HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Chicago Blackhawks (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=30)
-   -   The moment that changed Hjalmarsson (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1311951)

Bubba88 12-26-2012 01:03 PM

The moment that changed Hjalmarsson


think about what he did before the hit and what he does since then

ColdSteel2 12-26-2012 01:07 PM

This seems to happen a lot in hockey, these defining moments. They don't make any sense but yeah, they happen.

Sarava 12-26-2012 01:18 PM

Yeah I think we all have agreed on this one.

Martini* 12-26-2012 01:19 PM

Hammer changed the second he lost his elite defensive partner.

Nick Leddy sure isnt Brian Campbell.

theaub 12-26-2012 01:20 PM

I was there!

HockeySensible 12-27-2012 08:20 AM


Originally Posted by Martini (Post 56815177)
Hammer changed the second he lost his elite defensive partner.

Nick Leddy sure isnt Brian Campbell.

Hammer lost his edge after that hit, when Campbell was his partner the rest of the season.. but, on this one occasion, I do agree with you Martini.

Campbell was a calming presense for Hammer. He took alot of pressure of him, despite being the puck-mover on the pairing. Hammer's had to take on alot more responsiblity playing with Nick Leddy, not to mention, the D pairings haven't been as consistent as they were when the Hawks had Campbell..

I also think something that can't be overlooked is Hammer, all the while, trying to live up to that contract he signed with San Jose that was matched by Chicago.

So, Hammer's lack or improvement and some might argue, regression, is about:

50% Not having Soupy/playing with less experienced/reliable D partners, 35% trying to live up to his contract and 15% that hit on Pominville.

ndgt10 12-27-2012 08:46 AM

Meh, didn't look like that bad of a hit.

Chris Hansen 12-27-2012 09:15 AM


Originally Posted by Martini (Post 56815177)
Hammer changed the second he lost his elite defensive partner.

Nick Leddy sure isnt Brian Campbell.

I agree that losing Campbell hurt Hjalmarsson but man, your anti-Leddy agenda is almost as bad as hf50 with Kane.

BobbyJet 12-27-2012 10:28 AM

I don't think anyone anticipated Hammer's play to suffer with Campbell gone - we all knew that losing Brian Campbell was not going to be easy (well, some of us) but I think we now know just how important he was to the Hawks. Getting rid of his inflated contract looked good on paper but Stan has botched it up.

That said, of course I would like Hammer to be better on the offensive side but I also think he is playing good sound hockey defensively. I wish I could say that about all of our dmen.

hockeydoug 12-27-2012 10:58 AM


Originally Posted by Bubba88 (Post 56814899)


That's the spot I always pointed to.

Bubba88 12-27-2012 11:35 AM


Originally Posted by Martini (Post 56815177)
Hammer changed the second he lost his elite defensive partner.

Nick Leddy sure isnt Brian Campbell.

what about that 6 months after the hit he played bad WITH Campbell on his side?

Cullksinikers 12-27-2012 12:32 PM

Before the two-game suspension:


Hjalmarsson, at no point in his tenure with the Hawks thus far, has ever been overly physical. Occasionally, he'd deliver a big one, and still does, actually, however, I think we can agree that it changed him being an aggressive defenseman. Since that hit, he pulls up a lot more and loses battles behind the net. I think Bubba is right on that this changed Hjalmarsson. His "heavy hit" number has stayed consistent, but there are other aspects of the game in which he looks like a different guy. I think he still does the big hit very rarely for when there is a time and a place, but he now shies away from being physical all the time so maybe he can surprise the opponent or another player. I could be wrong. It's very hard to explain, but I believe it makes for an interesting conversation.

BobbyJet 12-27-2012 01:57 PM

Those are some lovely hits. Just the threat that he can and will do it now and then, makes him a better dman.

BobbyJet 12-27-2012 02:06 PM


Originally Posted by Bubba88 (Post 56833497)
what about that 6 months after the hit he played bad WITH Campbell on his side?

I agree he did get somewhat gun shy after that suspension and he may be a bit mellower in his play now ... but I think his play is more to do with the Hawk system than anything else.

