[FT] Loubardias vs Steinberg

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Thanks for the informed reply GranteedEV. A few points

-Is Kris Russell a defensive defesnemen? IMO yes. He can move the puck alright but offence is definitely not his calling card.

-Rebounds from a blocked shot are not necessarily anything like a rebound that the goalie lets out. You seem to think rebounds from a blocked shot are more dangerous than rebounds that a goalie lets out but I don't believe that to be the case. Rebounds from a blocked shot very rarely lead to a shot on a basically empty net. Rebounds from the goalie from shots at an angle where the goalie kicks it out to the slot or diagonally out the other side can lead to one of the most dangerous scoring chances right up there with a breakaway, 2 on 1 or 3 on 1. The right type of rebound is basically a gimme goal if you can hit the net. Blocked shots very rarely result in a rebound on a completely open net.

-Cycling in the offensive zone without getting shots can still be a VERY positive thing in the game. For example imagine our 4th line cycles for a full minute without getting a shot on net but manages to make a complete line change while retaining possession. We can then get our #1 line matched up against the opposition who've been stuck out there running around in the defensive zone for a minute and are now tired. Guess how likely that scenario is to result in great scoring chances? Now the Corsi of those 4th liners who successfully retained "possession" while not getting any shots isn't great but they set up our 1st liners to succeed so it was very "useful" possession in reality even though you wouldn't deem it that based on corsi. Cycling with big power forwards over the course of a 7 game series can wear down and injure opposing defenders regardless of the number of shots they get. This is a winning playoff hockey style

There's so many variables in hockey. Advanced stats still don't take enough into account.

[stone hands]

I find it surprising you think Kris Russel is a defensive defenseman. If anything, his defensive game is extremely poor(an opinion backed by analytics and just watching him chase people around, being unable to strip the puck off anyone or take a body) and his biggest add to the team is on the offensive side of the game

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by stone hands

I find it surprising you think Kris Russel is a defensive defenseman. If anything, his defensive game is extremely poor(an opinion backed by analytics and just watching him chase people around, being unable to strip the puck off anyone or take a body) and his biggest add to the team is on the offensive side of the game

He's behind Gio, Brodie, Hamilton and, yes, Wideman offensively. In fact, Nakladal may just be better (and I mean right now, not as a prospect).

I don't disagree that he's not great defensively either.

[burnitdown]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

I dunno I guess we just have to dive into the Corsi debate full on don't we?

It's a stat inherently biased against defensive defensemen IMO. Coaches utilize certain players in defensive situations more than offensive situations. If I put someone out against Getzlaf and Perry then there's a decent chance they'll spend that shift in their own zone defending because Getzlaf and Perry are excellent at maintaing possession. Does that mean the players we put out against them suck? Not necessarily. If I put out Russell and Engelland vs them, are Getzlaf/Perry going to get a lot of shots or shot attempts? Probably they will. But if they didn't score then the defensive defensemen did their job despite looking bad in terms of shot attempts for/against. If Russell blocks a shot that was going in, he saved a frickin goal.

Shots are a terrible metric for analzying a game. I'm sure we've all seen games where one team outshot the other but the prime scoring chances were actually in favour of the other team. Not every shot is the same. A shot from slot is a much more prime scoring chance than a shot from the boards. A shot off a rebound is the most likely type of shot to go in.

Corsi flat out sucks. It doesn't tell us what people tell us it tells us. These stats need to get a lot better at evaluating the things that really matter before I put much stock into them at all.

Maybe I'm an idiot and the fancy stats crowd can illuminate me about how these stats are better than they appear to be. I'd be interested to hear.

I agree Corsi on its own can be very misleading. I'm by no means an expert in advanced stats but for me, it does provide a some value if you have a table outlining Corsi, Quality of Competition, and Offensive Zone Start Shift (%) all together. With those measures tracked, you gain some insight into what you describe. Who does the coach trust against the hardest competition or the toughest competition?

If a defensive defenseman has a low Corsi but plays tough minutes, you can explain it away. But if you have a low Corsi despite starting the majority of your shifts in the opponent's end against weak competition, it's probably a sign the player isn't doing too well...whether you're skeptical that shots are the ideal measure or not.

