HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Detroit Red Wings
Notices

Corsi, +/- and other Jamesian Ideology, wrt to the Wings

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-27-2010, 02:22 PM
  #26
14ari13
Registered User
 
14ari13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Western Sahara
Country: Norway
Posts: 9,140
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
He plays defense like a man.

This nerdification of hockey is useless.

What was his CORSI when Babcock called him the best defenseman on the team earlier this year?
He's the team's worst with -14. Kronwall, his partner most of the time is +1.

14ari13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2010, 11:14 AM
  #27
Fugu
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Edmonton board picks up on the CORSI debate, after Cherry decided to rip it on HNIC last night.

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?p...4#post24775214



  Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2010, 11:24 AM
  #28
HockeyinHD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 9,939
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 14ari13 View Post
He's the team's worst with -14. Kronwall, his partner most of the time is +1.
And we haven't heard Babcock call Stuart the best defenseman on the team in quite a while either, have we?

HockeyinHD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2010, 11:39 AM
  #29
Roy S
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,780
vCash: 500
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sport...rticle1514232/

Cherry can bash it, but a lot of teams use the data as a tool and either have their own analytical department or have consultants do the digging for them. To completely ignore either aspect of player evaluation (scouting/human observation or statistical data) is foolish.

Roy S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2010, 12:27 PM
  #30
Fugu
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by 14ari13 View Post
He's the team's worst with -14. Kronwall, his partner most of the time is +1.

How much time did Kronwall miss this year? Was any of that period overlapping with the absences of: Filppula, Franzen, Cleary, Zetterberg, and Homer? Because.... if you consider that all the lines and pairings get reshuffled with injuries due to one guy, then it just ripples across the board.

Seriously, if you guys want to use stats, then you have to compare the same period.... e.g, you cannot use Kronwall's stats to support how well he played when he was out of the line up, but then dismiss the play of the guys who had to toil with half the team injured.

  Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2010, 02:03 PM
  #31
14ari13
Registered User
 
14ari13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Western Sahara
Country: Norway
Posts: 9,140
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
How much time did Kronwall miss this year? Was any of that period overlapping with the absences of: Filppula, Franzen, Cleary, Zetterberg, and Homer? Because.... if you consider that all the lines and pairings get reshuffled with injuries due to one guy, then it just ripples across the board.

Seriously, if you guys want to use stats, then you have to compare the same period.... e.g, you cannot use Kronwall's stats to support how well he played when he was out of the line up, but then dismiss the play of the guys who had to toil with half the team injured.
I know that Kronwall missed many games and other players too, but still Stuart is the team's worst with -14 and it's hard to argue against it.

14ari13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2010, 02:18 PM
  #32
HockeyinHD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 9,939
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
How much time did Kronwall miss this year? Was any of that period overlapping with the absences of: Filppula, Franzen, Cleary, Zetterberg, and Homer?
Hey, no fair! Every person Holland adds to the roster is done so with the primary goal of correctly playing the Wings system, so their shouldn't be any drop offs due to injury, eh?

Wait, what?

Seriously though, the way this year has gone, hasn't everyone had to play while a bunch of other guys were hurt? Haven't the guys who were hurt had to play a number of games a) missing other guys who were hurt and b) themselves trying to get back into playing form?

Look, Stuart's been bad for a few months now. He was great at the beginning of the year, but sometime between Thanksgiving and Christmas he stopped being great and starting being bad. At some point can't that just be acknowledged instead of trying to erect useless excuses for him?

HockeyinHD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2010, 02:20 PM
  #33
Ricelund
We like our team.
 
Ricelund's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Detroit, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 5,007
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 14ari13 View Post
I know that Kronwall missed many games and other players too, but still Stuart is the team's worst with -14 and it's hard to argue against it.
You missed Fugu's point. Stuart was playing while all those guys were hurt. Kronwall wasn't. Of course his numbers are going to suffer when he's playing with a group of forwards that can't score.

Ricelund is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2010, 02:31 PM
  #34
Roy S
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,780
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
How much time did Kronwall miss this year? Was any of that period overlapping with the absences of: Filppula, Franzen, Cleary, Zetterberg, and Homer? Because.... if you consider that all the lines and pairings get reshuffled with injuries due to one guy, then it just ripples across the board.

