Jump to content
Hockey Wilderness
  • Calen Addison Came To Play This Year


    Image courtesy of © Brad Rempel-USA TODAY Sports
    Tony Abbott

    Brock Faber may have largely stepped into Matt Dumba's on-ice role of being a top-four defenseman for the Minnesota Wild. Still, it's Calen Addison who is Dumba's true successor. His offense-heavy profile mirrors that of a young Dumba, with all of the upside and criticism that comes with it. Remarkably, Addison is also Dumba's heir apparent for constant presence in trade rumors.

    Addison, 23, returned to Minnesota and entered the year trying to prove he could stick in the lineup after the Wild healthy-scratched him for most of the final two months of last season. He quarterbacked the power play competently up until that point, racking up 29 points in 62 games as a defenseman.

    Still, his struggles at even strength were too hard for Dean Evason to ignore. Bad luck exacerbated some of his struggles, with an .891 save percentage behind him magnifying his mistakes. But even if his minus-17 rating exaggerated the matter, it was hard to argue that he was a good defensive defenseman.

    image.png

    Maybe the Wild could have lived with that, but Addison wasn't an offensive factor at 5-on-5 play. The quick, confident puck moving he displayed on the power play simply didn't translate. He couldn't get his forwards the puck in the offensive zone, and instead hammered low-percentage shots from the point, as seen in his heat map from last year:

    image.png

    So Addison's job was pretty clear from the start of training camp. He was supposed to play behind Faber and Jared Spurgeon on the third pairing, keep his success on the power play rolling, and be an asset in a low-leverage role at 5-on-5.

    Then Spurgeon got hurt. Alex Goligoski struggled in a top-four role in the first two games, and he also got hurt. Suddenly, the Wild were relying on Addison. In the past four games, Addison's averaged 19:52 a night, logging nearly as many 19-minute nights in this stretch (3) as he had previously in his career (5). 

    If you're skeptical of Addison, and Dumba before him, you can still see the warts on Addison's start. At 5-on-5 play, Addison's been on the ice for five goals against in six games. It's a small sample size, and his goaltending has once again let him down (Addison has an 875 on-ice save percentage). However, he's still giving up 3.84 goals per hour, or 146th among 175 defensemen with 60-plus minutes.

    That showing might have ended with Addison on the bench had the Wild been healthy. And that's still a threat once Spurgeon returns. But we can pretty confidently say that Addison deserves to continue playing, because Addison took the scratches to heart and came to play this season.

    For one, he's not letting his poor goaltending keep him in "minus" territory, at least not through six games. Minnesota is still out-scoring their opponents at 6-5 with Addison on the ice at 5-on-5. Some credit goes to a sky-high 16.3% shooting percentage. But while that will regress downward, his goalie's save percentage should rebound the opposite way. Once that happens, Addison is well-suited to thrive.

    For a long time, the Wild's defensive structure made it easy to put up absurd 5-on-5 defensive numbers. Minnesota historically allows something like two expected goals (or xG) per hour, routinely finishing first or second in the NHL. If you play for the Wild, you're not giving up a lot of expected goals, no matter what.

    That's not the case this year, not without Spurgeon shutting down opponents for 20-plus minutes a night, at least. Ask Jake Middleton (2.99 xGA per hour at 5-on-5) or Jon Merrill (3.60), or Dakota Mermis (3.98) how that structure is working for him.

    Meanwhile, Addison leads Minnesota in that category. His 2.11 xGA/60 is ahead of Brodin (2.51) and Faber (2.61). His assignments tend to be easier than those two, though Addison has played about half of his 5-on-5 minutes with Brodin. It should also be noted that Brodin has been stingier with Addison (1.71 xGA/60) than he has with Faber (2.71).

    image.png

    This greatly improved defense, especially relative to the rest of the unit, has Addison playing like a top defenseman in the NHL so far. Addison currently ranks 31st of the 175 defensemen with a 56.7% xG share at 5-on-5. That compares favorably to recent top-10 picks in top-four defensemen roles such as the Ottawa Senators' Jake Sanderson (56.7%), the Columbus Blue Jackets' David Jiricek (55.1%), and the New Jersey Devils' Luke Hughes (54.6%).

    Addison is also pushing the pace at 5-on-5 offensively, something he never was able to do last season. Again, the shooting will regress, but the Wild are seeing 2.77 xG per hour with him on the ice at 5-on-5. That's the most of any Wild player with 30-plus minutes in that situation. Thrust into a tougher-than-expected situation, Addison is thriving and proving he belongs in Minnesota's lineup.

    It's important that we're clear on a few things. We are indeed talking about a small sample size in a role that (once again) isn't the tough shutdown gig Faber faces. We're not saying that Addison is the best defenseman on the team. Nor are we saying that he's a flawless shutdown defenseman. He's still had some warts in his own zone, and that may always be the case.

    Still, it's clear that Addison is delivering on exactly what Evason wanted from him. He's contributing offensively on the power play without being a liability at 5-on-5. Addison is engaged and motivated, and his improvement shows that he made progress both physically and mentally this summer. Addison is not only here to play. If he keeps this up, he should be here to stay.

    Think you could write a story like this? Hockey Wilderness wants you to develop your voice, find an audience, and we'll pay you to do it. Just fill out this form.

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1

    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    Featured Comments

    His job is safe, under the provision there is more pressing issues (Merrill and Goligoski).  I don't think the Wild would be comfortable dumping three defensemen off the roster at once, regardless of how many prospects they have.  The Klingberg experiment was a wash too.  Addison might be safe for another year or so.  It gives him time to get better.  If he doesn't, that's on him.

