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 this part I look at how the Kraken react if the opponent defeats the neutral zone pressure and enters with or establishes possession in Seattle’s end.
Hakstol’s philosophy: protect the house in the defensive zone
Diagram 1: The highest danger shots come from the slot area, outlined in red.
When the opponent controls the puck in the Kraken’s defensive zone, the coaching point shifts from aggression in the forecheck to protecting the slot from opponent possession and shots. The highest danger shots come from the slot, which is identified by the red box in the diagram to the right.
The imperative to protect the middle drives the Kraken’s personnel choices just as much as scheme. One can look to the frequent deployment of defenseman Jeremy Lauzon over Haydn Fleury as an indication of the type of defensive hockey Hakstol would like to play. Lauzon is limited in his offensive upside but is a sturdy, checking defender capable of keeping the slot clear when he is playing his game. He leads the team in hits by a wide margin despite significantly less ice time than others who are behind him in the category. Fleury, on the other hand, succeeds with significant skating and stick skill, but he can be boxed out at the net front at times.
One can certainly debate the overall wisdom of this particular personnel choice, but Hakstol clearly prioritizes Lauzon’s skillset to implement his defensive zone system. Even when talking about the Kraken’s most skilled offensive blueliner, Vince Dunn, Hakstol mentions the need for Dunn to be “hard to play against defensively” first.
The defensive zone emphasis is evident in the data. HockeyViz.com does a phenomenal job of using play tracking data to construct heat maps that illuminate shot tendencies or production by positioning on the ice. The chart below shows the frequency of even-strength shots the Kraken have conceded to opponents when compared with league average. Darker blue means fewer shots and dark red means more shots. The Kraken suppress shots at an above-average rate in the center of the ice and do so with particular ruthless efficiency in the low slot, the highest-danger area of all.
This shot visualization reveals the philosophy and shows that the Kraken have done well accomplishing the ultimate goal, but how does Hakstol scheme it?
Hakstol’s scheme #1: conservative man-to-man/2-1-2 coverage on high plays
The Seattle Kraken play a 2-1-2 coverage scheme when the opponent has possession high in the zone (base positioning is shown in diagram 1 above). F1 and F2, commonly the wingers, are deployed high, with the two defensemen low and a F3, typically the center, based in the mid-slot area. Forwards can communicate and switch coverage positions based on exigencies of the play. Skaters will check opponents in their zone and rotate when the opponent overloads one side of the ice.
Seattle’s coverage is conservative when the opponent controls high on the outside. F1 and F2 move into shooting lanes to block shots but place less pressure on outside passing lanes. As play continues, the defense consciously collapses toward the slot to guard against set play passes into the slot or to the weak side, plays that are much more dangerous for the defense.
By employing this tactic, the Kraken are willing to concede and to some extent will invite long-distance opponent shots. Of the 21 goalies who qualify, Philipp Grubauer has faced the third farthest average shot distance of any goaltender in the league with at least 30 starts. Distance shots are inherently less dangerous, and the Kraken likely believe that by playing in collapsed coverage, they will be in position to collect and clear most rebound opportunities.
The downside of this conservative “protect the middle” approach manifests against teams that are willing and able to be patient in their puck possession game. The conservative coverage can concede extended possession, particularly when maintained by an opponent cycling the puck. Defensive zone time can mount, tiring the defense. As the zone time increases, the likelihood of a coverage breakdown or defensive penalty increases, whether due to exhaustion or a defensive player losing his position or his angle to block a pass or shot.
Hakstol’s scheme #2: defensemen protect the net on low plays
When the opponent moves the puck low, the Kraken condense their coverage toward the side of the ice with the puck but prioritize keeping at least one defenseman in front to cover a pass into the slot.
Diagram 2; DZ coverage against low possession
Depending on the offensive set, this modified coverage can leave a player below the goal line unchecked with possession for short periods of time and allow the opposing player to initiate a low-to-high play along the boards or another offensive set. But the point of this coverage is to prioritize denial of a pass to the front of the net for a high danger one-timer from the doorstep.
