Did Kris Russell overplay his hand in free agency?

[heep223]

Didn't we all agree that Russell is a serviceable 4-5 defenseman, who can step up for short periods of time, but that he has some warts. What's to argue about.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

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.

I'm the one with the myopic comment when you're the one comparing Russell to some of the top defencemen in the league by means of blocked shots?

You're counter was equivalent to comparing +/-. Does it get more myopic?

[Cantrader]

We will not be getting Russell back as he is too expensive

[Locke]

Originally Posted by heep223

Didn't we all agree that Russell is a serviceable 4-5 defenseman, who can step up for short periods of time, but that he has some warts. What's to argue about.

Pretty much, and I'd be more than happy to have him back in that role on a very reasonable contract. About half of what hes asking.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

I'm the one with the myopic comment when you're the one comparing Russell to some of the top defencemen in the league by means of blocked shots?

You're counter was equivalent to comparing +/-. Does it get more myopic?

Enough. You were getting upset because you think he missed the point of your comment and you are completely missing the point of his.

He thought you meant that blocking a lot of shots meant you were out of position. So his point was that even the greatest block a lot of shots. Not that Russell was as good as them.

Seriously.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Enough. You were getting upset because you think he missed the point of your comment and you are completely missing the point of his.

He thought you meant that blocking a lot of shots meant you were out of position. So his point was that even the greatest block a lot of shots. Not that Russell was as good as them.

Seriously.

Despite every one of those defencemen logging some of the biggest minutes in the league? The more you play, the more likely it is you will block a shot.

He thought I said that blocking shots = bad. No, that's not what I said at all in my original post that ruffled his feathers. I clearly said that by blocking shots all the time, you're giving up too many opportunities. As has been said before, blocking a shot is a better alternative than simply letting the shot through, but if you're doing it all the time, it suggests you have bigger problems.

This is opposed to the other defencemen he listed who do a lot more than just block shots.

So yeah, when another poster calls my comment myopic because he refuses to understand, and then retorts with the most shortsighted comment in this thread, I'm going to call him out on it.

Seriously.

[Dr. Doom]

I remember it turned into bashing when Tre was trying to re-up him as his price tag was getting leaked then too...

Now go-figure the bashing is back because his new price tag has been leaked.

Treliving moved on from him. And apparently so has Jim Nill...

Common denominator here is his price tag. He's a good 4-5 but not anywhere near what he's asking. And it should be left at that, really I hear a lot of dead horse beating going on.

I think his agent is trying to market his shot-blocking as some intangible you can't find without paying the price. I think the book might be out on them now though.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

Despite every one of those defencemen logging some of the biggest minutes in the league? The more you play, the more likely it is you will block a shot.

He thought I said that blocking shots = bad. No, that's not what I said at all in my original post that ruffled his feathers. I clearly said that by blocking shots all the time, you're giving up too many opportunities. As has been said before, blocking a shot is a better alternative than simply letting the shot through, but if you're doing it all the time, it suggests you have bigger problems.

This is opposed to the other defencemen he listed who do a lot more than just block shots.

So yeah, when another poster calls my comment myopic because he refuses to understand, and then retorts with the most shortsighted comment in this thread, I'm going to call him out on it.

Seriously.

Ok let's go back to the beginning because I still think you aren't properly categorizing Russell. This isn't about your inability to understand my point, it is about you having an opinion of Russell that is counter to his play in Calgary and Dallas. You are also missing the point but let's keep this about Russell.

Originally Posted by Ashasx

Blocking shots is an action of last resort.

Ok right off the bat this is misleading. Teams average between 25-30 shots per game. I'm not even sure how many shot attempts. 50? 60?

Fact of the matter is, blocks are an important means of keeping the puck out of the net.

Ideally would shot blocks not be necessary? Sure but it's not a realistic expectation. Not even the best defencemen in the NHL can prevent the opposition from ever shooting. Especially since teams play as a 5 man unit. Even the lovechild of Bobby Orr and Nic Lidstrom is bound to block some shots when the other players on their team allow the opposition shots on goal. And they would be right to block some shots when those occasions did arise.

If you're blocking shots all the time, you're giving up too many opportunities.

This is very difficult to prove. Giving up a bunch of shots and zone time is probably bad period. Whether you block them all or not seems besides the point.

Even so, I'd say it would be very hard to prove that it is Russell's fault that so many shot attempts are made when he's on the ice (do we even have proof this is the case?). No doubt many of them are coming from the point. Is it the wingers fault? Or maybe the C is bad. Or his D partner? Or maybe as a 5 man unit they just aren't that good and give up a lot of shots.

Very tough to blame it on Russell.

You're taking yourself out of the play because in order to block a shot, you need to react before the shooter. After blocking the shot, you have to recover and return to the play.

This is true. But you didn't really mention whether Russell is good or bad at this. However based on your next comment, I'm gonna guess bad.

Russell is a bad defenceman.

Nothing you've said, and IMO nothing Russell has done on the ice, would lead me to believe this is a logical conclusion.

Therefore, based on all of your words and sentences together, I made a post showing you that using blocked shots as a measure of a defenceman's skill at playing defense is silly. Do you see? Josi, Gio, Karlsson...all lots of blocked shots equals not bad defenceman.

If you look at the list of the top shot blockers in the NHL you see one clear pattern, lots of defenceman. Probably because they log a lot of minutes and spend a lot of time in front of their own net (the area where most shots are directed). But there is no evidence that lots or few blocks is a clear indication of defensive skill.