Seriously, if you guys want to use stats, then you have to compare the same period.... e.g, you cannot use Kronwall's stats to support how well he played when he was out of the line up, but then dismiss the play of the guys who had to toil with half the team injured.
If this was the only year he struggled, then you could chalk some of it up to that. But, he wasn't good in the regular season last year, either. That is where the problem lies. Although, I don't think we really need to compare him to Kronwall. They are different types of players and I just think Nik is the better defenseman. Stuart is supposed to be a defensive d man and he hasn't excelled like he should in that area these last 2 seasons.

Roy S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2010, 03:30 PM
  #35
14ari13
Registered User
 
14ari13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Western Sahara
Country: Norway
Posts: 9,140
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arice89 View Post
You missed Fugu's point. Stuart was playing while all those guys were hurt. Kronwall wasn't. Of course his numbers are going to suffer when he's playing with a group of forwards that can't score.
I just do not have time to go deep into this discussion. I like Stuart and he is good, but I am just saying that -14 and being worst on the team has to count for something.

14ari13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2010, 04:02 PM
  #36
Roy S
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,780
vCash: 500
And a counterpoint.

http://www.behindthenethockey.com/20...upid-the-corsi

Roy S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2010, 04:13 PM
  #37
HockeyinHD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 9,939
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scottwood View Post
Does Don Cherry really deserve being described as a 'counterpoint?'

HockeyinHD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2010, 04:45 PM
  #38
Fugu
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by arice89 View Post
You missed Fugu's point. Stuart was playing while all those guys were hurt. Kronwall wasn't. Of course his numbers are going to suffer when he's playing with a group of forwards that can't score.

Thank you. The only "real" comparisons would be players playing under the same conditions. The problem with all these stats is that they aren't predictive, so it's even questionable about the value, but furthermore ignores the point that you cannot isolate individual stats in hockey the way you can in baseball. It doesn't matter one iota what a player's teammates are doing in the dugout when he's facing the pitcher. It does matter what every player on the ice is doing when a guy is on the ice.

  Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2010, 04:52 PM
  #39
Fugu
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scottwood View Post

First the good, then the bad.....

Quote:
Oddly enough, these "worst" players averaged 18 minutes of ice time per game in these terrible seasons and all of them still had jobs the next season. Sometimes legitimately bad players end up being last in the league in +/-, but usually it's just a good player playing a lot of minutes on a terrible team. Context matters! I won't belabor this point by listing the players who finished last in the league in goals, but suffice to say that there are a lot of players who get paid a lot of money even though they're the 'worst' in some category.
So he admits that there's a real effect from quality of teammates, and even the quality of the team. Fine.


Quote:
One other issue that Don Cherry brings up is that shots that Ryan Johnson personally blocks are counted against him. And why wouldn't they be? When you block a shot, it means the other team had puck possession in your zone while you were on the ice. That's not a positive thing. Obviously when we evaluate Johnson as an individual, we would take his shot-blocking ability into account. But if Darcy Hordichuk was on the ice with him and allowed the other team to control the puck - if we're trying to measure puck possession, we shouldn't give Hordichuk credit for Johnson's skill.
So maybe the coach should tell guys not to block shots because the other team shouldn't have the puck at all. Only by letting the other team get that shot on goal can you truly measure how effective that player is while on the ice. We'll count the shots that DID get through, but do nothing to consider that the team is purposely dumping the puck, cannot get the puck back, or the fact that some guys on the other team might actually miss the net. No, we only count the shots that did get through. We won't correct for the things a player might personally do to help with that cause. (Never mind that maybe the better shooter is on the other side so his teammate gets to block as opposed to him, because due to some of the randomness, and that players are supposed in certain positions won't effect what they "can" do either.)

This is a wee bit skewed, no? I understand wanting to correct for the quality of goaltending, but to then imply that this is the best individual metric available is certainly a huge leap of faith.

  Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2010, 05:28 PM
  #40
HockeyinHD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 9,939
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Thank you. The only "real" comparisons would be players playing under the same conditions. The problem with all these stats is that they aren't predictive, so it's even questionable about the value, but furthermore ignores the point that you cannot isolate individual stats in hockey the way you can in baseball. It doesn't matter one iota what a player's teammates are doing in the dugout when he's facing the pitcher. It does matter what every player on the ice is doing when a guy is on the ice.
... and that's why you have to look at larger sample sizes when you use stats like this.