    • Like 3
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Does Dean have a choice?  If everyone is healthy our D is Middleton, Spurgeon, Brodin, Faber, Merrill, Addison and Goligoski.  Goligoski is 7th and in the press box.  

    So those are the 6 we have....  You can't hide them.  I would be inclined to keep giving Addison big minutes.  We need him to improve... with 15 to 20 minutes a night he should.  Come January those extra minutes should pay off.... at least that is the hope...no guarantees.  That would be my mindset if I am Dean.  Any other options would require BG to interject..

     

    • Like 6
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    The question to me is if these stats actually pointing out that Addison is playing good, or whether Addison weak play is pointing out how these stats are inherently flawed?

    He is playing better.  He could use some confidence.  We are going to be relying upon him... but let's not pretend he is good.

     

    • Like 2
    • Confused 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I hope you are right Tony. The team needs Addison to be good. My non-scientific Mark IV eyeball tells me that he has not been good. I admit to a negative bias towards Addison but again, for me he does not pass the eye test. He isn't strong enough or determined enough. His offense so far appears to be firing slappers repeatedly from the blue line into shin pads. Dumba was noted for that for a good while also, but he had the shot strength to make it work. (at least until his injury) At this point there is no alternative so all we can do is hope.

    • Like 2
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    15 hours ago, Will D. Ness said:

    We are going to be relying upon him... but let's not pretend he is good.

    The sample size is too small to make any major declarations, but at least the stats suggest he may not be as much of a liability as last year, particularly when paired with Brodin, who tends to help everyone look better.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I read the stats, it doesn't look so bad. Then I watch the player because the eye test must always confirm the statistics, and it does look bad. To me, what I'm seeing is a guy who is lucky to be a +1 and that this will come tumbling down.

    Some say the goalie sv% is simply bad luck. From the eye test, it looks to me like the goalie is constantly having to bail Addison out. While other defenders are also giving up goals, at least they are pestering the shooter a bit more, this doesn't appear to be what Addison contributes. 

    In conclusion with this, the eye test does not confirm the statistics, and it suggests that Addison is, indeed, poor at defending and above average in offense. Now, granted, Addison's elevated minutes this year, and not having the ability to shield his minutes may become a problem. 

    But, there are also other problems, likely more severe. Merrill is 31 years old, was never fast, but now appears to be slowing down. Goligoski has slowed down tremendously. Honestly, Dakota Mermis looks like a potential better #6 than either of these 2. But, pairing Addison with Mermis doesn't seem like a good idea. And then there's Middleton who needs to consult his GPS because he looks completely lost right now. So, Addison really isn't the top problem. 

    Quote

    For a long time, the Wild's defensive structure made it easy to put up absurd 5-on-5 defensive numbers. Minnesota historically allows something like two expected goals (or xG) per hour, routinely finishing first or second in the NHL. If you play for the Wild, you're not giving up a lot of expected goals, no matter what.

    That's not the case this year, not without Spurgeon shutting down opponents for 20-plus minutes a night, at least. Ask Jake Middleton (2.99 xGA per hour at 5-on-5) or Jon Merrill (3.60), or Dakota Mermis (3.98) how that structure is working for him.

    Meanwhile, Addison leads Minnesota in that category. His 2.11 xGA/60 is ahead of Brodin (2.51) and Faber (2.61). His assignments tend to be easier than those two, though Addison has played about half of his 5-on-5 minutes with Brodin. It should also be noted that Brodin has been stingier with Addison (1.71 xGA/60) than he has with Faber (2.71).

    Now, here is a problem for me. With Rossi, I can accept success being xGF deserving a promotion. The eye test says Rossi is a completely different player than last season. However, when you bring up xGF and xGA to show Addison's improvement, I just can't seem to give him credit for that. The eye test says that Addison is poor at defense, yet, poor apparently is an upgrade from piss poor which was last year's version, so there is some improvement in a small sample size.

    Improvement is improvement and I should be able to accept the growing pains of an offensive defenseman having trouble defending. But, for some reason, I just can't with Addison.

    Comparing Dumba and Addison I don't think is a good idea. Dumba made the same mistakes being careless with the puck that Addison makes. Addison is a much better passer than Dumba, but Dumba had a much better shot pre-injury. Dumba had some physical instincts that were way better than Addison's and while he made defensive blunders, he could still affect the defense with some bone chilling hits. Addison does not have those instincts. Dumba would also go when pushed into it, Addison will likely never drop the gloves. I think the players are too different to make Dumba-Addison comparisons. 

    I think my main issue with Addison comes from the perceived effort side. Sometimes, it looks like he's coasting. Sometimes it looks like he's not really interested in defending. Often he looks soft and plays soft. I simply don't like that in a defender. Addison is 23, but he needs a Rossi restoration. He needs that 15-20 lbs. of muscle added on to his frame for him to be really effective. And, without that, he will look like the same player. Why is it so hard for our players to add that muscle and pay attention to gym time? Organizationally this happens. Perhaps that was the message that Shooter was sending when he resigned Grizzle and Moose? 

    • Like 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    2 hours ago, Imyourhuckleberry said:

    The sample size is too small to make any major declarations, but at least the stats suggest he may not be as much of a liability as last year, particularly when paired with Brodin, who tends to help everyone look better.

    I think last night was a good game for him.  Offensively he was sharp and I didn't see too many mistakes defensively.  

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites



    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...