[ScorchyScorch]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

Loubardias has a point, but as usual he can't articulate it.
He's actually pretty miserable as a person, if you go off how he treats Pat.

People have their bad days and moments. You're telling me you've never gotten upset while on a job, or said something from a personal place when a perceived line was crossed? You can't extrapolate momentary things to make absolute judgments of them as people, though. That's pretty unfair.

He's been a complete professional in every segment or clip I've heard of him to this point. He went there because Pat drove it there and wouldn't let go. It's been obvious forever what his stance on this stuff is and Pat very well knows. So Pat knew what he was doing by pushing his buttons on the subject but did it anyways. So really both sides contributed to it.

I'm not going to complain though cause I liked it.

[combustiblefuel]

Were they drunk?

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by combustiblefuel

Were they drunk?

I think Loubardias has been sick recently. May have affected his grumpiness and patience level

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

Well, the best argument in Russell's favor is that his GF% doesn't align with CF%.

We have 43.5% of the 5-on-5 possession with Russell on the ice yet we score 50% of the goals with Russell on the ice.

It's curious, to say the least. Is it luck? Do blocked shots lead to "leakout" opportunities that inflate on-ice shooting percentages? Is it the fact that Russell has been used extensively with the Gaudreau line the last two years, and also benefiting from Wideman's offensive wizardry especially last year? Are our goalies just sharper when they're getting shelled? Is it Hartley's wizardry with exploiting dumb/limited offensive players against Russell?

All the available metrics, like high-danger scoring chances, show we give up a lot of extremely dangerous chances with Russell on the ice. Yet they show our goalies' save percentages are through the ceiling with Russell on the ice. The last three seasons, we've had an on-ice save percentage of 91.91% with Russell on the ice, and an on-ice save percentage of 91.11% with Russell off the ice. Is that because of just how awful our bottom pairs (Smid-Engelland, Wideman-Engelland, Smid-Butler) have been? Or is there something more to it?

That is super interesting and I'm wondering if this is the issue.

A spike in save percentage with him on the ice over a large sample size might suggest that he does keep the quality of the shots down. I know they measure high danger scoring chances, but that is by region and not by how good of a chance it actually was.

Thanks man, one to ponder.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Thanks for the informed reply GranteedEV. A few points

-Is Kris Russell a defensive defesnemen? IMO yes. He can move the puck alright but offence is definitely not his calling card.

There's so many variables in hockey. Advanced stats still don't take enough into account.

Well, there is the thing. He is not a defensive defenseman - he is just too small and too weak. You obviously don't have to be physical to be great defensively (Lidstrom, Bourque even), but I think you need to be big/strong enough to be able to lean on guys and to be able protect the puck with your body. It's not his fault, but Russell is just too small to be a good defensive defenseman. Sure, he tries very hard, but when the other guy tries very hard, the bigger guy will win. This just means that he is (physically) unable to tie up players in front of the net, to separate a player from the puck or to stand up to forechecking. I recall the last time I went to a game, and Russell tried to protect the puck in the corner - the forechecker just ran him over. He is like a gnat, buzzing around, bouncing off guys.
He is handy with the puck,he can skate, put he is just not skilled enough to drive the offense - I think we all agree on that.
So, what is he? He is the Schlemkat. Except Schlemko might be a touch bigger - not sure on that. A useful bottom-pairing guy who should paly a maximum of 16 minutes in a sheltered role. He is good enough to step up and has nice intangibles. He is the kind of guy you are happy to have for $1.8M or so. But if you have guys (like Nakladal, Wotherspoon, just for argument's sake - not looking to debate this point) who are bigger and able to play better defensively, then there is no room for Russell on our roster. Sorry, but on D size does matter... unless you are an offensive wizard.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

-Cycling in the offensive zone without getting shots can still be a VERY positive thing in the game.

If you've cycled in the offensive zone without any shot attempts, you have been a 50% possession player (0 for, 0 against). So yes. If all our depth players were at minimum 50% possession players we'd do pretty damn well.

