In part 8 of this series, I examined the penalty kill tactics of Kraken coach Dave Hakstol and his staff. In this part, I will continue to focus on Seattle’s special teams, with a look at the coaching philosophy and schemes at work when the Kraken are on the power play.
Hakstol’s philosophy: smart possession plays
A power play is an enormous, structural advantage, but only for a limited period of time. If an NHL team of average power play skill skated a full 60 minutes worth of 5-on-4 time, it would be expected to outscore the opponent almost 7-to-1, per MoneyPuck. Over a two-minute increment, however, the pressure to convert opportunity into production is intense. The natural instinct is to rush pucks to the net.
Yet Hakstol and his staff emphasize a patient, meticulous approach on the power play that prizes possession. The lesson presents as similar to that of the tortoise’s race against the hare: a humble, methodical approach will prevail in the end.
Why? The penalty killers know a power play is a race against the clock to convert. Their goal is to limit the shot quality by guarding the net front, and burning time whenever they can put possession in dispute or gain the puck outright.
An overanxious outside shot is often a win for the penalty killers because the defense has positioned itself to maximize recovery of missed or blocked shots and clear the puck 200 feet down the ice. It could be 30 seconds or longer before the power play is able to re-establish itself in the offensive zone following a successful clear.
The same is true for uncontrolled, dump-in zone entries. If the penalty killers get the opportunity to create a scrum, they can drain precious time; and worse still, the penalty killers can gain possession and clear.
The risk of losing one quarter or more of your power play reorganizing whenever the opponent touches the puck countenances taking a few extra seconds to be smart in possession plays, both at the blue line and in the OZ.
Let us take a look at how the team manages man advantage possession with its scheme and then return to the issue of the team’s patient, methodical approach when grading the team’s performance.
Power play NZ transition scheme: double late forwards
Personnel-wise, the Kraken will deploy four forwards and one defenseman on most power plays. After the puck has been cleared by opposing penalty killers, the Kraken reorganize at or behind their own net.
Typically the defenseman controls from the DZ and skates the puck up the middle of the ice with speed. Two forwards—typically the F1 and F2, who will assume positions along the boards in the OZ scheme described below—advance on each wing. This approach is designed to drive the penalty kill forecheck back at least past the center line.
Diagram 1. Double late forwards NZ scheme: D advance.
While this advance is happening, F3 and F4 are looping behind the play and then turn to gain speed, sprinting forward from the Kraken DZ as the defenseman hits the center line. At or around the red line, the d-man needs to decide whether he can achieve a controlled entry himself. Ordinarily, with four set penalty killers staring straight at him, there is no such opportunity.
Thus, the D typically fires the puck back to the advancing F3 or F4, whichever is determined by the coaching staff to be the superior possession player. This player (we’ll say F3) receives the puck and attacks what should be a flat-footed defense core with as much speed as possible.
Diagram 2. Double late forwards NZ scheme: back pass.
By this point F1 and F2 should have drifted near the OZ blue line at the boards, either ready to receive an entry pass or jump into OZ play or forecheck formation.
Clip 1. Double late forwards NZ scheme.
In this clip, Vince Dunn (No. 29) advances from behind the Kraken net up the middle. Jared McCann (No. 16) advances as F1 along the far-side boards at the top of the screen and Matty Beniers (No. 10) advances as F2 at the bottom of the screen. At the same time, Alex Wennberg (No. 21) and Jordan Eberle (No. 7), F3 and F4 respectively, circle behind to gather speed. Dunn fires the puck back to Eberle who attacks through the neutral zone at high speed. The Kraken achieve a controlled entry when Eberle taps the puck to McCann at the far boards. McCann cycles the puck around the boards to Beniers and Beniers sets up the OZ structure.
* * *
After the D fires the puck back, the two late forwards (F3 and F4) cross in their advance with the player in possession slightly ahead of the other advancing forward. If the possession forward is checked in the neutral zone and does not see a path to a controlled zone entry, that player has one last option before aborting the rush. He can make a drop pass to the other late forward advancing along an almost perpendicular line so that he can carry speed attacking the opposite half of the ice.
Diagram 3. Double late forwards NZ scheme: drop pass.
Clip 2. Double late forwards NZ scheme: drop pass variation..
In this clip, we see two consecutive drop pass attempts, the first unsuccessful and the second somewhat more so. At first, Carson Soucy fires the puck back and Wennberg advances. Seeing his avenue toward a controlled entry at the near-side boards closed off, Wennberg executes a further drop pass to Eberle. Unfortunately, the pass is just a little too late, and penalty killers are on Eberle just as he receives the puck.
On the second advance, Soucy fires back for Eberle, who drops for Ryan Donato (No. 9). Donato has exchanged with Wennberg as one of the “late forwards” on this second rush. Donato takes the puck and achieves an uncontrolled entry at the near-side boards.
Power play OZ scheme: 1-3-1
Once established in the offensive zone, the Kraken deploy in a 1-3-1 formation. D is at the top of the formation at the center of the blue line. F1 and F2 are aligned by the circles at the near and far half boards. F3 is positioned directly in front of the net. And F4 is aligned in the slot directly between the other four players. From this alignment, the team runs various set plays designed to manipulate the defense and generate prime scoring opportunities.
Diagram 4. OZ 1-3-1.
The top defenseman is the point player and quarterback of the power play. He moves subtly along the blue line to keep himself aligned with an open lane for a shot to the goaltender (through tips and screens from F3 and F4) and with an open lane for passes to F1 and F2. If a shot is not available, the point man’s role is to quickly move the puck from one half-boards player to the other.
The half-boards forwards (F1 and F2) are the most important decision makers since they initiate most shot/pass options in the 1-3-1. While facilitation is important, these players also should have a capable-or-better one-timer slap shot. Typically, you want these players on their off wing, meaning a right shot on the left side and a left shot on the right side, to allow for effective weak-side one-timer opportunities. Alex Ovechkin built his reputation as one of the greatest scorers ever in large part off of his prodigious half-wall one-timer ability on the Capitals’ power play.
The slot-positioned bumper forward (F4) is positioned to hold the top of the penalty killing defense from pressuring puck possession high. The bumper player is constantly shifting his angle to keep his stick free to receive a pass for a quick one-timer or further pass from the slot.
The net-front forward (F3) is positioned to provide screens, tips, and recover rebounds under heavy pressure from the defense. This forward will also at times leak out to the near side corner to attempt a high-to-low play with the bumper player.
In theory, the 1-3-1 alignment makes switching the puck from the near-side boards to the far-side boards easy without realigning personnel. Whichever side the puck is on, there is a triangle formation to create pass/shot options, and a weak-side half-boards player ready to receive a cross-ice pass for a one-timer shot if that passing lane opens.
Set play 1: the point shot
The first set play utilized by the Kraken in the 1-3-1 is the point shot. The puck is distributed side-to-side in an effort to get the defense and goaltender off angle, and then the point defenseman takes a one-timer or snap shot from the point through screens and potential tips from F3 and F4.
Clip 3. OZ 1-3-1: point shot.
In this clip, McCann takes and wins the OZ draw after Wennberg is kicked out of the face-off circle. The two therefore exchange positions in the 1-3-1, with Wennberg staying on the near-side half wall and McCann moving to the net position. Dunn gathers possession and fires a point shot looking for the top left corner of the net or a McCann deflection at the net mouth. McCann connects and almost directs the puck in. A rebound slides out into the slot and Beniers—wisely crashing from the weak-side half boards—cleans it up for his first ever goal.
