View Single Post
Old
08-28-2012, 07:32 PM
  #150
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,795
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
#1 and #4, #2 and #3 it was possible to approach sixty minutes for the first two. This could produce situations where the first pairing #'s 1 and 4 would play app 31 minutes each, while the second pairing could play app 29 minutes each. This would not mean that the #4 was suddenly the #2 defenseman.
So in trying to get the #2 man the most minutes behind the #1 man, your hypothetical coach instead gives the #4 the most minutes behind the #1? That sounds like bad coaching.

Can you provide an actual example of this happening, instead of just making up numbers?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Basic rotation: 1/4,2/5/3/4,1/5,2/4,35, dropping down to 1/2, or 2/3 0r 1.3 at times. Point is that #'s 4 and 5 would see more TOI but that did not make them the #1 and #2.
Is there a useful definition of a #1 defenceman other than one that the coach plays the most? If he's not the #1, why does he play the most? That is, if a coach designs a rotation such that his purported #1 does not play the most, he should reject that rotation and design a new one.

Iain Fyffe is offline