Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
saw some twitter defenses on Sutter today. Suggested that corsi is only one way to look at players and that GA/60 Sutter is one of the best defensive players in the game.
His 6 year GA/60 is 1.81
Interesting stat if you have a poor corsi number but don't give up goals. Shots aren't going for you but you're keeping the goals against down. Quality of shots the issues? Goalies bailing a player out.
Anyway ... reason I bring this up is Joe Colborne.
He was second only to Matt Stajan in that stat last year (Stajan at 1.49, Colborne at 1.88), and similarly Colborne was poor in corsi stats despite not getting scored on (Colborne 16th on the team in CF%)
Interesting to see advanced stat guys forced to drop Corsi to defend a player, but it does open up an interesting discussion for players of that type.
Really wonder where this advanced stat thing will go in the future, you have to think shot attempts will give way to some sort of an actual scoring chance measure.
|
I think one area where a statistical measure for defense is falling short is in comparing players of different positions.
I"m not on board this 'Sutter isn't that good' train. I think Brandon Sutter is actually quite good.
When I see him play, I see his line giving up low percentage shots and/or clearing rebounds and loose pucks from in front of the net. Statistically, this might not be apparent or may even count against him as you point out above, but if you have those stats in front of you and then watch some video, it gives you a better context for 'how' he plays.
I think Vancouver picking up Sutter is a good deal in a bad direction. I don't think his contract is 'laughably' bad, but it is on the premium scale buying UFA years.
To bring it back to Colborne, I see Colborne turning the puck over or losing it with relative frequency from the redline into his own zone, but not in the catastrophic sort of ways that will cause his or the teams statistics to bleed.