Cullksinikers 12-27-2012 03:45 PM

I think they will still trade the guy. Hopefully they can find a team in need of a defenseman who has a top-six center we can get if we give them Hammer and a prospect or pick once they hit the ice again.

zytz 12-28-2012 12:06 PM

I think Hammer gets moved only if there's a super sweet deal that gets dropped on Stan's desk. He has some really great tools, and he's another one of those guys that could be something really special if he can put it all together.

That hit on Pominville was really not that bad- Hjalmarsson got a little careless but if he makes that hit just 6 inches to the right or so I think it would have been a great shoulder on shoulder hit, the result obviously was not good, but all in all that would have been a really solid play by him.

He needs a little more confidence and poise, and I think he will be back to being the Hammer we know he can be.

hawksfan50 12-28-2012 12:48 PM

Well in his defense--SINCE 2008/09 Hjalmarsson has had NO NEGATIVE years in the +/- : +12 in 52 GP (Rockford) and +4 (21GP for Chicago);+9 (77GP Chicago) ;+13 (80GP Chicago) ;+9 (69 GP Chicago last season) ---that is pretty CONSISTENTLY GOOD in ES play --and remember last year he was saddled with Leddy for a portion of the gamnes he played)---so even IF he hasn't "improved" to your liking --I don't think the stats support much "regression" and i do not know why so much criticism of him and the suport for trading him on this board by his detractors...for the money he earns provide me with some way better"alternatives" at the same pay scale who posted better +/- stats in this last 4 seasons -if you cannot then i suggest you stop this baseless criticism..

IF you really MUST rant on someone --then I suggest you look no futher than #88-- who WITHOUT DOUBT did REGRESS (to "just" 66 points last year in 82 GP) and way too often looked diisterested inhis play last season--a clear REGRESSION from the point a game pace of the prior 2 years --AND the REGRESSION down from +16 3 seasons ago to just +7 and +7 the last 2 years--this is also not "improving" ....
One has to wonder not only IF he has already PLATEAUED but also now is in clear REGRESSION mode ...to the point we may need to ask IS HE WORTH THE HEFTY $6.3 million /yr. anymore (except for his marketing "value" --shoot-out highlight reels and caped superman aside---there is an appropos Golf expression that might apply" driver for show but putt for dough --and in Kane's case -is he now just reduced to INEFFECTIVE "SHOW" OR can he again "IMPROVE " and putt for the dough? GOT to get back to AT LEAST the mid teens in +/- and at ;least a point a game IF NOT BETTER --in other words get back to real " difference-making" to EARN that hefy paycheck -I suggest he is a better candsidate to heap the critical rants on than dumping on Hjalmarsson who I think nobody ever expected would "Improve" into some kind of linchpin D "star" -but who for his pay level is about right for the +/- stats delivered by him..

Chris Hansen 12-28-2012 02:49 PM

That post had all three factors of a grade A fiddy contribution.

1. Focus on +/- of any Hawks player.
2. Mention how said Hawks player has been fine in that regard.
3. Find a way to rag on Kane despite it being completely irrelevant to the thread (as well as laughably off-base, but that's a given).

let's just add a #4 while we're at it...
4. Use +/- as if isn't an extremely flawed statistic.

sketch22 12-28-2012 04:04 PM

July 12, 2010. The day when defense died in Chicago.

Blackhawkswincup 12-28-2012 06:59 PM


Hammer hasn't been same dman since he signed that horrid offer sheet

He was terrible in 2010-11 and again last year

Bubba88 12-30-2012 07:46 AM

after signing that OS, he started the year playing some great hockey until that hit. After that, he thought more about what he is doing and then it looks like Q lost his trust in him and losing BC didn't help him either.