As is the case at even strength, the Kraken frequently deploy and rely on these orchestrated point shots on the power play. Per Corey Sznajder, the Kraken have set up more point shots on the power play than any other team in the league.
The second set play is a shot from the circles by a half boards forward. D cycles down to F2, who has the option of a quick shot or a pass across the seam to F1 for a weak-side one-timer.
In this clip, Dunn sends the puck from the point down the near-side boards to Victor Rask (No. 49). When Rask sees a seam for a cross-ice pass open, he delivers the puck on target to the other half-wall player, Daniel Sprong (No. 91), who rips a one-timer into the net.
Here is another example of a shot from the half boards that created a net-front rebound and an eventual power-play goal.
Set play 3: net front release/low play
The next set play involves the net-front player moving away from the top of the crease a few strides to the strong-side of the formation, hopefully drawing out a defender with him. He makes himself available for a pass, and after a receiving the puck immediately looks for a low-to-high angle to send the puck back up to the bumper or across to the weak-side half boards for a one-timer directly on goal.
Clip 5. OZ 1-3-1: net front release.
In this clip, Wennberg releases from the net front low at about :07 to maintain possession after a rebound and then cycles the puck high. Having moved out, he holds that position to create a passing opportunity from the strong-side half-wall player McCann. When Wennberg then receives the puck back, the defense collapses on the bumper player, Eberle, leaving a passing lane to the crashing weak-side half-boards player, Beniers. Wennberg connects on the pass to Beniers and Beniers gets a quick one-timer on goal, but is robbed.
Set play 4: the bumper shot
Seattle’s final commonly used set play is a bumper shot play. The half boards player holds the puck and moves to pull the penalty killer coverage off the bumper player just far enough to allow for a pass into the slot and a quick shot from the bumper.
Clip 6. OZ 1-3-1: net front release & bumper shot.
In the first half of this clip, Eberle and Wennberg exchange to execute a variation on this net-front release play described above. Eberle, the bumper player, releases low to receive a pass, and Wennberg, who had been playing net front rotates up into the slot. Eberle attempts this centering pass at :12, but the defense breaks up the play.
In the second half of this clip, the Kraken re-form the 1-3-1 after the Senators failed to clear the zone. At :22, Beniers is at the near-side half boards. Finding the passing lane open, Beniers feeds the puck to Eberle in the bumper position. Ultimately, the one-timer attempt from Eberle was thwarted.
* * *
Three-forward puck retrieval and centering pass
As described above, the Kraken’s NZ transition scheme on the man advantage prioritizes controlled OZ entries, but certain penalty kill schemes are specifically designed to frustrate controlled entries by stacking the penalty killers at the defensive blue line. Against such schemes, or against particularly skilled defensive penalty kill units, Seattle will more frequently dump the puck into the zone and recover possession in the corners before initiating any of the 1-3-1 set plays described above.
In these circumstances, the Kraken will commit three forwards deep to win the puck battle (typically the bumper player, the near-side half-boards player, and the net-front player).
Clip 7. OZ three forwards forecheck & centering pass.
In a typical 5-on-4 scenario, the opposing penalty killers are then faced with two options. First, commit only two skaters to retrieval, which gives the power play the numbers advantage. Or, second, commit three penalty killers, leaving only one skater in net-front coverage. The latter scenario should leave a power-play skater unchecked for an immediate centering pass off of a won puck battle. You can see an example of this in the clip above.
Scheme scorecard: Disciplined play but static sets, stagnant goal production
Through these schemes the Kraken have been successful managing the puck on the power play. Per Money Puck, the Kraken power play ranks in the top five in fewest takeaways conceded to the opposing penalty kill (40 total) and in the top 10 in fewest giveaways to opponents (26 total).
Likewise the Kraken’s NZ scheme has done well to avoid disruptions at the blue line. Per stats compiled by Corey Sznajder, the Kraken rank sixth in the league in controlled entry percentage on the power play, crossing the blue line with full possession 60.1 percent of the time. From that point, the Kraken rank 11th in the league in successfully establishing their OZ structure off an entry, doing so 39.3 percent of the time. In a situation where every second is important, these are solid numbers.
As an aside, keen observers or long-time readers here may note that this emphasis on controlled OZ entry is in stark contrast with the team’s even-strength approach. As it stands now, only approximately 50.1 percent of Seattle even-strength entries are controlled entries, per Corey Sznajder.
The Kraken’s judicious puck management has also served them well to avoid conceding a significant number of quality scoring chances to opposing penalty killers. Per Natural Stat Trick, the Kraken have generated 89 percent of the total high-danger scoring chances when on the 5-on-4 power play, which is second overall in the NHL. And when accounting for all shots taken by both teams during a power play, the Kraken rank fourth in the league in xG percentage at 90.75 percent. All of these underlying possession and defense numbers are very good.
Yet, similar to the refrain about this team at even strength, the inaugural Kraken just haven’t scored. The team is currently fourth worst (29th overall) in the league in power play conversion percentage, potting a goal in just 14.6 percent of opportunities. Per MoneyPuck, the team ranks in the bottom ten (23rd overall) in xGF per 60 minutes on the power play.
The Kraken do rank a somewhat more respectable 21st overall in expected goal differential per 60 minutes on the man advantage, with this number buoyed somewhat by the team’s responsible defensive play. But the team needs to score more power play goals.
The power play was all too often static and over-determined this season, with passes exchanged between immobile half-boards players and the point defensemen leading to a relatively low-percentage point shot. This need not be the case. The scheme is flexible and provides players with myriad options, but the team needs the talent, creativity, and practice time to decipher and drive the various set plays laid out above. The side wall facilitation, in particular, hasn’t been good enough. The Kraken didn’t move the puck side-to-side or high-to-low nearly well enough to regularly pull penalty killers or the opposing goaltender off their lines. Scoring often seemed to depend on a remarkable individual effort. This shouldn’t be the case.
Matty Beniers has shown some juice as a decision maker (and also as a shooter) on the half boards in the early going. Kraken fans should hope that this is a glimpse of a more dynamic power play to come. But, as it stands, Yanni Gourde has recapped the team’s performance on the power play well.
Next: post-season series recap
And, with that, we’ve made it through nine parts, addressing numerous core schemes, tactics, and philosophies deployed by Coach Hakstol and his staff in this inaugural Kraken season. I plan to return with a final post sometime soon after the season to recap the series, update some of the numbers we’ve looked at, and provide some overarching reflections. Thanks for following along.
Welcome back to our series examining the systems and schemes that the Kraken have employed throughout this inaugural season. In part 7, I wrapped up my look at the team’s even-strength scheme by diving into a few of the Kraken’s offensive zone plays. In this part 8, I analyze how Dave Hakstol and his staff draw up the defense when killing penalties.
Hakstol’s philosophy: communicate and play connected
Tactics and approach take on exaggerated significance when a team is at a manpower disadvantage. In these scenarios, it is by definition not enough to win one-on-one. To the contrary, individual, improvised play can expose the defense by taking a player out of position. On the other hand, skilled opposing forwards will skate and pass through an over-determined, reactive penalty kill unit like traffic cones. The unit needs to play connected to cover for the absence of one or two teammates.
The specific coaching points on the penalty kill are myriad and include:
Protecting the slot from the highest-danger opportunities.
Prioritizing stick checks over physical play to thwart net-front passes and shots.
