Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
I just can't find a way for Russell to get out of this but my mind is open!
|
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?
I don't know.
Unfortunately it's not enough though. Game 5, OT, @ Honda Center. That was the culmination of poor possession, no getting around it. We lost that game, and ultimately series, because of possession. You can't cheat reality. I know that I don't trust the style Russell plays, because I can't reference a similar player who at 22-24 minutes per game had similar success. The closest to success you have to that is Dan Girardi, on the 2013-14 Rangers and even then you're talking about a guy playing in front of Henrik Lundqvist, on a team that ultimately lost the SCF in 5 dominant games after limping out of a weak east. And you're still talking about a guy with a size element Russell can never add.
Quote:
|
It's a stat inherently biased against defensive defensemen IMO. Coaches utilize certain players in defensive situations more than offensive situations.
|
Yes this is true. But
is Kris Russell a defensive defenseman? Do you truly trust him out there against 2nd lines like Kesler-Silfverberg-Belesky, Lucic-Carter-Toffoli, Toews-Hossa?
Also anyone who uses possession stats
properly always uses
at least three variables simulatenously. Those three variables are usually:
Relative Possession % (when the player is on the ice, which zone are the majority of the shot attempts being performed in?)
Quality of Competition (Is the player playing predominantly against 3rd lines? 2nd lines? 1st lines?)
Relative Zone Starts (Is the player being used defensively or offensively?)
Without even one of these variables you do not have a useful context for using stats. But anyone who uses these stats properly is already looking at these three things.
Quote:
|
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.
|
And if you put someone out against Kris Russell there's a chance they'll spend that shift in the offensive zone because Russell is poor at maintaining possession.
These are trends identified over hundreds even thousand of events.
Quote:
|
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.
|
And if Russell blocks a shot that was going in, that block bounces straight to Perry's stick, he caused a frickin goal. The only reliable way to limit scoring chances is to keep the puck from entering the defensive zone. As soon as you're in the defensive zone you're at the mercy of bounces. If you look at all the data, you realize Russell doesn't prevent shots from being taken in the slot, where goalies are vulnerable. He doesn't prevent shots from being taken in the crease, where goalies are vulnerable. He doesn't block 100% of the shot attempts. He can't stop shots from deflecting off his linemate Dennis Wideman's skates like three times in the same game. He can't stop his forwards from getting tired and then lacking the energy to cover the slot on a one-timer after a minute+ long shift.
Once you're in the defensive zone you're at the mercy of the offensive player and bounces.
If you look at team's 5 on 5 possession stats and their 5-on-5 goal scoring stats, there's a very close correlation. It's a correlation that
can be influenced by certain things (I.E. Sidney Crosby or Carey Price just being really really good).
Quote:
|
And I don't really like Corsi as a stat anyway. I don't think it's a good measure of "possession" which is the exact thing its trying to measure. For possession wouldn't it make more sense to have a stat that measures how long you cycle for in the opposition zone? That's possession IMO.
|
Corsi Events aren't a measure of possession time. It's a measure of useful possession. If you are cycling in the opposition zone for a full minute, and the outcome of that full minute was just one shot attempt, you still out-attempted the opposition for a full minute. If the outcome of that full minute was a breakaway going the other way and a goal, then that was not a very useful possession.
Things average out. Over hundreds and hundreds of events, what corsi measures correlates to possession time. And yes, bad angle shots are better corsi events than turnovers in the slot that cause the play to go the other way. That's an important thing. Good teams like the Blackhawks do take bad angle shots. Soft muffins are also important corsi events because they create offensive zone faceoffs. These pet peeves of some coaches/fans are things that possession teams preach. It's a structured system of play that extends far beyond possession
time.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Of course we have. But single games are not the same as seasons and multiple seasons. Over time these things average out.
The Flames are
Quote:
|
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.
|
And know what creates rebounds? Blocked shots create rebounds. Know what can create blocked shots? A shot from the boards. Know who's probably better at rebound control than Kris Russell? Any goaltender in the AHL.
Only if you
want it to. I can't change your opinion because you want corsi to suck. And I don't think it's the end-all be-all. But if you want to accept that there is a correlation between team corsi and championship likelyhood, and you want to accept that Kris Russell drags down team corsi, then you can't possible think Corsi "sucks".
It's an imperfect stat.
All stats are going to be imperfect though in such a fluid game. They tell us more about the player than how much he cared when he was 16 years old, though. Points tell us Sidney Crosby is the forward in the world, but points shouldn't tell us Erik Karlsson is the best defenseman in the world. You have to use your brain and put stats into context and you have to watch the game. It's about a holistic approach not about denying evidence because it disagrees with feelings.
