Figured I would dig up this thread instead of muddying all the other threads with Orlov talk.
This is in response to Twabby's final post in the closed Kings game thread.
I was really not trying to make Orlov look bad.
You asked for evidence of risk, because a large portion of everyone's word is not good enough. Comparing these types of stats to players on other teams is beyond idiotic. Some teams put a premium on blocking shots. Others may elect to pressure players at their positions to limit shot attempts against. Some may even leave defenders to cover players guarding against rebounds and getting to loose pucks instead of blocking shots. In the offensive zone, some teams have strategy that use the D often. Some like to cycle in the corner and rarely use the D. Some have 5 moving parts that cycle in and out getting everyone in better shooting lanes.
These were merely context building statistics comparing him to other defensemen on the Capitals (I am sorry if that wasn't clear in some way). How he, on the Caps in their system, compares to Mark Giordano, on the Flames in their system, is irrelevant. These stats, heck most stats, are tough to compare across such diverse samples.
Compared to other players playing the same system, he has his shot blocked more often than anyone else. Is it a huge difference, not really, especially in raw numbers but he does. If you want to say that isn't risk, then that is fine, but in my mind shots that get blocked in the offensive zone when a defensemen is shooting the puck can be a recipe for disaster and therefore not doing the safer play is risky.
Compared to other players playing the same system, he has more giveaways per TOI than anyone else. Is it that big of a deal? No. Does it mean he is not good at playing hockey? No. It just means (in my mind, others may disagree) that he either can't hold onto the puck as well as the other defensemen (I don't think that is true, and I doubt you do too), or he puts himself in riskier situations that lead to giveaways.
These are the only two stats that I can think of that show any semblance of risk, something you asked for knowing that a risk factor stat does not exist (w/o which it would somehow validate to everyone else that he is not risky). As I said these are certainly not a perfect measure of risk especially since there is no way to measure risk away from the puck. They seem to indicate something to me, if they don't to you, okay.
These are not by any means conclusive of anything, but they are simply a small modicum of measure of his play this year (not overall but in regards to these things compared to other players Trotz has the option to play).