Conservative, straight-line pressure from the goal outwards, looking for a shot block when an opposing player has the puck in a shooting position high.
Aggression when the puck is loose along the boards or the opposing player doesn’t have the puck in a shooting position.
But, above all, the key is for the penalty kill units to communicate and develop chemistry. When one skater advances to create puck pressure, the others need to react in unison to maximize the chance of a takeaway and minimize the defensive risk.
On Feb. 14, the Kraken lost to the Toronto Maple Leafs 6-2. At the time, Darren Brown noted the dispirited effort as the nadir of the season. The Kraken appeared entirely outclassed, and nowhere was this more evident than on the penalty kill, which allowed the Maple Leafs to convert both of their two manpower advantages into goals.
At that point, the team had attempted multiple defensive-zone penalty kill schemes, including the triangle-and-one, the diamond formation, and others, but the schemes hadn’t been particularly effective at creating coordinated puck pressure or turnovers leading to breakaway opportunities going in the other direction. Of particular concern, the Kraken appeared static in their positioning.
Following the Toronto game, the team focused on improving on the penalty kill. Over the next six games, Seattle killed 16 of 17 penalties, while notching two shorthanded goals of their own for a remarkable +1 overall on the penalty kill. A couple days after a particularly encouraging five-for-five penalty kill performance against the Boston Bruins on Feb. 24, Dave Hakstol was asked about the improved play and alluded to scheme adjustments that I’ll dive into below. But he also emphasized the improvement of his penalty killers in playing connected hockey within the scheme. Communication and the ability to exchange positions when a player advances is key.
Source: Seattle Kraken on YouTube
Hakstol 5-on-4 neutral zone scheme: Same side pressure/1-1-2 formation
The goal of the neutral zone forecheck when killing a penalty is to deny controlled entry into the offensive zone. If the penalty kill can force a contested possession scenario at the defensive blue line or force a dump in, the defense can bleed time or gain possession and quickly clear the zone. The penalty killers will, of course, look to capitalize on a giveaway. But getting too aggressive on the forecheck can expose the team to a rapid strike off a zone entry.
Diagram 1. NZ 1-1-2 (same side pressure).
When the opponent has full possession at or near its own net, Seattle’s F1 (the top forward in the formation) will attempt token pressure that forces the power play to commit to a path of attack. F2 then supports from farther back looking to create a wall parallel to the boards with the F1, funneling the advance into half of the ice. D1 and D2 are positioned at the back near the blue line, prepared to deny entry if the rush has faltered or retreat into the defensive zone if a controlled attack has materialized.
Clip 1. NZ 1-1-2.
In this clip, Riley Sheahan (No. 15) is F1 at the top of the formation, supported by Joonas Donskoi (No. 72) as F2. Sheahan provides pressure, forcing the Blackhawks to advance up the far boards and is supported by Donskoi. This thwarts the advance, and the Blackhawks look to break pressure by sending the puck across the ice. Sheahan and Donskoi reform and similarly pressure the near-side advance. This time the Blackhawks achieve a controlled entry and the penalty killers assume their defensive-zone positioning.
This approach is sometimes called same-side forward pressure. It also resembles the team’s conventional 1-2-2 neutral zone forecheck but with one of the middle-layer forwards removed. Here is another example. And one more that shows the risk when the high token pressure gets caught too deep.
The Kraken’s current approach seems to be a slight a variation from what the team utilized early in the year, which resembled more of a 2-2 (sometimes called a “retreating box”) neutral-zone forecheck. In this version, after providing token pressure, F1 would typically retreat into a formation at the same level as F2.
Clip 2. NZ 2-2 (retreating box).
This forecheck is less aggressive and keeps F1 in position to rapidly enter the defensive zone. Here is another early-season example.
You will still see a neutral zone forecheck that resembles a 2-2 formation when the advance of the opposing power play has stagnated at center ice. But the team’s current default approach keeps F1 in a more aggressive position up ice.
5-on-4 DZ scheme: triangle and one
Once in the defensive zone, the Kraken deploy in a triangle-and-one formation. The two defensemen default to positions just above the outer edges of the crease (forming the base of the triangle) and a forward is positioned in the mid-to-high slot (completing the triangle). These defenders form the core of the defense and will look to thwart cross seam passes and scoring opportunities with active stick checks.
Diagram 2. DZ Triangle & One.
The second forward (the “and one” penalty killer) activates in a straight line from the goal toward the opposing player in possession of the puck. The player’s goal is to be in a position to block a shot and then either force the opposing player to concede possession or angle him to a lower-danger portion of the ice. The tactic of forcing an opposing player into a lower position for coordinated pressure is sometimes called the “Czech press.” The Kraken utilize this strategy when they can.
Diagram 3. DZ Triangle & One (forward exchange illustration)
The key to a successful triangle and one is communication and coordination because the “one” player can change at any time based on puck position. For example, if the “one” forward’s puck pressure at the near-side point causes the opponent to pass across to the other point, it is often the case that the forward at the top of the triangle will be in the best position to create immediate pressure on the other point. Accordingly, he immediately activates into the “one” position and the previous pressure forward rotates down to fill the vacated spot in the triangle. (See diagram 3.)
Clip 3. DZ Triangle & One.
Here Yanni Gourde (No. 37) starts as the “one” penalty killer but exchanges with Karson Kuhlman (No. 25) fluidly several times. This effective tandem work serves to create pressure without unnecessarily exposing the middle of the defense to prime scoring opportunities. Briefly at around :19 there is confusion between Gourde and Jamie Oleksiak (No. 24) about who would play where in the triangle. This leads somewhat directly to a moderate-danger chance and serves to underscore the importance of communication.
This clip further shows that exchanging is key not just for the forwards. Defensemen can activate out into the “one” position when there is controlled, threatening possession low along the boards. In this case a forward needs to crash down to protect the near side of the net and re-form the triangle. Here is another example showing defensemen stepping out into the “one” position to challenge low possession, leading to various exchanges within the triangle-and-one formation.
As Hakstol noted, this exchanging of positions was not nearly as fluid early in the season, causing Kraken pressure to come late.
Clip 4. DZ Triangle & One (early season).
This clip is from a Nov. 21 home tilt against the Capitals. You can see that the Kraken are deploying a similar triangle-and-one concept. But the penalty killers are just a beat slower in their reactions and exchanges, appearing uncertain at times whether the closer player will activate to become the “one” player. This leads to a more static triangle defense, often with one player chasing the play all over the ice.
* * *
In addition to the base triangle-and-one scheme, the Kraken will deploy other schemes in specific defensive-zone scenarios. For example, when the puck is at or below the circles, and the opponent has not established puck possession, the Kraken will aggressively press that side in an attempt to win a puck battle and force a turnover.
Clip 5. DZ corner pressure.
The Kraken send up to two penalty killers into the corner, while the others cover the slot low and high, forming a box in the lower half of the ice where the puck is in dispute. The risk comes if this pressure is broken. In the clip above, the Flames break the Kraken’s corner pressure and force them to transition back into their base triangle-and-one defense. Before Seattle can get established, however, Calgary gets a clean shooting lane to the net and scores. Here is another example of the Kraken transitioning in and out of this tactic in connection with their base triangle-and-one scheme.
This current corner checking tactic also seems to be a slight variation on the team’s early-season approach. In the fall, it was not uncommon for the Kraken to send three penalty killers into a corner scum, leaving only one skater to protect the middle. There are obvious risks to committing three of four skaters into the corner, and the Kraken have seemingly moved away from this practice.
