Edmonton is No Good Episode 4: New Rink, Same Stink

[flamesfan1297]

Originally Posted by Hockey Fan #751

Going back to the McDavid discussion, he may get a lot of breakaways but he certainly doesn't score on many of them.

Him and Paul Byron are very comparable in that sense

[SuperMatt18]

The truth with Russell has always been somewhere in the middle.

He was never as good as coaches/media seem to think he is.

He is never as bad as advanced stats seem to say he is.

He is a serviceable 4/5 d-man that if you are paying less than $3 million for is good value. The trouble was always giving him term on a deal around $5 million.

[bubbsy]

that hit he laid out last night was a beauty.

I like russel, and it sucks it's with the oilers, but i'm glad he's getting some frigin credit already. He's a decent bottom 3 dman, who i think brings some intangibles to a team.

[TheTuna]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

besides being one of the worst possession players in the league?

If you actually watched the games you'd see that he has been excellent with the Oilers so far.He came exactly as Chiarelli advertised him, "retrieves pucks quickly and moves it up to the forwards effectively, plays hard, blocks shots" Maybe he was bad with the flames years ago and Dallas didn't work out for him, but that is the past.

[Ashasx]

That is a pure nonsense quote from Chiarelli and it should concern Oilers fans. I have access to watch as many Oilers games as I do Flames games.

I can guarantee you I've seen more Russell than you have. I've watched him nightly, I've seen his analytics.

Correlation does not mean causation. Time will prove out.

[TheTuna]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

That is a pure nonsense quote from Chiarelli and it should concern Oilers fans. I have access to watch as many Oilers games as I do Flames games.

I can guarantee you I've seen more Russell than you have. I've watched him nightly, I've seen his analytics.

Correlation does not mean causation. Time will prove out.

Cool, analytics tell the story for sure. Oilers are 9-3-1 with Russell in, 2-5-0 without. Not saying he's the sole reason but analyze that for awhile. There's something called intangibles in hockey that analytics don't portray. Playing the game hard, inspiring teammates, making the right play at the right time that can prevent a goal, being a good locker room presence, etc. I played competitive hockey for 23 years including AA and coached 3 more and I'm willing to bet many other CP members on this forum know what I'm talking about. Hockey players that do what it takes to win games.

[Ashasx]

I am analyzing your massive 13 and 7 game sample sizes

Monahan will also never break 40 points again in his career.

And oh boy, the intangibles argument.

You played competitive hockey for 23 years? And coached?

Damn what do I know. How can I argue against such rhetoric.

[TheTuna]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

I am analyzing your massive 13 and 7 game sample sizes

Monahan will also never break 40 points again in his career.

And oh boy, the intangibles argument.

You played competitive hockey for 23 years? And coached?

Damn what do I know. How can I argue against such rhetoric.

Not trying to discount your opinion , just saying analytics imo dont tell the whole story. Usually people that play hockey a lot know what I am referring to and put some significance into those types of players because they've played with them or are one of them. Guys that dont back down from getting shoved around like Petry , Gilbert, etc used to. Guys that plagued the team with passive mentality for years. Know what I mean?

[Ashasx]

Analytics don't tell the whole story, but what good is me saying "I've watched him on the ice with my own eyes and can conclude he is not very good" when you can say the exact opposite. At least bringing some numbers supports my belief.

[TheTuna]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

Analytics don't tell the whole story, but what good is me saying "I've watched him on the ice with my own eyes and can conclude he is not very good" when you can say the exact opposite. At least bringing some numbers supports my belief.

True enough. Can you bring those numbers on his time with the Oilers only so far then? Not his Dallas and Calgary ones...

[Poster]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

besides being one of the worst possession players in the league?

this not really a thing anyhow .. complete fanbrication stat.

[Ashasx]

what

[Coach]

Kris Russell's not as good as his 2015 self that looked like a $4-5 million dman, but he's not the "god awful" player some people here seem to suggest. He'd probably fit quite nicely along side Brodie right now, but not for that price with Wideman and Engellend on the books.

[N-E-B]

Yeah Russell is what he is. A great 4-5 guy but you probably don't want him in your top 3 if you expect to do any damage. He isn't awful and I'd gladly take him back on the Flames. He's also a great guy by all accounts.