When the opponent moves the puck low, the Kraken condense their coverage toward the side of the ice with the puck, but prioritize keeping at least one defenseman at the goal front to cover a pass into the slot.
Diagram 3; DZ coverage against low cycle – version 1
Diagram 4; DZ coverage against low cycle – version 2
In diagram 3, an Edmonton defenseman sends the puck down the boards to an Edmonton forward who receives the puck below the goal line. If the opposing player has a threat to immediately carry or cycle to the weak side, the Kraken defenseman in coverage will move to the front of the goal and mirror the opponent’s movements below the goal line until help arrives.
In diagram 4, where the play does not go quite as low and the threat of a continued strong-side cycle remains, the coverage defenseman and the middle layer forward will move down to pressure the puck, while the weak side defenseman moves to the front of the net to protect against passes into the low slot.
In the clip below, before the Panthers establish themselves in the offensive zone, you can see another example of the Kraken’s aggressive 1-2-2 neutral zone forecheck (discussed in part 2) and the risks of that approach when faced with a skilled possession opponent.
Once the Panthers have control in the offensive zone, you can see how the Kraken’s collapsed coverage scheme denies close interior opportunities. The Kraken skaters cycle with an offensive player in their coverage area when high in the zone, but a defenseman shifts to protecting the front of the goal when the opponent dips below the goal line.
Clip 1: 1-2-2 Forecheck transition into defensive zone coverage scheme
Scheme scorecard: preventing high danger chances
Is the scheme effective overall?
On one hand, the Kraken have conceded 3.22 goals per game, sixth most in the league. This is quite poor, obviously. On the other hand, per TopDownHockey’s stats (via JFreshHockey), the Kraken defense is in the top ten in both suppressing shot volume, measured by total shots, and shot quality, measured by expected goal value per shot. When combined, the Kraken defense is yielding shots worth only an expected value of 2.25 goals against per game, third best in the league. Per Evolving Hockey, the Kraken rank a bit lower but are still eighth best in expected goals against per game. In percentage terms, the Kraken have allowed opponent shots yielding expected goal value at 10 percent better than league average, per HockeyViz.
These advanced analytics suggest that the Kraken defense is working. Opponents are getting fewer shots, and, crucially, the shots they are getting tend to come from lower value positions on the ice.
Yet, the disconnect from the real world results is alarming. No team has a larger differential between goals against and expected goals against in the league. Potential explanations for this differential include quality of the goaltenders’ play, bad luck on shots, and/or flaws in the advanced analytics.
While the analytical models are hardly perfect, and the Kraken may very well have “luck” problems this year, there is no disputing that the quality of the goaltender play has been a major factor here. Despite forcing shots to the outside (as displayed in the HockeyViz visualization at the beginning of this post), Kraken goaltenders have the lowest aggregate save percentage in the league.
To the extent we’re talking about goaltender performance, it is difficult to pin that responsibility on Hakstol’s defensive system. To the contrary, since Grubauer had been strong at stopping shots from distance during his Vezina-nominated final season in Colorado, you could talk yourself into the conclusion that the Kraken starter was a good “scheme fit” for Hakstol’s collapsing, protect-the-house approach. It has not worked out that way so far.
Next: Decoding Hakstol’s scheme for defensive zone breakouts
In part 4 of the series I will examine how Hakstol designs the team’s transitions out of the defensive zone following an unsuccessful opponent dump-in and what the Kraken do when they win the puck in the defensive zone.
Follow Curtis on Twitter @DeepSeaHockey and the Section 25 Blog at deepseahockey.wordpress.com
In Part 1 of this series, I noted a few general observations about Kraken coach Dave Hakstol’s coaching system, including my suggestion that Hakstol is a “system-intensive” coach.