Finally, earlier in the season, the Kraken also used a diamond formation penalty kill at times.
Clip 6. DZ diamond formation.
This clip is from Seattle’s Feb. 1 game in Boston. In theory, the Kraken likely formed this way to get width near the circles in an attempt to derail the Bruins’ lethal weak-side one-timers. In practice, the Kraken looked static and uncertain and gave up that precise type of goal anyway. This was just a couple weeks before the penalty kill corrections Hakstol described above.
5-on-3 NZ and DZ schemes
When at a two-man disadvantage, the Kraken deploy similar, though inherently more conservative, concepts. Going up against a five-on-three power play, the team is very likely to concede controlled zone entries and exterior shots on the power play. Accordingly, the goal is two-fold: (1) limit the highest danger shots and (2) hold the opponent to one-and-done opportunities by recovering saved or blocked shots and quickly clearing the zone.
In the neutral zone, the Kraken retreat in a 1-2 formation. Compared with the five-on-four penalty kill, the Kraken remove the advance forechecking forward and play far more cautiously. The goal is to force zone entry toward the boards. This formation also allows for an easy transition into the similar defensive zone structure.
Clip 7. NZ 1-2; DZ triangle.
In the defensive zone, the Kraken typically employ a triangle formation when the opponent is in full possession high. Compared with the standard penalty kill, the additional “one” forward is removed. The top forward will at times look to create token pressure high, but will not extend as far as the blue line because this would risk breaking down the defense entirely. The goal is to disrupt shots and passes when they do happen rather than preventing them entirely.
Penalty kill possession and offense
When the puck ends up on a Kraken penalty killer’s stick, the player faces a decision point: clear immediately, possess and kill time, or attempt an offensive advance. Penalty kill offense is all about opportunistic transition play. So the calculation the player needs to make is usually one of arithmetic.
If there is a turnover in the neutral zone or a shot block or turnover high in the defensive zone, and the potential for an odd-man transition breakaway presents itself, the Kraken have been inclined to push the issue over the last few months. Gourde and Colin Blackwell were dynamic in tandem on these attacks.
The triangle-and-one can be a particularly effective scheme at creating turnovers high in the defensive zone that lead to breakaways, often led by the “one” penalty killer. For more on how the Kraken look to create offense on the penalty kill, check out this truly outstanding stuff from Alison Lukan.
That said, if the arithmetic is not in favor of a breakaway or the penalty killers are at the end of a long shift, Kraken penalty killers will prioritize possession time to bleed the clock, provided there is no risk of a turnover.
Scheme scorecard: Net improvement over early-season play
Overall the Kraken rank in the bottom third of the league in both goals allowed per sixty minutes on the penalty kill (ranking 30th out of 32 teams) and expected goals allowed per sixty minutes on the penalty kill (ranking 23rd out of 32 teams), per MoneyPuck.
And the team’s goal prevention alone has not improved markedly, even after the team’s mid-February adjustments noted above. Through the Feb. 14 Maple Leafs game, the team had allowed 31 goals on 123 opponent power play opportunities, for a kill percentage of just under 75 percent. Since that time, the team has allowed 20 goals on 84 opponent power play opportunities, for a kill percentage of just over 76 percent.
That said, the team’s improved coordinated aggression on the kill has facilitated more successful counterstrike opportunities while on the penalty kill. Again using Feb. 14 as our dividing line, the team had scored just 2 shorthanded goals in the 123 opportunities through the loss to Toronto. Since that time, the team has potted 6 goals in 84 opportunities.
On a net basis, the team allowed .235 goals per power play through Jan. 14, and has only conceded .167 goals per power play since that time. With this improved production, the Kraken now rank 16th overall in the NHL (approximately average) in expected goal differential on the penalty kill, per MoneyPuck.
The defensive zone production needs to improve, especially for a team that wants to make defense its calling card. But, with more time to work on their communication and chemistry, the trend is positive moving into next year.
Next: decoding Hakstol’s power play scheme
In part 9, I’ll look at how Hakstol and his staff scheme the power play to create scoring opportunities.
In part 6 of this series, I examined how the Kraken use the forecheck to attempt to recover possession in the offensive zone after a dump in entry or a turnover deep in the zone. In this part 7, I look at certain set plays used by the Kraken to create scoring opportunities when established and in possession in the offensive zone.
Hakstol’s philosophy: control possession and work through the points
Seattle attempts to create offense first and foremost through an aggressive forecheck designed to recover dump or tip in zone entries in the corners and below the opponent’s net.
Once the Kraken gain possession, the emphasis is on building offensive zone time and stress on the opposing team, through forward passing plays deep in the zone or high-to-low passes along the boards. This approach is intended to wear down the opposition and put the Kraken in position to capitalize when there are breakdowns in defensive zone coverage.
While certain sequences involve Seattle defensemen pinching down the boards to maintain possession, typically Hakstol wants his two defenders high in the zone, manning the points. And in protracted sequences the center ice forward will often join the defensemen high in the zone, creating a three-high umbrella.
This approach has two advantages. First, it allows the Kraken to effectively trap the offensive zone, preventing controlled breakouts by the opponent. Second, by coaching the defensemen to stay high, the Kraken are well positioned to retreat into defensive coverage and avoid breakaway opportunities against.
The downside of this possession-driven and defensive-minded approach is that the scheme does not, by itself, tend to create a high volume of quality primary scoring opportunities from the low slot. Seattle’s shots from close are most often tips, deflections, or rebounds.
Hakstol’s scheme #1: the low triangle play
As we have seen, Kraken offensive zone sets often begin with puck retrieval in the corners off of a dump in or a tip in at the offensive blue line. Whether on a clean recovery or following a puck battle, the Kraken often then implement a low triangle between the three forwards with the goal of an immediate high-danger opportunity before the defense is fully established
Diagram 1: the low triangle play
The player with the puck in the corner (F1) will consider a pass toward the center of the ice to the support forward who rotates directly to the goal mouth (F3) if the play is open. More commonly, the player in possession (F1) will look to cycle the puck below the goal where the other forward (F2) will be situated.
From below the goal line there will be three options. The first option is to get the puck immediately to the front of the net with a pass to F3 from a new angle. The second is for F2 to make a power move to the front from the strong side or wrap around the net on the weak side, and the third option is to cycle the puck out to D2, the weak side point for the defensemen, to re-set the play.
Clip 1. OZ low triangle play
Facing pressure at the offensive blue line, Karson Kuhlman (No. 25) dumps the puck into the near side corner and follows with an aggressive forecheck. Yanni Gourde (37) supports, and they create a loose puck available for Victor Rask (49) to intercept in the near side corner. Rask initiates as F1, Kuhlman moves below the net as F2, and Gourde rotates to the front of the net as F3. Rask filters the puck low along the boards to Kuhlman; Kuhlman immediately centers to Gourde, but Gourde is not in position to turn the puck on the net.
With the defense in close coverage, Gourde skates the puck out to the blue line to re-set the play, but eventually gives the puck away when trying to pass back down the far side wall to Rask, and the Kings clear.