That said, for the time being he's dead to me.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by TheTuna

True enough. Can you bring those numbers on his time with the Oilers only so far then? Not his Dallas and Calgary ones...

2013/2014: CF% 44.0 | CF% rel -3.1 | oZS% 53.0 | PDO 99.4
2014/2015: CF% 42.9 | CF% rel -3.3 | oZS% 50.2 | PDO 104.2
2015/2016: CF% 45.0 | CF% rel -4.7 | oZS% 49.4 | PDO 100.6
2016/2017: CF% 44.7 | CF% rel -5.2 | oZS% 48.9 | PDO 104.4

Russell is pretty much the same as he has been for the last 4 years. If he can maintain a PDO of 104.4 for the rest of the season, the Oilers will be using some magic 2014/2015 Flames voodoo.

Doubt it.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by MisterJoji

Had Lemieux had a full healthy career I have no doubts he would have a number of Gretzky's records. In 92-93 based on PPG he also would have the single season scoring record with 218, eclipsing Gretzky by 3 points. In his prime years (discounting seasons where he played less than 30 games) he was putting up 2.03 PPG. So 10 years at 75 games per year (same games per year Gretzky had over his career) at 2.03 PPG works out to 1515 points. In the twilight of his career (again excluding seasons where he played less than 30 games) he was putting up 1.57 PPG. So 5 years at 75 games per year at 1.57 PPG is 589 points. For the middle 6 years, say he split the difference between 2.02 and 1.57 which is 1.80 PPG (which is probably still way overestimating his regression with age, he would've been only 28). So 6 years at 75 games per year at 1.80 PPG is 810 points. 1515 + 810 + 589 = 2914. Again, assuming he played 21 total seasons just like Gretzky. To me Lemieux is the GOAT.

Five years into their careers:
Gretzky - 914 points, 393 games, 2.33 points per game
Lemieux - 715 points, 368 games, 1.94 points per game

Six years into their careers:
Gretzky - 1122 points, 473 games, 2.37 points per game
Lemieux -838 points, 427 games, 1.96 points per game

Eight years into their careers:
Gretzky - 1520 points, 632 games, 2.41 points per game
Lemieux - 1014 points, 517 games, 1.96 points per game

Ten years into their careers:
Gretzky - 1837 points, 774 games, 2.37 points per game
Lemieux - 1211 points, 599 games, 2.02 points per game

Thirteen years into their careers:
Gretzky - 2263 points, 999 games, 2.27 points per game
Lemieux - 1570 points, 788 games, 1.99 points per game

Five years into their careers, before any significant time missed, Gretzky already had 200 points more than Lemieux. At no point in their careers was Lemieux ever on a pro-rated pace to finish ahead of Gretzky in total points. Absolutely an argument to suggest the eras they played in played a huge part, but healthy or not, Lemieux was not going to finish ahead of Gretzky's totals.

[GioforPM]

Without passing an opinion on the ultimate question of who was better/would have scored more, Lemieux did miss serious time in his first 5 years, in one season. I think also when considering games missed, you also have to factor in the impact his health had on the games when he did play (for example just after returning). If the hypothetical is that he missed no significant time for injuries, like Gretzky until his late back injury, you probably need to allow for the fact he would have scored more overall.

My own earlier comment was about most talented. That's pretty subjective, since point totals are subject to era, teammates, etc.

[CroFlames]

Lemieux's goal scoring pace is unmatched though, even by Wayne.

I think Lemieux and Ovechkin are the two greatest GOAL SCORERs of all time, but it's debatable who the best hockey player is of all time. I don't think Orr and Howe get enough credit, especially Orr.

[ClubFlames]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Lemieux's goal scoring pace is unmatched though, even by Wayne.

I think Lemieux and Ovechkin are the two greatest GOAL SCORERs of all time, but it's debatable who the best hockey player is of all time. I don't think Orr and Howe get enough credit, especially Orr.

Let's not forget Mike Bossy. He was better at goal scoring than Gretzky, Lemieux and Ovechkin.

573 goals in 752 games.

[Regulator75]

Originally Posted by ClubFlames

Let's not forget Mike Bossy. He was better at goal scoring than Gretzky, Lemieux and Ovechkin.

573 goals in 752 games.

Didn't Gretzky say that Bossy was the best pure goal scorer he had ever seen?