In this Part 2, I start the process of digging into the schemes the Kraken use in various gameplay situations as I have observed them, beginning with the neutral zone forecheck.
The Kraken forecheck in coach Hakstol’s system
In hockey, the term “forecheck” indicates the approach or strategy to regaining control of the puck, either by winning a loose puck or disputed possession, or by forcing a turnover of an opponent’s possession. It should be noted that the term is also frequently used in a narrower sense to describe a type of offensive strategy that uses a dump-and-chase approach to initiate an offensive zone set.
Here, the phrase is used in the general sense: When the puck is in dispute or the opponent is in possession, how do the Kraken win it back?
Hakstol’s coaching point: think defense first
Hakstol presents as a coach focused on stopping opposing offenses. Indeed, as will be shown in this series, the through line of Hakstol’s scheme is preventing scoring chances against.
Whatever else can be said about the Kraken’s inaugural season performance, the team has been very successful at suppressing opponent scoring opportunities during the first half of the 2021-22 season. Per NaturalStatTrick, the Kraken have conceded the fifth fewest high-danger scoring chances against in the league and the second fewest expected goals per game. Another source of analytics, TopDownHockey, situates Seattle as giving up the third fewest expected goals per game.
How do the Kraken achieve this? It requires work in all three zones. In the defensive zone, for example, the Kraken are willing to concede opponent possession and shots on the perimeter but collapse to deny passes and shots in the slot.
When the Kraken have the puck in transition, the scheme favors getting the puck deep into the offensive zone for retrieval rather than attempting controlled possession in the neutral zone (and the attendant opportunity for turnovers that could turn immediately into a high-danger counterattack). This keeps the puck 200 feet from danger.
And when the Kraken get set up in the offensive zone, the scheme sacrifices some offensive flexibility in order to keep defensemen high in the zone, protecting against counterattack rush opportunities. I will get into each of these elements later on.
But perhaps most notable in watching the Kraken is Hakstol’s personnel and schematic emphasis on a connected and aggressive forecheck.
Personnel-wise, the priority is on forwards that can play with speed and scheme discipline to actively pressure opponents in their own end or the neutral zone. System fit was likely a factor in Seattle’s decision to waive offensive playmaker Alex Barre Boulet after just two games of poor defensive play. Contrast this with the fact that the team has found room to claimmultiple speedy and defensive-minded bottom-six forwards off waivers in recent weeks. Hakstol’s approach favors these players.
Schematically, the goal is to force the opponent to concede control of the puck before entering the Kraken’s zone, either by a turnover or by simply dumping it into the Kraken end.
Hakstol’s scheme: the 1-2-2 neutral zone formation
The Kraken use a 1-2-2 defensive formation in the neutral zone when the opponent has full control of the puck in their end. It is especially visible following a change or when the opponent is attempting to transition through the neutral zone. This is a scheme Hakstol has coached since midway through the 2017-18 season with the Flyers, and it is a common one in the NHL.
The forward closest to the puck (F1) assumes a position at the top of the formation and presses the opponent to commit to an attack or allow his teammates to change. F1 will also look for turnovers opportunistically. The next level (F2 and F3), look to deny the red line, which would cause the opponent to ice the puck if they simply fired it into the Kraken zone. Secondarily, this layer is looking to either funnel the attacker into a small area that the defensemen can then rotate over and cut off or force a lengthy dump-in from just across the red line.
The last layer (D1 and D2) looks to deny controlled entries into the zone (meaning zone entries where the opposition can carry the puck over the blue line, rather than dumping it). But the defensemen are reading the play in front of them and will retreat toward their defensive zone positioning if the opponent rush has broken down Seattle’s structure.
NZ 1-2-2 Forecheck
In the diagram above, F1 forces the play, while F2 moves to check the recipient of the pass in the neutral zone and funnel the player into a position where the near defender, D1, can step up and deny the opposing player a controlled zone entry.