Clip 2. OZ low triangle play with transition into low-to-high play
In this clip, we see several Kraken schematic elements stacked together. As it begins, we see a weak side breakout from the Kraken defensive zone. When former Kraken forward Mason Appleton (22) is pressured at the defensive blue line, he defaults to getting the puck deep rather than risking a turnover. This leads to an uncontrolled offensive zone entry, with fellow traded forward Calle Jarnkrok (19) first in on the forecheck. His aggressive pressure generates a loose puck scenario along the near side corner boards where Gourde is in close support and ready to take advantage. The 2-1-2 offensive zone forecheck led by Jarnkrok and Gourde has worked perfectly.
Gourde now takes possession as the F1 initiating a low triangle set. Appleton immediately dives to the front of the net as F3. Gourde feeds the puck to him, but Appleton can’t get it on net before his momentum takes Appleton below the goal line. Seeing this, Jarnkrok, who was prepared to complete the triangle as the F2 below the net, instead exchanges with Appleton and moves to the net front. The F1-F2-F3 triangle is recreated.
By this point, however, the Panthers defense has established itself and collapsed in coverage around Jarnkrok. The quick strike opportunity from the low triangle play is gone. Accordingly, Appleton quickly moves on to the team’s other core offensive scheme discussed below: the low-to-high play.
The low triangle scheme is intended to create an immediate high-danger net front chance off the forecheck from the corners or behind the net.
The schematic risk is twofold. First, the emphasis on a quick strike can lead the forechecking F1 to rush a blind pass toward the net front from the corners or below the net instead of taking the extra moment to survey the ice. The potential reward of the quick, blind pass is high, but, particularly early in the season, these low triangle plays were marred by turnovers. These are errors that can be reduced, if not entirely eliminated. And the team has improved over the course of the season. The team’s total number of “giveaway” turnovers is relatively low.
More difficult to correct is the fact that the low triangle play necessarily relies on placing three forwards below the dots in the offensive zone. Those forwards need to be trusted to sprint back into coverage in the event of a turnover. Otherwise the team will risk yielding a counterstrike high-danger chance off the rush. This is where the oft-noted team speed of the Kraken forward group is most important. Forming a forward group that would not be exposed defensively by this scheme has been a roster building imperative.
Hakstol’s scheme #2: the low-to-high play
Once the opposing defense is established, it will most frequently look to disrupt the low passing lanes, which lead to the most dangerous scoring areas. In doing so, the defense will often leave the wall open for a low-to-high pass back to the strong side D1. With the defense collapsed toward the goal to cover the three low forwards, D1 has the option to immediately turn the puck on net, cycle the puck back below the net, or move the puck across the blue line to D2 in search of a better angle for a shot or further pass.
Diagram 2: the low-to-high play
At :12 in clip 2, Appleton transitions from an attempted low triangle play into a low-to-high play, cycling the puck up the far boards to the weakside D2 Vince Dunn (29) to reset the offensive set. Dunn receives the puck and immediately reverses it back down to Gourde below the goal line. But with the Panthers condensed, Gourde is forced to the outside and ends up sending the puck back to the point where Adam Larsson (6) ultimately shoots a wrist shot toward the slot looking for Mason Appleton’s deflection on goal. Appleton’s redirection does not work, the puck ricochets away, and the Panthers clear.
Clip 3. OZ low triangle play and transition into OZ low-to-high play
In this clip, the Kraken begin by working a low triangle. Eventually, Joonas Donskoi (72) sees four Hurricanes defenders collapsed low, taking away the triangle options. So Donskoi looks for an opportunity to get the puck back to the strong side point (D1). A defender denies the pass initially, so Donskoi skates back toward the blue line until the passing lane opens to get the puck to former Kraken blueliner Mark Giordano (5).
Clip 4. The OZ low-to-high play
In this clip, the Kraken manage more than twenty seconds of offensive zone time, primarily by cycling two separate low-to-high passes into point shots. Initially, Ryan Donato (9) gains possession as F1 in the far side corner and then cycles the puck up the boards to D1 Larsson. Larsson unleashes a shot toward the net looking for a tip on goal, but the puck goes wide.
Donato moves down to retrieve the puck below the net and the play resets. By skating the puck to the near side, the near-side boards are now the strong side in scheme parlance, and Donato again cycles the puck to the strong-side point D1, this time Jamie Oleksiak (24). Oleksiak doesn’t see a desirable pass or shot, so he moves the puck along the blue line to D2 Larsson. Larsson eventually fires the puck toward the net, again looking for a deflection. The deflection opportunity fails for a second time in a row, and eventually the Bruins clear.
Defensemen shoot early and often in this scheme
The low-to-high play is a core offensive default scheme deployed by the Kraken. As shown in the videos, the low-to-high play most frequently results in point shots, meaning long-distance wristers or slap shots from defensemen near the blue line.
HockeyViz’s heat maps can help us visualize this schematic preference. The charts below show the shot volume preference for each of Hakstol’s teams, with dark red meaning more shots relative to average, and dark blue meaning less. The commonality is unmistakable.
While these shots are not particularly threatening in isolation, the forwards are taught to move into a net front position in order to (a) block the goaltender from seeing the puck on its way in, and/or (b) to seek a deflection and rebound opportunity from the low slot. Per Sznajder, the Kraken generate the fifth most rebound opportunities in the league.
On the downside, if these relatively low probability shots are not going in or creating rebound opportunities, the offense can feel slow and over-determined, without room for goal production through creativity or skill along the forward line.
The keen observer may note from the heat map above that the 2021-22 Kraken tend to shoot mostly from the left point. I believe this is a result of the handedness of the regular defensemen on the roster, all of whom, aside from Adam Larsson and Will Borgen, are left shots. When a left-handed defenseman is playing the right point, his best opportunity to shoot comes when his body is rotated toward the middle of the ice and therefore the shot tends to come from closer to the middle than the right boards.
Scheme scorecard: the Kraken have struggled to create shot quality and goals
Seattle general manager Ron Francis has acknowledged that the team believed going into the season that they may struggle to score goals. But I don’t believe anyone associated with the team projected that with almost 70 games under the belt, the team would rank third to last in goals scored, and second to last in expected goals scored (which suggests that the offense has not been hindered by “bad luck”).
As the HockeyViz chart demonstrates, the Kraken have failed to generate an adequate volume of scoring opportunities from the slot. Some of this is talent based. The Kraken do not have the puck possession skill through the neutral zone to create regular controlled zone entries and line rush opportunities, nor do they have singular offensive play drivers who can regularly negotiate traffic and defeat coverage in close.
But the offensive zone scheme has not been able to manufacture shot quality either. The point shot scheme can create deflection and rebound opportunities. And, as noted, the Kraken have done reasonably well creating those types of chances. Yet, the team is below average in attempting and completing high-danger passes. Instead Seattle tends toward play on the periphery of the offensive zone where it is hard to score.
Indeed, per TopDownHockey’s analytics, the Kraken’s offense has produced shots with the lowest expected value per shot of any team in the league:
All involved must be disappointed in the production. The Kraken need to and will be looking at all avenues to improve their offensive zone play this offseason, both in terms of personnel and in tailoring the scheme to the strengths of the players on the team.
Next: decoding Hakstol’s penalty kill scheme
This part wraps the series examining the Kraken’s even strength schemes. In part 8, I’ll look at how Hakstol and his staff scheme their penalty kill to deny opponent scoring opportunities, and selectively counterstrike.
In part 5 of this series, I analyzed how the Kraken scheme transitions through the neutral zone and into their offense. As part of that piece, I noted that the Kraken prioritize, and have achieved, a strong volume of offensive zone entries this season. But the scheme, as implemented by this group of Kraken players, has frequently resulted in uncontrolled zone entries, where the Kraken are chasing to recover a loose puck.
