Ray_Cathode Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Bieksa has always been a high-risk/high-reward player. Hamhuis provides an excellent balance for Bieksa, since he is one of those quietly efficient players (though he had the brain-fart during Game 5 OT vs. LAK). But based on the stats shown in the OP's post, there's quantitative evidence that Hamhuis has benefited from being paired with Bieksa. Bieksa has also been streaky, and with the unfortunate/freaky two skate laceration injuries he's had in his career, his development was hampered at key points in his career. I think the perception that Bieksa is a weak defensive player comes from the time he was coming back from these injuries. He also didn't look good during the 2012 playoffs, but you could see that something wasn't right with him (his pivots were slow and he didn't have that strong first push in his stride that is a big part of his game). Since the game is made up of a number of trade-offs, for all the negatives in Bieksa's game, if I were a GM, I would want Bieksa on my roster -- when you weigh out his body of work, the balance sheet is in the black. Throw in his leadership (on and off the ice) and his pugnacity, I'm of the opinion that he is more of an asset in all three zones of the ice than a liability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.