It is notable that coach Hakstol’s version of the 1-2-2 is either inherently aggressive in its player positioning, or it at least permits the players to be more aggressive than some other systems in the NHL. Particularly early in the season, the middle layer (F2 and F3) frequently moved close to the opponent’s blue line with the the third layer (D1 and D2) on or near the red line. A more conventional and conservative version of the 1-2-2 leaves the second layer nearer the red line with the third layer nearer the defensive blue line (as shown in the above diagram).
If Hakstol is indeed teaching a more aggressive 1-2-2 forecheck, it’s not entirely surprising, given that until 2017-18 he favored a 1-3-1 neutral zone system that regularly placed 4 skaters at or ahead of the red line.
Aggressive positioning creates significant congestion on the opponent’s end of the ice and is intended to win an early turnover and facilitate a rapid transition back to offense.
When this aggressive approach fails to win an early turnover, however, the defense is retreating and playing catchup. Even more problematically, aggressive forechecking can break down the team defense unless the entire team is well connected on the ice. If the second layer (F2 and F3) read the play one way and move far forward while the third layer (D1 and D2) read it another way and hang back, the collective five-man unit has just opened a large seam for stretch passes to successfully connect through the neutral zone. In this case, the forwards are left to sprint back into the play from far out of position.
Clip 1: Kraken @ Ducks 2/11/22 – The Kraken’s neutral zone 1-2-2 forecheck in transition defense
In clip 1, you see an example of the Kraken assembling in a 1-2-2 formation against a three-across line rush by the Anaheim Ducks. The Ducks defenders are looking for a change and the willingness of the Kraken’s second layer–particularly Austin Czarnik, No. 27–to move to deny the red line causes the Ducks to concede an uncontrolled zone entry from a standstill at the blue line. This is a win for the defense.
Improvements from early-season play
While it may be hard to remember early in the season, if you rewind to the opening road trip, Kraken fans and media did not have any complaint about the quality of the goaltending. Instead, the Kraken were conceding an inordinate number of rush opportunities to the opposition, and therefore exposing the goaltenders to numerous dangerous chances each game.
In those early games, it was not uncommon to see two Kraken forwards forechecking deep in the opponent’s defensive zone even with the opponent in clear possession and moving in transition. This was likely due to a failure of communication within the 1-2-2 forecheck or in transitioning away from the offensive zone 2-1-2 forecheck. (There will be more on offensive zone forechecking later in this series.) This created huge openings for transition through the neutral zone.
I’d allocate much of the team’s early defensive struggles to the team’s inability to play “connected” in this communication-dependent neutral zone system early in their inaugural season. In this regard, it’s fair to wonder whether the coaching staff erred in deploying a relatively difficult defensive scheme with so little practice time rather than adhering to a conservative 1-2-2 structure early with this entirely new team.
Clip 2: Wild @ Kraken 11/13/21 – Aggressive positioning in the Kraken’s neutral zone 1-2-2 forecheck
In clip 2 above you can see an example of the ultra-aggressive positioning of the second and third layers of the neutral zone forecheck at about the nine-second mark. In this sequence the forecheck is successful, causing a turnover at the defensive blue line and leading to transition and a controlled zone entry heading in the other direction.
Since those first half dozen games, however, the Kraken have learned to moderate and harness the aggression in their 1-2-2 forecheck structure. The team now does a much better job playing together when the second layer has decided to engage in a more aggressive forecheck.
Clip 3: Panthers @ Kraken 1/23/22 – Aggressive positioning in the Kraken’s neutral zone 1-2-2 forecheck
In clip 3, Mason Appleton, No. 22 for Seattle, plays the F1 role and denies Kevin Shattenkirk, No. 22 for Anaheim, any passing lane except directly up the boards. Reading the play, the next layers of Kraken coverage know they can rotate toward the strong side boards because Appleton has forced the issue. This allows Yanni Gourde, No. 37 for Seattle, the opportunity to deflect an attempted stretch pass through his coverage at the red line, leading to a turnover onto the stick of Jamie Oleksiak.