In this part, I analyze how the team attempts to recover those pucks in the offensive zone, and/or immediately challenge opposing possession deep in the zone.
Hakstol’s philosophy: attack on the forecheck
As discussed in the last part, Hakstol’s neutral zone stretch pass scheme results in frequent tip in, uncontrolled offensive zone entries. And when carrying the puck through the neutral zone, Hakstol seemingly emphasizes that his players err on the side of a dump in into the offensive zone when under pressure. This approach slows the game down by limiting the opponent’s ability to rapidly counterattack off a neutral-zone turnover but leads to yet more uncontrolled entries.
This neutral zone scheme will not generate offensive success unless linked with a coordinated and committed offensive-zone puck retrieval scheme. Thus, it should come as no surprise that Hakstol and his staff have worked to make the forecheck a key part of the Kraken’s identity since the first day of training camp. The priority is to get the puck behind the opponent’s net, and as long as it’s there, pressure the puck aggressively with F1 and F2.
In the preseason, Hakstol noted the importance of the aggressive, attacking two-man forecheck as a driver of the offense: “It’s big to have good, strong fundamentals with (forward) one and (forward) two doing their job, then you’re looking for the payoff off that forecheck — that’s part of forechecking, getting the puck back in an opportunity to score.” What does it look like on the white board?
Hakstol’s scheme: the 2-1-2 offensive zone forecheck
When forechecking in the offensive zone, the Kraken deploy their skaters in a 2-1-2 formation, with two forwards deepest in the zone, a forward in the center of the zone, in or near the slot, and the two defensemen high near the blue line. This formation is used in various situations.
Diagram 1: OZ 2-1-2 forecheck set play
First, the Kraken run an offensive zone set play off of their stretch pass scheme. The defenseman attempts to connect with F3 near the offensive blue line with a long pass, and F3 tips the puck into the zone as the other forwards, F1 and F2, carry momentum into the zone in pursuit of the puck. Both F1 and F2 will pursue all the way below the goal line to recover, while F3 moves into the slot to corral a centering pass and convert it immediately into a scoring chance.
Clip 1: OZ 2-1-2 set playDiagram 2: OZ 2-1-2 forecheck
In this clip, the Kraken deploy a variation of the standard set play described above. Adam Larsson connects with Calle Jarnkrok on a stretch pass, who deflects the puck into the offensive zone. Jaden Schwartz activates on the forecheck and is quickly below the goal line attempting recover the puck. Alex Wennberg (the other forward on the ice) is farther back on the play, so Jarnkrok decides to jump into the play below the goal line as the F2. Wennberg fills in as F3 in front of the net. The Kraken ultimately lose the puck battle and the Hurricanes clear the zone on this play.
Second, the Kraken default to two aggressive forecheckers and a 2-1-2 formation on standard uncontrolled dump-in plays.
Clip 2: OZ 2-1-2 off of a “dump in”
In this clip, Wennberg is pressured at the blue line and doesn’t see an opportunity for a controlled entry, so he fires the puck in deep. Schwartz and Jarnkork pursue behind the net as F1 and F2. Again, Wennberg fills the slot as F3, but Schwartz seemingly anticipates that he’ll be closer to the net front and doesn’t connect on the pass. Again the Hurricanes clear the zone.
Third, and finally, the Kraken will use this 2-1-2 formation when there is a turnover, lost faceoff, or lost puck battle that results in possession for the opponent deep in the offensive zone (i.e., near or below the goal line).
Clip 3: OZ 2-1-2 against a turnover
In this clip, defenseman Jamie Oleksiak attempts to cycle the puck behind the net, but he turns the puck over to the Hurricanes. With the puck that deep in the zone, Jordan Eberle and Jared McCann immediately challenge in tandem. The Hurricanes are able to relieve pressure and clear the zone, however.
Note that when a turnover results in a clear, opponent possession, the Kraken will rapidly transition into their 1-2-2 neutral zone forechecking formation discussed in part 2.
Scheme scorecard: producing shots off the forecheck
The initial goal of the offensive zone forecheck is to recover possession after an uncontrolled zone entry. At this task, the Kraken have been relatively effective. Per analyst Corey Sznajder, the Kraken are above league average in converting dump ins into offensive zone possession, recovering more than one third of these types of zone entries. Those “fundamentals” Hakstol referenced are working.
Of course, the ultimate goal of the offensive zone forecheck is to generate scoring chances. Seattle has been highly efficient in converting recovered possession off of the forecheck into shots. Per Sznajder’s analytics, the Kraken have generated almost 12 shots per 60 minutes in this fashion, fifth most in the league.
Even so, the offense has struggled to produce generally. The Kraken do not generate a strong volume of rush opportunities with their neutral zone play. Their forechecking creates good shot volume, but as will be shown in the next part, the shots the Kraken are creating in the offensive zone typically are lower value shots from near the blue line. And the Kraken simply do not have the offensive finishing skill in their skater group to regularly convert mediocre opportunities into goals.
Next: decoding Hakstol’s offensive zone scheme
In part 7 of the series I examine the plays the Kraken deploy to generate scoring chances when in full possession in the offensive zone.
In part 4 of this series, I looked at how the Kraken attempt to exit their defensive zone after gaining possession. In this part, I dive into how the team schemes its transitions through the neutral zone and into the offensive zone.
Last time I posited that Hakstol’s coaching point from the moment a Kraken player gains control is: prioritize the puck. Hakstol wants closely managed, low-event hockey with fewer risks, fewer turnovers, and fewer rapid counterattacks for the opposition.
Similarly, Hakstol’s schemes appear to emphasize driving the puck away from the high-danger areas where a counterattack can quickly manifest if things go awry.
The team’s actual performance in avoiding dangerous counterattacks has been mediocre. The Kraken have committed too many defensive zone turnovers and too many goals have resulted. But the schematic intent is clear.
The same approach carries over into the Kraken’s neutral zone transitions. More time, possession, and passing in the neutral zone increases the risk of a turnover and controlled re-entry by the opponent into the Kraken defensive zone. Therefore, the Kraken lean on schemed set plays originating in the defensive zone designed to minimize time and possession risk in the neutral zone.
When pressure foils the team’s planned approach, the Kraken err on the side of dumping the puck deep into the opponent’s zone. 200 feet away from the Kraken goal is the safest place for the puck.
Hakstol’s scheme #1: the neutral zone stretch pass
There are many instances within the flow of the game where the Kraken gain clear, unchallenged possession in their defensive zone. It may be the result of a desperate dump in by the opponent or a change in opposing lines, or it could be from the Kraken creating the clear threat of a controlled zone exit, which causes the opposing team to retreat into their neutral zone forecheck.
In these situations, the Kraken commonly look to control and delay with their defensemen to allow their forwards time to flow deep into the neutral zone in a three-across formation just north of the center line. The defenseman in possession scans the neutral zone coverage, looking for an opening for a long stretch pass to one of the forwards.
Diagram: Stretch pass and three across forward positioning.
The intention is for the forward to receive the pass with possession and the ability to move immediately into the offensive zone. But most often the distance and speed of the pass means that the forward tips the puck into the zone, ideally while carrying momentum toward the offensive zone to immediately chase and retrieve.