hawksfan50 12-31-2012 02:56 PM

well --I guess it has been determined that either i) after that hit on him or ii) after he signed the big (a relative term) contract--that Hjalmasson has never been the same again--so say his detractors on this board ---so it must be true...right?
BUt-though his +/- dropped from +13 the year prior to just +9 (despite that bad pairing with Leddy for some time last year) -he did manage to up his ponts by 5 and his assists doubled over the previous year from 7 to 14 last season despite playing 11 fewer games -and he was only 2 points off the 17 he managed in 2009/10 but in 8 less GP -so overall there is no real "drop-off' over the last 3 seasons and the +9 of last year matched the +9 of 2009/10 so I don't think the drop-off from +13 in 2010/11 was that significant...well then if not the stats showing "significant" drop in play THEN it has to be in the style --I guess not physical enough for some last year
--or maybe it was he didn't block as many shots as "before" --let's look at that:

2011/12: 69GP 142 Bks (2nd best of the d-men to Seabrook's 165in 78 GP0)
per GP: Hjalmarsson 2.05 Seabrook 2.11

2010/11:80GP 166 Bks (best among our D-men ;Seabrook next at 154 in 82 GP)
per GP: Hjalmarsson 2.075;Seabrook 1.878

2009/10: 77GP 137 Bks (2nd best among our d-men;Seabrook at 153 in 78GP)
per GP: Hjalmarsson 1.779 ;Seabrook 1.96

SO Hjalmarssom did "improve " in Bks while seabrook "regressed" in BKS/GP from 2009/10 to 2010/11 but this reversed from 2010/11 to 2011/12 with Seabrook "improving" and Hjalmarsson "regressing in this stat -BUT i do not think we can establish any trend from this--perhaps this season it reverses again? Who can say for sure?
So I don't thin Bks gives us a 'defdinite" marker for Hjalmarsson 'huge" regression as implied by posters on this board detracting him..

So it mUST ONLY be in the perception of some huge drop-off in physicality--an IMPLIED "drop-off" towards "running scared" from being hit or hitting..THE NHL doesn't keep stats on running scared from being threatened with hits--we might look at turnovers-though such are not always as a result of a hit -sometimes simple stck checks cause a turnover give-away BUT in any case here is his give-away stat-line of the past 3 seasons played:

2009/10: 36 GVa in 77GP 0.4675 per game
2010/11: 55 GVa in 80GP 0.6875 per game
2011/12: 51 GVa in 69GP 0.7391 per game

THUS a clear trend of increasing give-aways over the last 3 seasons--NOT A GOOD stat trend at all --whether caused by physical fear from being about to be hit, or by more actual hits on him ,or by mental errors caused by other resons--we cannot say ...maybe a combination of all 3 items that might cause this increasing trend in turnovers..HOWEVER ---part of his inflated GVa stat per GP last season might be the loss of Campbell and the time paired with Leddy for a part of last season -neith physical guys themselves but at least Campbell had more experience and could steady things down more than Leddy could when teams forechecked hard and got physical --some body would have to break down the stat og Hjalmarsson's GVa's last uear further into how many WITH a leddy pairing vs. how many if paired with other D-partners to guage how much regression was Hjalmarsson's own fault or due to the Leddy factor.

FYI : Campbell had 42 GVa's in 2010/11 in 65GP ;in 2009/10 Campbell had 38GVa in 68GP) On a per game basis: 0.5588 in 2010/11 vs. 0.6461 in 2009/10 ---since Campbell IMPROVED while Hjalmarsson trended worse from 3 seasons ago to two seasons ago while paired together -it would indicated that indeed this worsening trend for Hjalmarsson started bewfore Campbell got sent out ..SO MAYBE Leddy wasn't a factor in the further regression in this stat for Hjalmarsson last year--OR maybe only the the magnitude of the regression could be attributed to Leddy --it is hard to tell merely from the stats...

We can look at the hits stat for physical trending --the implication is that if his hits are significantly trending down he is playing lessphysical than before-though he was never considered a physical d-man..BUt let's look:

2009-10: 59 hits in 77GP .7662 hits per game
2010/11: 46hits in 80GP .575 hits per game
2011/12: 42 hits in 69GP .6086 hits per game

From this stat we see no constant trending "down" as he trended back up again after a significant down in the prior year compared to the first year of the last 3 seasons examined ..
Still-not as much as he hit 3 seasons ago...

