeper plus-minus, giving us an STS look at a player’s impact on shot quality. We see that Lundkvist’s impact (again, impact, not value) is embedded entirely in the STS net rating of his even strength offense, or at least a modest approximation of it. Everything else is below replacement level. Hakanpaa’s STS impact on expecteded goals against is quite above average. Everything else, including his impact shorthanded, is quite below average.

What this does not show: this doesn’t really tell us about their defensive performance (how they transition, break out of the zone, pass, mind the gap, their positioning, etc) — only their defensive impacts. While they’re not two different things, they are nonetheless dissimilar. Performance is a reference to how they defend. Impact is a reference to how the team defends with them on the ice. That’s an important distinction.

Summary: In terms of how Dallas defends with Hakanpaa on the ice, there’s a clear difference between both players, and it shouldn’t be surprising — one has a decent impact on defense, but is a major drag on offense, while the other is a drag everywhere else except even strength offense.

In terms of the data, I think we have a nice bird’s eye view of their broad dynamic with the team. This is the kind of stuff I like to look instead of those popular Game Score charts, because if I’m looking for player value on a broad scale, I’m looking for something cumulative.

Retrieving (and exits) the puck in the DZN

Performance is where Corey Szanjder’s data really shines. How well does a player win battles in the defensive zone? How well do they possess it to help their team generate better breakouts? Last year, Hakanpaa was a complete mess, neither helping support the puck out, nor winning possession of the puck to begin with. This year, when Hakanpaa does get control of the puck, it’s creating successful zone exits.

Lundkvist, conversely, doesn’t screw up a lot, but he also doesn’t get Dallas control of the puck in the DNZ. It’s one of those weird contradictions in his game where he has the talent to do skilled things with the puck if it’s leveraged for offense, but defensively he can’t exert the same control.

It’s worth noting that players get credit for exits via exit attempts themselves, as well as getting the puck to teammates who do. It appears he’s getting more help this year, which would explain why this appears to be such an outlier compared to his previous two seasons.

Exiting (with vs. without possession) in the DZN

In terms of breaking the puck out of the zone with possession, Lundkvist rates much better, making a slight improvement this year clearing the puck out, but still getting the puck out with possession at a similarly above average rate. Hakanpaa — the two Stars between Suter’s 21’22 season and Hanley 22’23 — continues to be a player who simply can’t get the puck out.

Entry defense

The last bit I think in terms of evaluating performance is how they defend entries. Hakanpaa is doing quite well as a player who gets forced to mind the gap on rush entries, and does a good job of preventing those entries turning into scoring chances. Lundkvist, meanwhile, has been absolutely burned this year. (Last year he was mostly avoided by opponents.)

It’s easy to see why Hakanpaa is so clearly the superior option for the coaching staff. They don’t want a good defender. They just want a safe defender, and Hakanpaa has been safe at preventing entries.

What I like about going through these layers of data — even if some will be bored by it — is that it also shows us the layers of defense. “Good in the defensive zone” obviously means a lot of different things. In many ways, we go beyond the nature of superficial defense, and into categories like:

• absorb defense

• retrieval defense

• transition defense

• and movement defense

The overarching picture — and I want to emphasize this for the cheap seats — is that both players are quite static, defensively.

Assessing pairings: plus an aside about zone starts

There are other factors to consider, though. Do they have chemistry with others?

Suter w/Lundkvist have been excellent (and in more minutes) while Suter w/Hakanpaa have been awful. A ten percentage point difference is massive, and I think more than just “a stat.”

It’s also something I find more valuable as a piece of the argument than zone starts. I don’t want to fall down this rabbit hole because I think it deserves its own space. For now I want to give you the trading card version:

• 60 percent of a player’s shifts start on the fly

• We know what the benefits of an offensive zone start are, and those benefits manifest within the first 10-15 seconds of what is on average a 48-second shift

• On the fly shifts are not necessarily neutral zone starts

A lot of things can happen in any given shift, which makes where that shift starts something of a ruse. It creates the impression that a zone start in and of itself should be weighed more heavily, or worse — that something within a player’s performance is determined by the minority of shifts in which they’re assigned. It’s the faceoff discussion all over again. That doesn’t mean it’s irrelevant. The curious case of Moritz Seider has been instructive. But we have a useful tool to look at quality of competition, broken up into tiers, in this regard.

In other words, if we’re interested in the bottom line value of a player, among the subsets to prioritize, I’d consider their chemistry with others first, their quality of competition second, and their deployment last.

This might look like I’m finding ways to give Lundkvist the edge here, but if you check PuckIQ, you see that it isn’t. Hakanpaa plays nearly five minutes versus elite competition, fourth among blueliners. Lundkvist, conversely, is the most sheltered. Does that negate the Suter-Lundkvist connection? No, but I want to be fair in this assessment between both players.

Special teams: What’s in a Hakanpaa minute?

Speaking of subsets, we know the big argument in favor of Hakanpaa over Lundkvist is “well one guy plays on the PK.” Does Dallas benefit?

No. Are they literally better off without him?

Yes.

But to be fair to Hakanpaa, his career rating on the PK has been a net positive.

So where does all of this leave us?

The verdict?

The case for Hakanpaa is strong. He excels as a static defender, which makes him a safe option for the third pair. The best argument for Lundkvist is that he seems to have chemistry with Suter, unlike Hakanpaa. How does one weigh one over the other? Does Hakanpaa get the edge for playing on the PK despite dragging Dallas down? Or does Lundkvist get the edge for improvements he might make further down the road?

Another part of the discussion I want to skip is what this means for Lundkvist’s future, and whether he’s still part of it. I have a lot of opinions, and I’m sure I’ll share them in time, but for now I’d like to make a modest proposal: why not both?

In the grand scheme of things, we’re talking about marginal players with marginal impacts. But I can see them alternating the position depending on matchup, Lundkvist for offense in matchups where Dallas needs every ounce of offense it can use, and Hakanpaa in matchups where every ounce of defense is needed. Granted, as long as Hakanpaa plays PK minutes, however poorly, it’ll give him the edge, but I think these could be games where Heiskanen, Tanev, and Harley (who has shown some chops) get more PK minutes. There’s no reason for this not to be the case to begin with.

In summation, I’m on two minds. I believe in the concept of development. I believe Lundkvist would have benefited this year by playing playoff games last season, and who knows where he’d be. I think Lundkvist still has potential, especially next to a quality defender. But the coaching staff isn’t crazy to choose Hakanpaa for his defensive performance. What you make of the rest, I’ll leave to all the good folks in the comments section.