For example imagine our 4th line cycles for a full minute without getting a shot on net but manages to make a complete line change while retaining possession. We can then get our #1 line matched up against the opposition who've been stuck out there running around in the defensive zone for a minute and are now tired. Guess how likely that scenario is to result in great scoring chances? Now the Corsi of those 4th liners who successfully retained "possession" while not getting any shots isn't great but they set up our 1st liners to succeed so it was very "useful" possession in reality even though you wouldn't deem it that based on corsi. Cycling with big power forwards over the course of a 7 game series can wear down and injure opposing defenders regardless of the number of shots they get. This is a winning playoff hockey style

You'll find that teams/lines that do exactly what you described see shot attempts naturally generated anyways and shot attempts suppressed naturally anyways. Think back to the shift in the 2nd period yesterday against the Islanders. The unit we had out there was:

Bouma-Stajan-Bollig
Wotherspoon-Nakladal

Bouma and Bollig ran a cycle game in the right corner, the Islanders tried clearing it a few times, right to Nakladal's stick, and Nakladal just fired a shot attempt at the net a few times. He probably missed the net, I can't remember. But because he got shot attempts going from the point, the puck returned to the corner for bollig and bouma to cycle the puck. And that naturally boosted all five guys' corsi. That shift didn't generate dangerous chances or anything but by virtue of being a cycling shift, they generated a few shot attempts and prevented any shot attempts against - they had a positive corsi.

That's the thing, when you cycle successfully, you create shot attempts not even by trying to necessarily create shot attempts, just by virtue of being in the correct zone. When you cycle unsuccessfully (I call it the Joe Colborne) you turn the puck over and there's a rush going the other way. And Colborne is a guy who tries to create "dangerous" chance off the cycle instead of the very simple cycle that Bouma and Bollig were rolling yesterday.

Ultimately every forward line has a role to play and if you're in the offensive zone and you're cycling, you are already not bleeding shot attempts against. Unless you are turning the puck over, then you are bleeding breakaways against. When you're bleeding shot attempts against, that means you are not playing well.

You'll find that everything you associated with "cycling" is just as correlated with corsi. But I think to do that you need to involve yourself in what corsi is. Next time you watch a Flames game, try to record the corsi events yourself. You'll find that when the corsi events are piling up in one team's favor, they are carrying the play. Very rarely do these hypothetical scenarios you're using to downplay corsi actually occur.

[sun]

Man, never listened to these guys before, but that was not much of a debate. Loubo with the straw men "so I don't have ears now?!" and Steinberg really egging him on. Got rather personal. Couple of stubborn guys. I would prefer to read pissing matches on CP than listen to them on the radio, personally.

Tough job probably. I probably wouldn't like all of my comments to be recorded, broadcasted, and picked apart by hundreds of people on CP. I liked Loubo doing PBP, FWIW. Shout out to both guys who are definitely reading this thread.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

I'm a big believer that size does matter, both up front and on the backend. That said Russell is still an effective defensive defensemen IMO. More effective on the bottom pairing but he fills in adequately in the top 4. He does the best he can to defend at his size. It's pretty impressive how well he does it IMO. Ideally I wouldn't have any sub 6'0 defenders but Russell can still play on my team.

I understand why some people want to move on. Personally I'd take him back as our #5 if he was willing to sign a hometown discount but that looks unlikely. Too little seems to be made of his character and intangibles which I think is one of the points Lou was attempting to articulate. There is a certain value in having good veterans around to be an example for your young players how to play, how to work, how to sacrifice, how to be a team player, how to play through pain, etc. I think Russell and Engelland's contributions in that area have been under appreciated by some. Wotherspoon and Nakladal are coming into a much better situation to succeed being played as 3rd pairing guys on a defense that has a lot of solid, hard working veterans to look up to. Much better situation that some other rebuilding teams put their prospect d-men into.

I just hope people are appreciative of what Russell has done for us. He led the defense last year with Gio out, played through a broken hand, helped us win a playoff series vs the hated Canucks and now will presumably get us a pretty nice haul at the deadline. Thanks Kris, you played your heart out and were a true warrior for us despite your diminutive stature.

