Did Kris Russell overplay his hand in free agency?

[saillias]

FWIW, the analytics people aren't huge fans of Josi either, for similar reasons as Russell.

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

I would too. I am not his biggest fan, but the hate he gets is beyond stupid.

Its just a classic "he's not one of us anymore so lets dump on everything about his game" thread.

Russell was great for the Flames the year we beat Van in the playoffs. I don't recall anyone complaining about blocked shots then.

Obviously not a top pairing guy but he's a decent player. People are making it sound like he shouldn't be in the NHL now.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

who didn't catch it?

You? unless you're willingly being ironic, damaging your own argument in the process.

To the point at hand: Russell is a good defenceman. He's not a guy you want in your top three but he plays very well as a bottom three. He was great for us two years ago, struggled this year (the list of players who struggled is long), but by all accounts played great in Dallas.

Love to have him back at about 3 million (if Wideman is gone and the rumours about him asking 5 are untrue, of course).

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Igottago

Its just a classic "he's not one of us anymore so lets dump on everything about his game" thread.

Russell was great for the Flames the year we beat Van in the playoffs. I don't recall anyone complaining about blocked shots then.

Obviously not a top pairing guy but he's a decent player. People are making it sound like he shouldn't be in the NHL now.

ROFL, are you suggesting no one had complaints about Russell while he was here? These exact same comments were made when he was playing for us.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by nik-

You decided to focus on one aspect of discussion and decide that that is the entire content of the argument against Kris Russell. It isn't. I'm not sure why you're doing that as the context people are putting shot blocking in is pretty obvious.

Huh? No I quoted a single post. That poster's first post in this thread. Was there some other discussion he was having about Russell that I missed?

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Huh? No I quoted a single post. That poster's first post in this thread. Was there some other discussion he was having about Russell that I missed?

The Russell discussion around this issue is a season old.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

You? unless you're willingly being ironic, damaging your own argument in the process.

To the point at hand: Russell is a good defenceman. He's not a guy you want in your top three but he plays very well as a bottom three. He was great for us two years ago, struggled this year (the list of players who struggled is long), but by all accounts played great in Dallas.

Love to have him back at about 3 million (if Wideman is gone and the rumours about him asking 5 are untrue, of course).

How would that damage my own argument?

I can only evaluate defencemen with what is available to me. Russell obviously fails the "analytics" test, but he also terribly fails the eye test.

Good defencemen block shots too. But Russell's go-to move is to flop on his belly when a forward tried to go wide on him. It was absolutely predictable and forwards ate him alive this past season.

So it must leave that those managers that like Russell like him because of some sort of intangibles. Why should we ever evaluate players, trades, transactions, etc., then, when the acquisition differential is allocated to some sort of goodwill? That argument doesn't work for me.

Managers make mistakes. Russell is bad.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by nik-

The Russell discussion around this issue is a season old.

Ok? I'm not sure where you're going with this. A poster said he was bad because he blocked shots. I countered that by saying that there are a lot of factors that determine a defenseman's worth, not just blocked shots.

Is some part of that confusing?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

Managers make mistakes. Russell is bad.

So do fans, and a lot more frequently.

Russell is OK.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Ok? I'm not sure where you're going with this. A poster said he was bad because he blocked shots. I countered that by saying that there are a lot of factors that determine a defenseman's worth, not just blocked shots.

Is some part of that confusing?

Where I'm going is that your response was myopic.

But please, for the love of god, continue to argue about it.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Ok? I'm not sure where you're going with this. A poster said he was bad because he blocked shots. I countered that by saying that there are a lot of factors that determine a defenseman's worth, not just blocked shots.

Is some part of that confusing?

blocking shots != bad

always blocking shots while providing no other observable benefit = bad

[Knut]

I am curious how Russell would do in a different system. The Hartley system of long stretch passes did not give the d-men many outlets to get the puck up the ice. It led to long stretches hemmed in the zone and therefore lots of shot blocks.

I think a system where the dmen skate the puck out or have a Center/winger as an short outlet in case of trouble will help.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by Hes

I am curious how Russell would do in a different system. The Hartley system of long stretch passes did not give the d-men many outlets to get the puck up the ice. It led to long stretches hemmed in the zone and therefore lots of shot blocks.

I think a system where the dmen skate the puck out or have a Center/winger as an short outlet in case of trouble will help.

...like Dallas?

[nik-]

Russell is a really good 5 who can step up during an injury into the second pairing. Unfortunately he's looking for salary based on the icetime he was given by a coach that rode his faves.

[Knut]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

...like Dallas?

Were they not happy with his play there ? I thought i read that his analytics improved there.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

So do fans, and a lot more frequently.

Russell is OK.

I agree, Russell is okay. On a contract paying him 3m or less on a term of two years or less. But I wouldn't want him back here, I would rather get a better player or just give Wotherspoon a chance.

[Strange Brew]

Ruff played him heavy minutes too.

[saillias]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

How would that damage my own argument?

I can only evaluate defencemen with what is available to me. Russell obviously fails the "analytics" test, but he also terribly fails the eye test.

Good defencemen block shots too. But Russell's go-to move is to flop on his belly when a forward tried to go wide on him. It was absolutely predictable and forwards ate him alive this past season.

So it must leave that those managers that like Russell like him because of some sort of intangibles. Why should we ever evaluate players, trades, transactions, etc., then, when the acquisition differential is allocated to some sort of goodwill? That argument doesn't work for me.

Managers make mistakes. Russell is bad.

Meh, the numbers and stats speak for themselves. We don't need to justify them with "also my eye test agrees" - it should be the other way around

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by saillias

Meh, the numbers and stats speak for themselves. We don't need to justify them with "also my eye test agrees" - it should be the other way around

You can read it anyway you like, but the common reply to those who evaluate a player as poor using analytics is to say "actually watch the player".

So when you say "the numbers and stats speak for themselves", I am a bit confused about which side you are on.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by nik-

Where I'm going is that your response was myopic.

But please, for the love of god, continue to argue about it.

Originally Posted by nik-

Russell is a really good 5 who can step up during an injury into the second pairing. Unfortunately he's looking for salary based on the icetime he was given by a coach that rode his faves.

What's to argue about? Doesn't your assessment match mine? You seem to be hellbent on defending a rather myopic comment by another poster. I'm not sure why it is such a personal affront to you that I dared counter someones point.

Russell is a serviceable guy who is probably looking for too much money unless someone is willing to overpay.