Clip 4: Panthers @ Kraken 1/23/22 – Aggressive positioning in the Kraken’s neutral zone 1-2-2 forecheck
It is still not perfect. Clip 4 shows the second layer of forwards moving ahead while the defensemen are changing. The result is that the defense and forwards are not synced in aggressive neutral zone coverage. This creates space for a breakout pass to the neutral zone and a Panthers line rush in transition. The Kraken forwards are left to sprint back into the play, and Morgan Geekie is a step late in catching his check. The end result is a quality scoring sequence and a Florida goal. The communication wasn’t where it needed to be on this play, and it is an issue that is less likely to have arisen if the 1-2-2 was set up more conservatively.
Scheme scorecard: limiting rush opportunities against
On balance, as the season has progressed, the neutral zone forecheck has proven to be a team strength. Indeed, after the first half dozen games, the Kraken have denied opponents the ability to enter Seattle’s defensive zone with control of the puck as well as any team in the league. Per analyst Corey Sznajder, the Kraken are conceding the fourth fewest zone entries per sixty minutes that lead directly to a scoring chance.
Next: Decoding Hakstol’s scheme for defensive zone coverage
In Part 3 of the series, I examine how Kraken coach Dave Hakstol implements his defensive approach once the opponent is established in the Kraken’s defensive zone.
Follow Curtis on Twitter @DeepSeaHockey and the Section 25 Blog at deepseahockey.wordpress.com
During a game broadcast, a commentator will often note that a home team has the advantage of the “last change.” Hockey rules provide that after a stoppage in play the away team must commit to its substitutions first, which allows the home team’s coach to dictate the on-ice player matchup by sending on its players second.
One could imagine the home coach considering numerous factors, including player matchups, player rest, the game situation (e.g., protecting a lead late or needing a goal late), the zone and side of the face-off, and the skill and handedness of the opposing team’s center. It seems the away coach is making similar evaluations and attempting to anticipate what the home coach will do.
This game within the game between the coaches is an easy stepping stone for a fan to think about hockey as a duel of coaches.
On the other hand, the fan might justifiably wonder just how much of a difference a coach’s “last change” tactics make when players are jumping over the boards every 45 seconds during the flow of play. Indeed, per NaturalStatTrick, 61 percent of all personnel changes are made on the fly.
A fan might go through the same push-and-pull thoughts about hockey coaching and tactics generally, particularly at the NHL level. I know I have. How important is a coach’s scheme, tactics, or philosophies when so much of the game appears spontaneous, improvisational, and skill-driven within the flow of play?
In this series I’ll study Dave Hakstol’s coaching system, philosophies, and tendencies, and describe where on the ice to look for Hakstol’s influence during Kraken games. Along the way, and particularly at the close of the series, I’ll attempt to situate Hakstol’s scheme and approach within the list of factors contributing to the Kraken’s on-ice results. Finally, I’ll offer thoughts on whether the staff’s current approach is right with this group of players.
Hakstol is a system-intensive coach
Before diving into substantive analysis in Part 2, here are a few general notes to orient us. As Karson Kuhlman recently noted on Episode 172 of the Sound Of Hockey Podcast, an NHL coach does not hand out a “playbook” like a football coach does. Instead, coaches teach and drill a system or scheme that equips the players with a default approach to each specified game situation (e.g., neutral zone defense).
Since NHL speed, physicality, and skill can defeat even the best and most meticulous plans, modern hockey systems are built to be flexible and adaptable. As I’ve observed it, Hakstol’s system is no exception.
Kraken coach Dave Hakstol confers with assistant coach Paul McFarland. (Photo/Brian Liesse)
That said, hockey is simply too dynamic to be anticipated and managed in its entirety by even the most malleable system. So, every coach and every system necessarily allows for improvisation and empowers players to react to what they see and attack weaknesses presented by the opponent. But just how much latitude the players are afforded to depart from the scheme–as matter of convenience or instinct–is a question of coaching philosophy that varies from coach to coach.