When the opposing defense collapses on the three high forwards or otherwise denies passing lanes for the stretch pass, the schematic alternative is for the defenseman in possession to skate the puck. If that happens, he looks to carry momentum forward seeking a controlled advance while the three across forwards pin the neutral zone defense deep. The puck possession skill of the Kraken defensive unit is below average. So, most commonly, a controlled advance by a Kraken defenseman has the goal of achieving the center ice red line for a dump in that gets retrieved by the attacking forwards.
Clip 1. NZ Offense: The stretch pass.
In clip 1, Adam Larsson hits Marcus Johansson with a stretch pass mid-line change, and Johansson tips the puck into the zone. Since the other forwards aren’t yet in position, only Johansson is left to chase and attempt retrieval. The Rangers easily recover and clear.
Clip 2.NZ Offense: The stretch pass.
In clip 2, Haydn Fleury delays in his own zone, allowing the forwards to establish three across near the opposing blue line. Fleury fires a stretch pass to Jordan Eberle in the center of the ice, but the puck leaks off Eberle’s stick weakly and right to the Rangers defense. Fleury and Eberle do not accomplish a controlled entry or get the puck past the defenders and below the goal line for a puck battle. Instead New York easily takes possession.
Clip 3.NZ Offense: The stretch pass.
In this clip, again the defenders delay, reversing the puck. Adam Larsson attempts to connect with Jared McCann on the right wing, but McCann is only able to deflect the puck into the offensive zone.
Clip 4.NZ Offense: The stretch pass according to Vince Dunn.
I include this last clip mostly because it encapsulates the Vince Dunn experience and because it shows why Seattle continues to try for stretch passes. Dunn is skilled at executing the stretch pass, and his significant stick talent leads him to attempt passes others would not.
The stretch pass is not drawn up to start from behind the net with a forechecker in close coverage. But Dunn connects on a relatively high-risk pass and generates a controlled entry. This is what talent can bring, even if it bends the scheme in a way that probably makes Hakstol uncomfortable.
Hakstol’sscheme #2: three-across rush
When the Kraken gain possession in the neutral zone, either off a controlled defensive zone exit or a neutral-zone turnover, the team will often look to set up a “three across” line rush of its forward group. The rush is supported from behind by the two defensemen, typically with one defenseman available to jump into the offense off the rush for a high slot shot if the defense collapses. The other defenseman trails and guards against a rapid counterattack.
Upon successful, controlled zone entry, the Kraken forwards are looking for a net drive. If there are no openings, the team will often set up a 2-1-2 offensive zone formation (as will be discussed further in the next part in this series).
Clip 5: NZ offense: three across line rush.
In clip 5, F1 Ryan Donato possesses the puck into the offensive zone in the center of the ice before passing to F2 Alex Wennberg, who participated in the rush on his off wing. Wennberg recovers a difficult pass with his skate and funnels it back to the trailing D1 Jeremy Lauzon. Lauzon has an opportunity for a shot at the top of the circle, but instead attempts a further cross-ice pass to F3 Morgan Geekie on the weak side. While the idea is probably the right one, a quality Panthers stick check ends the rush without a shot on goal.
Clip 6: NZ offense: three across line rush.
In clip 6, a similar sequence plays out. Eberle, Johansson, and McCann form a three-across rush. With F1 Johansson and F2 Eberle successfully exchanging passes, the defense collapses, and the Kraken enter the zone with possession. When Eberle hits the top of the right circle, he lays the pass back for the trailing D1, Dunn. Here again, the trailing defenseman finds and passes to an open F3 on the weak side. The pass connects this time and F3 McCann has a prime chance.
Clip 7: NZ offense: three across line rush.
In this last clip, we see a three-across line rush form from behind. (You can also see the standard side view here.) Calle Jarnkork and Alex Wennberg drive to the net with Yanni Gourde in possession on the left wing entering the zone. The collapsing defense leaves an opening for a cross-ice pass from Gourde to Jarnkork for the easy tap-in goal. If the defense had closed that passing lane, Dunn was moving into the high slot as the trailing D1 and a passing option for Gourde. Lauzon trails the play farther back as D2 to protect against rapid counterattack and ensure the Kraken get established in the offensive zone.
Scheme scorecard: very few rush opportunities
While almost every team will have some version of the stretch pass in the scheme, the Kraken look for this play very frequently if there is not an immediate opening for controlled advance. This may be Hakstol’s strong schematic preference or it may be a concession to the limited puck handling talent on the roster.
Either way, the 2021-22 Seattle Kraken have intentionally minimized player possession through the neutral zone. This approach decreases time spent in the neutral zone and the risk of turnovers. It also effectively achieves offensive zone entries.
Furthermore, as seen above, the tactic tends to result in fewer controlled offensive-zone entries than other schemes. As it has played out, the Kraken rank sixth from the bottom of the league in entering the offensive zone with possession. Instead, the scheme leads to more offensive-zone board battles for puck retrieval. (More on that in the next part of this series.)
By implementing a scheme that de-emphasizes quality, possession-driven zone entries in favor of a larger quantity of dump-and-chase entries, the Kraken are effective at setting up offensive zone board battles but struggle to create transition scoring opportunities. In fact, they are the second worst in the league at creating rush opportunities. Only the New York Islanders are (very slightly) worse.
Here, again, I should note that the schematic emphasis could be due to the lack of puck possession skill in the skater group, particularly since the team has lost Brandon Tanev and Jaden Schwartz for much of season.
At the end of the day, the scheme, and the players implementing the scheme, have struggled to create offense. The Kraken have scored the fifth fewest goals per 60 in the league and have generated the second fewest expected goals per 60 in the league.
In part 2 of this series I looked at the Kraken’s approach in the neutral zone when the opponent has possession and is attempting entry into the Kraken’s defensive zone. In part 3 I looked at how the Kraken defend against opposing possession in Seattle’s end.
In this part I look at how the Kraken attempt to clear their defensive zone after gaining possession, whether by winning it by face-off, rebound, puck battle, or turnover, or by recovering an opposing team’s dump in from the neutral zone.
Hakstol’s philosophy: prioritize the puck
As discussed in part 2, Hakstol’s system preaches defense first in all phases of play. When the opponent has the puck, the team looks to deter opposing shot quantity and quality.
When the puck is on a Kraken stick, Hakstol appears to emphasize puck possession as the cardinal rule. The approach is relatively conservative, emphasizing a disciplined, low-event style of play. Hakstol is disinclined to see his team take risks and trade scoring opportunities with the opponent. And given the finishing talent on this version of the Kraken, it is hard to fault that approach in a vacuum.
The Kraken are above average in both avoiding giveaways and suppressing opponent takeaways, one of only nine teams in the league that land in both categories. And Seattle is fourth in the league in the percentage of total takeaways in its games, logging approximately 54 percent of the total takeaways.
As will be discussed, Hakstol’s Kraken need to excel in these statistics. The offensive system is designed to avoid dangerous possession and high-risk passes in the neutral and offensive zones. In contrast, more aggressive, higher-scoring systems like those of Florida and Toronto are predicated on high-danger possession or passing plays but overcome the giveaways with superior scoring opportunities and talent.
To make a conservative offensive system work, the team must avoid gaffes with the puck. This work starts 200 feet from the destination. No mistakes are more costly than failed attempts to clear the defensive zone. So, how do the Kraken scheme breakouts?
Hakstol’s scheme #1: the goaltender breakout pass
When the opponent dumps the puck deep into the zone without immediately applying pressure, the Kraken goaltender will retrieve it in the trapezoid behind the goal if he deems it safe to do so. The goaltender is ideally supported on either side at the goal line by his defensemen, allowing him to outlet the puck to an open side.