[GioforPM]

Article on Corsi at halfway through the season FWIW: supports the argument about Russell (not so much about "the Colborne", EV).

http://flamesnation.ca/2016/1/12/ass...-halfway-point

[combustiblefuel]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

I think Loubardias has been sick recently. May have affected his grumpiness and patience level

They both sounded like they had been drinking at lunch.

I dislike both of them anyways but it was pretty funny..

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

I'm a big believer that size does matter, both up front and on the backend. That said Russell is still an effective defensive defensemen IMO. More effective on the bottom pairing but he fills in adequately in the top 4. He does the best he can to defend at his size. It's pretty impressive how well he does it IMO. Ideally I wouldn't have any sub 6'0 defenders but Russell can still play on my team.

I understand why some people want to move on. Personally I'd take him back as our #5 if he was willing to sign a hometown discount but that looks unlikely. Too little seems to be made of his character and intangibles which I think is one of the points Lou was attempting to articulate. There is a certain value in having good veterans around to be an example for your young players how to play, how to work, how to sacrifice, how to be a team player, how to play through pain, etc. I think Russell and Engelland's contributions in that area have been under appreciated by some. Wotherspoon and Nakladal are coming into a much better situation to succeed being played as 3rd pairing guys on a defense that has a lot of solid, hard working veterans to look up to. Much better situation that some other rebuilding teams put their prospect d-men into.

I just hope people are appreciative of what Russell has done for us. He led the defense last year with Gio out, played through a broken hand, helped us win a playoff series vs the hated Canucks and now will presumably get us a pretty nice haul at the deadline. Thanks Kris, you played your heart out and were a true warrior for us despite your diminutive stature.

I think we essentially agree - I would love to have Russell back at up to $2.4M (extra .6 for "intangibles") playing 15-16 minutes. However, I think if Nakladal and Wotherspoon are "for real", I would rather have them (assuming we are stuck for space because of Wideman/Smid/Engelland being here, or at least 2 of them).

[Southside]

I said it yesterday in the other thread, embarrassed for the both of them.

Listened again and couldn't finish it. Just terrible.

I hope they listened to it themselves after some time for reflection. Hit the reset button and move on. I don't want that on my radio. Sounded like two children fighting.

[malcolmk14]

Originally Posted by nik-

Guys like Boomer and Pat should be side guys or late night guys imo, not cornerstones. It's a pretty constant reminder of what a small market we really are.

Lol, did you just use Steinberg's argument against Russell, against Steinberg? Awesome.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

I think we essentially agree - I would love to have Russell back at up to $2.4M (extra .6 for "intangibles") playing 15-16 minutes. However, I think if Nakladal and Wotherspoon are "for real", I would rather have them (assuming we are stuck for space because of Wideman/Smid/Engelland being here, or at least 2 of them).

I do think Wotherspoon looking so calm in both California games had to be a final nail in the coffin of contract talks between Russell and the Flames.

I for one didn't expect it

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I do think Wotherspoon looking so calm in both California games had to be a final nail in the coffin of contract talks between Russell and the Flames.

I for one didn't expect it

Hopefully. It really would be great to have some guys from "within" push out all our expensive spares...

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Bingo

That is super interesting and I'm wondering if this is the issue.

A spike in save percentage with him on the ice over a large sample size might suggest that he does keep the quality of the shots down. I know they measure high danger scoring chances, but that is by region and not by how good of a chance it actually was.

Thanks man, one to ponder.

Only thing is, a spike ins ave percentage doesn't mean a spike in goals against. It's a known fact that teams with goalies who see a lot of shots have a higher save percentage than goalies who see less shots but teams who see less shots still tend to have a higher goals against average.

For the same period I referenced save percentage,

Russell's on-ice goals against per 60 = 2.53 (.9191 SV%)
Russell's off-ice goals against per 60 = 2.45 (.9111 SV%)
Gio-Brodie on-ice goals against per 60 = 2.19 (.9142 SV%)
Gio, Brodie, Russell, Schlemko & Nakladal off-ice goals against per 60 = 2.83 (.9056 SV%)


Yeah, other than these short stretches with Schlemko and Nakladal, our bottom pairings have been atrocious.