Observing the Kraken from the outside, it appears that Hakstol coaches close adherence to the team’s core schematic principles. It’s probably unfair at this juncture to say that Hakstol “discourages” improvisation, but the Kraken are highly disciplined in returning to the core system in neutral gameplay situations.
Looking back at Hakstol’s three and a half seasons in Philadelphia, it appears that the Flyers’ lack of off-schedule offensive creativity was a frequent source of complaint, even from Hakstol’s own general manager.
But there is reason to caution against reaching for the same conclusion a little more than halfway through one season in Seattle. The Kraken’s offensive play does appear overly determined and static at times, but I think it is fair to ask whether the Kraken have the necessary players to succeed in a system that relies on creativity. In other words, it is not yet clear whether Hakstol is inflexible in his coaching style or has determined that this particular team needs to rely heavily on the scheme because the offense would be worse off otherwise.
Skater roles are interchangeable and dictated by game situation
While forwards are often described by their position, and those labels have real meaning in terms of default positioning within the offense, NHL hockey moves far too quickly for the players to be expected to re-position themselves during the flow of play.
As is common throughout the NHL, in Hakstol’s Kraken scheme, a forward must be able to assume the nearest position assignment on the ice when transitioning from one facet of play to another. For example, the right winger may be caught on the left side of the ice when a turnover happens in the offensive zone. The player’s responsibility at that point isn’t necessarily to vacate the left side and return to the right, but rather to assume the closest coverage zone on the defensive forecheck in coordination with the player’s teammates.
Accordingly, in discussing the Kraken’s scheme concepts, the positions can be thought of as F1 (forward 1), F2, and F3, with F1 in puck possession or closest to the puck, and F3 farthest away.
The same general principles apply to some extent with defensemen. Circumstances of play dictate the positioning of D1 (defenseman 1) and D2, even if those players are typically situated on one side or the other. And, at times, defensemen and forwards must be prepared to exchange positions when the play demands.
If, for example, defenseman Jamie Oleksiak carried the puck deep on a rush by himself, he could hypothetically end up serving as the top-of-formation forward on a rush through the neutral zone. The scheme is dynamic because hockey is dynamic.
In the clip below, Ryan Donato, typically a winger, drives a line rush from the middle, while Alex Wennberg, a left-shot natural center, fills in on the right side.
Donato is not ignoring the system or improvising here; he is working within the scheme, driving a three-across line rush as F1 from the middle of the ice, the area that provides the most options for shot or pass. (The three-across line rush is a core offensive concept that will be addressed later in the series.)
Visualizing the scheme
DZ: The defensive zone low coverage scheme
Finally, a word about the diagrams I use in this series to illustrate scheme concepts. In these diagrams, the Kraken logos represent Kraken skaters, and in some diagrams, the Oilers logos represent opposing skaters.
Solid blue arrows represent a Kraken pass or shot, while blue dotted lines represent a potential pass or shot (neither of these are visible here, since the Oilers have the puck). Orange arrows show an Oilers pass or shot.
The gray pencil lines represent a player movement. A faded Kraken logo (or Oilers logo) indicates a player’s former position before a movement.
In these diagrams, the Kraken will be shown playing left to right. In other words, the left goal is the Kraken goal and the right goal is the opponent’s goal. “DZ” stands for the Kraken’s “defensive zone.” “OZ” stands for the Kraken’s offensive zone.
Next: Decoding Hakstol’s scheme – The neutral zone forecheck
With the scene set and some first principles established, in Part 2 I start to examine how Kraken coach Dave Hakstol implements his approach in specific game situations, focusing first on the neutral zone forecheck.
Follow Curtis on Twitter @DeepSeaHockey and the Section 25 Blog at deepseahockey.wordpress.com