Clip 1. DZ Breakout: The goalie pass.
In clip 1, the schemed play stays on schedule. The Ducks dump the puck in from the red line, and Chris Driedger reads the pressure correctly and retrieves. He is supported on either side by defensemen, with Adam Larsson on the right wing boards and Mark Giordano on the left wing. Driedger correctly perceives more pressure on Larsson and filters the puck to Giordano. Giordano moves the puck up the boards for Yanni Gourde, who clears the zone.
Some teams teach their goaltenders to stay away from puck possession and passing from behind the net except in exigent circumstances and instead instruct the goaltenders to stop the puck and await retrieval by a defenseman. While this alternative approach may slow the zone exit, there are studies indicating that goalie passes are significantly more likely to result in turnovers than comparable passes from defensemen in these breakout situations. Certainly we can all recall a scenario where a goalie attempts to clear the zone around the boards but instead hits a forechecking opponent right on the tape. That is the risk.
Clip 2. DZ Breakout: The goalie pass.
In clip 2 above, we see an example of the goalie pass gone awry. The puck skips and pressure is on Driedger faster than he expects. The forechecking Ducks skater blocks Driedger’s pass, causing a turnover, and a dangerous sequence ensues.
Hakstol’s scheme #2: strong-side wall breakout
When the Kraken win possession in a puck battle along the wall or end boards (or off a draw), the Kraken move onto a core concept: the strong-side wall play. The puck is controlled by a defenseman (D1) below the circles or in the corner. If a forward has won the puck in this position, players will rotate to assume other roles. Close support toward the center of the ice is provided by F1. F2 positions himself farther up the strong-side boards to receive a pass along the boards and either advance it by skating or by chipping it past any pressure and out of the zone.
Diagram 1. DZ Breakout: The strong side wall play.
F3 is high in the zone, near the middle of the ice, and ready to fly the zone in support or in pursuit of a chipped-out clear. If F2 is hemmed in and cannot achieve the red line himself, F3 looks to receive a pass and advance past the red line for a dump in or controlled entry. D2 is located toward the weak side, typically just below the goal line. That allows an outlet for D1 if the strong side is jammed up to reverse the puck to the weak side and break the pressure that way.
Clip 3. DZ Breakout: The strong side wall play
In clip 3 above, the Kraken move immediately into a strong-side wall breakout play off a clean defensive zone face-off win by center Alex Wennberg. They had almost successfully executed the same play mere moments earlier, but the puck ricocheted out of play. Jeremy Lauzon (D1) receives the puck and moves to the corner. Vince Dunn (D2) is near the corner boards in his draw position and therefore not where a D2 would ideally be located. He compensates by drifting across toward the weak side in front of Lauzon to open space for Lauzon’s advance and provide a pressure valve for a reverse pass. Wennberg moves into a center ice F1 position; Marcus Johansson positions farther up the strong-side boards as F2; and Jordan Eberle flies the zone as F3.
Lauzon (D1) gets the puck up the strong-side wall to Johansson (F2), who glides to the red line and dumps the puck deep. Eberle (F3) has flown the zone and is ready to chase into the offensive zone.
Diagram 2. DZ Breakout: The weak side play.
As an alternative to the strong-side wall play, the player in possession (D1) will often look to relieve pressure by reversing the puck behind the goal to the defenseman on the opposite side (D2). By filtering the puck to the weak side, the Kraken create a transition threat that will often cause the opposition to retreat.
Clip 4. DZ Breakout: The weak side play.
In clip 4, Vince Dunn is the weak-side defenseman but takes possession immediately off the draw. He rapidly moves to the weak side, taking the outlet opportunity. He is supported by Calle Jarnkrok (center of the ice, F1) and Yanni Gourde (high, F3). The breakout clears the zone but concedes possession in the neutral zone.
Scheme scorecard: controlled exits but too many turnovers
Though the team’s approach can feel a bit wooden at times and leave controlled possession through the neutral zone in doubt, on the whole the team has done a decent job at the task of “clearing the zone.”
Per microstats compiled by analyst Corey Sznajder, the Kraken have accomplished an above average rate of “controlled” exits from their defensive zone (see x axis of the visualization below). In other words, the Kraken are not prone to recklessly conceding possession by firing the puck out of the zone and back to the opponent in the neutral zone.
That said, the Kraken have struggled to successfully exit the zone at times. Sznajder’s stats have the Kraken in the bottom half of the league in “successful” zone exits (see y axis in visualization above).
Part of the explanation could be scheme related. The strong-side wall play is not the fastest or most dynamic zone exit scheme. If the opposition is well coached in anticipating the play, there are opportunities to congest the strong side and cause a takeaway. These takeaways are particularly dangerous when forced off an errant pass to F1 in the middle of the ice.
In implementing Hakstol’s “prioritize the puck” philosophy, the Kraken have at times erred too far on the side of caution in protecting puck possession over rapid zone exits.
Kraken defensemen have often been too circumspect in their advance and have invited the opposing forecheck in to create pressure and a turnover. In many instances, this is because the defensemen are awaiting an opening for a stretch pass. The stretch pass is a neutral zone transition concept I will discuss in the next part of this series. But, needless to say, it is a very poor outcome if the team fails to clear the defensive zone because they are attempting to move to the next step in their transition play.
Overall, personnel is likely the biggest limiting factor. The team does not have many skilled skating and passing blueliners. Instead, the Kraken have stockpiled larger, stay-at-home defensemen who excel at protecting the house. With the team willingly trading offensive puck possession skill for defensive lockdown ability, these possession failures are bound to happen, regardless of scheme.
Returning to Sznajder’s analytics, among Kraken defensemen, only Giordano and Larsson have avoided failed exits and initiated successful exits at an above average rate.
Furthermore, as Alison Lukan noted in a great piece posted to NHL.com last week, the recent struggles in transition could be due to injury-related absences of some of the Kraken’s stronger puck-moving forwards.
Are defensive zone breakout gaffes to blame for the Kraken’s struggles?
I would caution against over-emphasizing any perceived issues the Kraken have had clearing the defensive zone. There is room for improvement, but the team’s analytics indicate middling, not disastrous, play.
One common explanation I have seen for the stark differential between the Kraken’s actual goals against and expected goals against mentioned in part 3 is what I will call the “defensive zone gaffe theory.” The theory is the Kraken are turning the puck over in dangerous areas of the defensive zone leading to shots that the goalie is less likely to stop because he cannot anticipate them.
I understand this reaction. Goals off of defensive zone errors are certainly part of the story of this season. But I don’t see the support in the data I’ve seen so far that this a global explanation for the Kraken’s struggles. The Kraken are not giving up a large number of doorstep chances overall, nor are they giving away the puck in the defensive zone at a concerning rate. Their zone exit success rate may be below average, as described above, but it is balanced by an above average rate of controlled possession exiting the zone.
I don’t want to foreclose the possibility that more granular analysis could confirm the theory (a project for the offseason, perhaps). But right now, I think it’s more likely we simply believe the Kraken are struggling with their breakouts because the turnovers that do occur are hitting the back of the Kraken net more often than they should.
Next: decoding Hakstol’s scheme for neutral zone transitions
In Part 5 of the series I examine how Kraken coach Dave Hakstol designs the team’s transitions through the neutral zone on the attack.