So while both the GVa and hit stats are not upto levels from 3 years ago OVERALL this somehow has not sIGNIFICANTLY affected his +/- stat ..so you can't say he has SIGNIFICANTLY cost us MORE in ES play (there has to be some net offseeting benefits that have kept his +/- from plumetting SIGNIFICANTLY as a result of pooer physical play and more give-ways per game -OR maybe we are just lucky more goals against haven't resulted =or maybe he was on for more ES scoring-if that trended up to offset more Goals against then on a NET basis he is not really that detrimental compared to what fans thought of him 3 years ago..

STILL the perception is more "timid" and more turnovers and so player worse than before...BUT another factor might be how healthy he was or was not last year --I do recall that in 2009/10 he was getting to lose pucks and CLEARING quicker than the last 2 seasons played ---in 2010/11 we might blame some of that "lethargy" on the CUP HANGOVER syndrome that affected most guys on our team TOO ....BUT last season perhaps he did play a lot of games "banged up" and not 10% healthy? IF so then it explains a lot--if not then the perception of his detractors on this board (ie. regression in defensive effectiveness) would be a "real" concern--I think this season will tell us for sure whether his path is further "regression",plateau level,or a restoration of what we first saw in his play before the last 2 seasons played ...
To me -it is not so much more physicality from him,but rather the intuition and speed to get to and CLEAR those loose pucks from the corners of our d-zone like he did better than in the last2 seasons played.There is no stat to tell us that but one can observe whether he again gets to those pucks first and clears effectively or whether he does not and so the puck stays in our zone longer and results in more scoring chances against us ...to do that he must be BOTH more motivated to get to such loose pucks ahead of oppnents,to be mentally alert to clear without turnovers , and to be physically 100% so as to be quick enough in skating to get to such corners faster than opponents can to set off this process...We shall see IF he can recover all these qualities that led to the perception of his defensive "usefulness" before the doubts of the last 2 seasons when the detractors started demanding his value was not worth the money paid him..
However on THAT ISSUE (of value for level paid) we can of course ALSO tear into others on this team..

SO let us see IMPROVEMENT again from Hjalmarsson to quiet the critics--BUT we could demand the same thing from #88--- whose 20011/12 season was a huge disappointment on the value for money scale TOO---I would suggest a LOT MORE "concern" on that score than with Hjalmarsson...You see IF Hjalmarsson despite perceptions still is +9 to +12 then his ES play is not that much of a concern--His PK play might be -so we would like to see him block more shots and clear more pucks again in that role ...In KANE"s case--clearly just 66 pts in 82 GP is not $6.3 million of "value" -and so we want to see IMPROVEMENT at least back to near a point per game even if that is his "plateau" level.. We aLSO expect him to be a key cog in an effective PP --which sadly last season was a disaster ..IF he can't be the cog that makes our PP effective then we really have to question his value .SO we EXPECT a big rebound year (in a shortened season --on that ppg or better basis !).
THE NHL is not the Swiss league --so back to back multi-goal games are not likely -but we KNOW he is capable of a ppg pace because he has done it before --giving us ONLY 80% of what he is capable of will NOT BE GOOD ENOUGH --that goes for EVERYONE on thios team TOO--whatever their talent level ...Q should not tolerate any 80 percenters this season (if he have one) or in following seasons (if he is still the coach) ..Time we saw 100% -from every player on the team..

Now as to the TRADE him for a 2nd line centre solution argument:

THAT is an indictment that nobody in our pipeline is currently ready to fill that role EFFECTIVELY to the level required..

It also assumes Hjalmarsson's value (alone or in a package) can get us such a solution -as if teams are so anxious to part with such an effective 2nd line centre of proven value (how many tams have such a luxury?) ...OR if the solution is that good how much is a 2nd line effective centre worth --probaly a lot MORE than hjalmarsson's cntract -unless it is a "young" guy with some NHL experience wh our brass thinks is "ready" to be effective at the NHL level-and this solution must be better thananything we have "ready" in our own pipeline...