TLDR Kris Russell is a good 4/5/6 guy but probably not a long term top pairing guy. He plays with lots of heart and sacrifices his body but his lack of size and not bad but not great defensive skills are his biggest holes. He does have some offensive upside, but not enough to justify a $5M/season pricetag and a top pairing billing.

[Ashasx]

Without breaking down every paragraph in your post, I think we can narrow down the discussion to whether having a high count of shots blocked per minute of ice time is good or bad.

In any instance, you are correct that you cannot simply read a stat sheet from a game and read the blocked shots column to determine if one team has been better than the other, or if one specific player has been allowing too many opportunities against. It doesn't tell you anything about the shot quality, etc. That's fair.

Over a large sample size however, you can start to notice patterns and other indicators that start to appear. While one shot doesn't provide any useful information, 1000 do. And you can assume that the shot quality approaches a mean as the sample size gets larger.

So over time, if one player allows x shot opportunities against and another allows 1.1x, it's safe to assume that the player allowing 1.1x shot opportunities against is simply allowing more scoring opportunities total. That's not good.

So the question is, can you blame it entirely on Russell? Well, I think you can blame Hartley for a lot of the Flames woes last year, but on average, yes, you can blame Russell. He consistently allowed more shots against than any player on the Flames, regardless of who he played with, etc. All players allowed more shots against when Russell was on the ice. Again, if this was one or two games, the sample is meaningless. But we have parts of 3 seasons of data. N is large. The trend continued in Dallas.

I guess it comes down to what do you call a defenceman that consistently allows more shot opportunities against than any other player on the team while providing minimal offence, and makes his linemates worse? A defenceman that doesn't limit opportunities in any consistent way, without creating similar opportunities the other way?

I call that a bad defenceman. It's not a question of his character or work ethic.

[Canada 02]

Perhaps it's a stat that does not accurately capture the intended information. A defenseman who gets into shooting lanes to either divert shots wide or block them from getting through seems like a desired quality

[Ashasx]

The stat doesn't measure that. Yes, it's a fine quality to have a defenceman that is able to get into shooting lanes, get sticks on pucks, etc.

The problem is why a defenceman would need to (all the time).

[Hockey-and_stuff]

My only real concern, and keeping in mind I don't believe this can be quantified, is that I got the feeling Russell is so poor on the cycle because he was inclined to give up too much space to attacking players and compensate by attempting to block the shot instead.

I think it's fine to block shooting lanes and get your blocks that way. But conceding space in order to block the shot is probably a poor way to defend, and I felt that was Russel's M.O. for most of last season.

[GioforPM]

Russell was great at blocking, no question. And that takes heart. But he was terrible at puck retrieval and zone exiting passes, which also led to increased shots to block.

Wideman gets all kinds of grief but I saw more than a few times when Russell threw the puck to him when he wasn't in a great spot (covered worse than Russell) leading to Wideman losing the puck or having to eat it on the boards, and getting the resulting criticism.

[sureLoss]

Dreger on Russell:

http://www.todaysslapshot.com/from-t...etting-closer/

“It’s a curious one though, as to why Kris Russell didn’t go sooner. Sometimes, and I’m not being critical of the player or the agent here, sometimes luck plays into it as well, and sometimes the best deal is the first deal that’s been offered to you; and if you don’t take it, teams turn, and they pick up somebody else, and all of the sudden the market kind of crumbles beneath your feet.

“I don’t know that that’s what’s happened to Kris Russell, but Kris Russell would have been one of the top defensemen going into the free agent period. And yet, as we’re having this conversation, he’s probably forced to make a pretty tough decision. But the good thing is he has options. And it sounds like he has multiple options.

“But you look at what Kris Russell brings. I happen to like him. He’s a small defenseman. Defensively very strong. Noted for his shot-blocking. Can provide some offense, all of those things. So any team that still has a strong need in their top-four, has to be considering Kris Russell, and maybe the price is coming down as every day goes by.”

[Erick Estrada]

Defensively very strong? Is Dreger propping him up in the event he signs with the Oilers?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

You're taking yourself out of the play because in order to block a shot, you need to react before the shooter. After blocking the shot, you have to recover and return to the play.

Not all shot blocks are dives. Russell blocks a fair number of shots with his skates, standing up - i.e. it's being in position, not out of it, that allows him to make those plays.

[Vinny01]

Devils seem like a good fit

[CalgaryFan1988]

The more I think about Russel, the more he reminds me of Andrew Ference.

Too bad the leafs didn't overpay for him, would be nice if the Oilers would.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by SebC

Not all shot blocks are dives. Russell blocks a fair number of shots with his skates, standing up - i.e. it's being in position, not out of it, that allows him to make those plays.

While true, Russell also plays a very loose gap which results in those skate/stick blocks. It works against lower tier 3rd liners and 4th liners who can't take advantage, but whenever he gets matched against strong skilled forwards (2nd+ liners) his loose gap gets exploited. And as GioforPM already pointed out, his failure to break the puck out well resulted in sequences of getting hemmed in - and when you get hemmed in on long shifts you might as well be on the wrong end of a 3-on-1 break-away because the occurrence of goals against in those situations is very high.

[Rick M.]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

While true, Russell also plays a very loose gap which results in those skate/stick blocks. It works against lower tier 3rd liners and 4th liners who can't take advantage, but whenever he gets matched against strong skilled forwards (2nd+ liners) his loose gap gets exploited. And as GioforPM already pointed out, his failure to break the puck out well resulted in sequences of getting hemmed in - and when you get hemmed in on long shifts you might as well be on the wrong end of a 3-on-1 break-away because the occurrence of goals against in those situations is very high.

How much of that 'loose gap' was due to Hartley's system? It didn't seem as noticeable in Dallas.