THE obvious value for money paid comparable id Hjalmarsson's current $3.5 million per year contract vs, the same $3.5 million per that OTTAWA is now paying to its 2nd line centre solution(Kyle Turris)...BUt at the time Turris was hefted out of PHX -most people on this board were still howling about how Turris was a big failure -instead--change of scenery--blosSoms in Ottawa and they lock him up at what looks like a bargain price for their 2nd line C solution for years to come --of course we could not have given up Hjalmarsson in any deal with PHX because they were looking for cheaper prospects and picks --otherwise they would jhave kept Turris and paid him that money ..ALSO we had no one ready to replace him had we traded Hjalmarsson for a 2C last year..So do we have a 2nd pair #3D-man this year so we MIGHT put Hjalmarsson into a package to get our needed 2C solution?

We have Oduya at least as a stop-gap for awhile...WE have Stanton and Dahlbeck in Rockford who while not providing much offensively (But neither does Hjalmarsson)
seem to have got the defending prt of the game figured out -so maybe THIS YEAR we could pull the string and use Hjalmarsson in some deal to get the 2C we need who can impact NOW ...But can Stan recognize who that Turris-like "solution" is and why his cirrent team needs to part with such AND for just position nEEDS not money savings?OR can STAN figure out some 2 team deals to accomplish this task --eg, trade Hjalmarsson for picks --trade the picks and some current Hakes prospects in some package to a team trying to unload contract /cap issues and already stocked at the 2c position with depth there? It won't be easy finding such deal partners..

With a reduced cap --lots of teams may try unloading contracts but few may be willing to accept equal contracts back -and even teams under the cap with room to add --may not plunge in due to their own "revenue cliffs"...

A more IMPORTANT consideration in the overall scheme of reduced CAP willbe :

WHAT should you pay for a 3C NOW? IF a 2C is $3,5 million per --maybe all you can pay a 3c in a reduced cap environment is $2 million per or less
--looked at that way BOLLAND would be too expensive to carry ..

And so if a #3 D is equal to a #2C at $3.5 million --a #3C is probaly worth only
a #4D or a #5D and that range would be only $1.5 to $2million in a reduced cap environment..

clearly GM's willbe rethinking the structure/allocation of $$ to positions on the team...

. With reduced cap MAYBE you can't have more than 4 forwards making over $3.5 million -or you could BUT you can't have the top l3 forwards at $18million or more combined...

So the Hawks WILLneed to eventuall shed OVERALLOCATED CONTRACTS -but do you get more bang for the buck by saving (for say 3 years) $2.5 million/yr. on a $3.5 million/yr #3D cost oR by cutting $4-5 million yr by replacing a top six $5-6 million a yr. forward with some "cheap" kid from the pipeline or acquired by trade?

So if $10million a year has to be chopped (not this shortned season if we have one but maybe NEXT SEASON) then you probably nedd to chop 1 of our top 4 forwards and Hjalmarsson and or bolland plus another $2million /yr from somewhere...

It willnot be an easy re-shuffle.. BUT that willbe for the cominmg summer..In the short season (IF it happens) for this season-there probably willnot be much trading ..teams know the real chop chop will occur next summer..The key willbe to find the right trade partners and the right solutions coming back in any trade..

Bubba88 01-01-2013 02:55 PM

would want to see a list of visitors that REALLY did read this

Marotte Marauder 01-02-2013 07:05 AM

What Hammer has lost is his offensive confidence. For reasons unknown, he is very unsure of himself with the puck. He has a decent shot but seldom has the confidence to fire from the point. He seems to good vision but can't start a good breakout for some reason.

His physical skills don't appear to be diminished, so it must be something else.

RayFIN 01-02-2013 10:29 AM


Originally Posted by Marotte Marauder (Post 57006935)
What Hammer has lost is his offensive confidence. For reasons unknown, he is very unsure of himself with the puck. He has a decent shot but seldom has the confidence to fire from the point. He seems to good vision but can't start a good breakout for some reason.

His physical skills don't appear to be diminished, so it must be something else.

Yeah, he has a great low and heavy shot that I'd love to see utilized more on the PP. However, I don't think he has the nuts to to just fire it in there and hope for a rebound.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:11 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.