When over a longer time frame with a variety of different teammates in a variety of different game settings a guy's numbers go one way or the other, you can begin to make some assessments. Just because a guy has 40 goals doesn't mean you can predict when he will score his 41st, and just because a goalie is on a shutout streak doesn't mean you can predict when the first one gets by him.

However, a guy that scores a lot of goals is usually more likely to score than someone who scores infrequently. A goalie that has a lower GAA is usually less likely to get scored on than one who has a higher stat.

That is the blessing and the curse of statistical analysis. While many stats are relevant and somewhat predictive, the weight and accuracy of their predictivity is variable enough to make it easier for people who don't like the conclusions stats provide to simply dismiss them, pointing out the absence of 100% predictive accuracy as 'support' for the fact cited being 0% effective.

HockeyinHD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2010, 05:49 PM
  #41
Roy S
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,780
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
So maybe the coach should tell guys not to block shots because the other team shouldn't have the puck at all.
I don't follow. Of course its better to block shots if you can. They have stats for that, as well, though. This stat is only measuring shot differential, which relates the best to goal differential. It doesn't promise to show anything other than that. So, blocking a lot of shots won't help you in this stat b/c you don't have the puck, but if you don't allow a lot of shots on net and don't allow a lot of missed shots on net then we can make inferences that you are a great defensive player. If you block a lot of shots and also allow a lot of shots on net and a lot of missed shots, then that is not good.

Quote:
Only by letting the other team get that shot on goal can you truly measure how effective that player is while on the ice. We'll count the shots that DID get through, but do nothing to consider that the team is purposely dumping the puck, cannot get the puck back, or the fact that some guys on the other team might actually miss the net. No, we only count the shots that did get through. We won't correct for the things a player might personally do to help with that cause. (Never mind that maybe the better shooter is on the other side so his teammate gets to block as opposed to him, because due to some of the randomness, and that players are supposed in certain positions won't effect what they "can" do either.)
Its not only counting shots that get through. So, again, I don't follow what you're saying. It counts all attempted shots, whether they were blocked, got through and missed the net and whether they were a shot on goal.

Quote:
This is a wee bit skewed, no? I understand wanting to correct for the quality of goaltending, but to then imply that this is the best individual metric available is certainly a huge leap of faith.
Who said this was the best individual metric available? I've never said that and I've never read anyone claiming it to be. As that author explained, you need to look at everything in context and you need to look at multiple stats and multiple years. You should never only rely on one stat. Tom Awad's GVT is also a good stat as long as that is used appropriately. All Corsi looks at is shot differential when a player is on the ice. That correlates the best to goal differential. Beyond that, it doesn't promise anything else.


Last edited by Roy S: 03-28-2010 at 05:56 PM.
Roy S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2010, 06:43 PM
  #42
Fugu
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scottwood View Post

Who said this was the best individual metric available? I've never said that and I've never read anyone claiming it to be. As that author explained, you need to look at everything in context and you need to look at multiple stats and multiple years. You should never only rely on one stat. Tom Awad's GVT is also a good stat as long as that is used appropriately. All Corsi looks at is shot differential when a player is on the ice. That correlates the best to goal differential. Beyond that, it doesn't promise anything else.

Consider the arguments about who is a good defenseman or a bad one in this very forum. Firstly it was the +/-, and then Corsi showed up, so that means X is bad.

My main point is that none of these can be used as some definitive statistic. My eyes tell me more about who is at fault than a stat (now that I have a DVR and can look over the entire sequence when a goal is scored, etc.). The real problem is that scoring and shooting seem to be central to any of these metrics. It's not every guy's job to do it, nor to prevent it as a primary role. There is a school of thought that says a great player can make average guys better, or that several great players together can elevate things to superlative levels (depending, of course, on the level of the opposition). [As an aside, why the old Avs and Wings were so fun to watch.]

Grind lines should have poor Corsi ratings, should they not? If they're told to dump the puck, waste time off the clock, try to get the puck off the other team, etc., the very philosophy is at odds with Corsi is measuring (and by that virtue, declaring it is the "right" thing to do). Just like the shot blocking example, it's the wrong thing to do if you're interested in those figures, but any coach worth his salt will tell you otherwise.

  Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2010, 07:09 PM
  #43
Roy S
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,780
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Consider the arguments about who is a good defenseman or a bad one in this very forum. Firstly it was the +/-, and then Corsi showed up, so that means X is bad.

My main point is that none of these can be used as some definitive statistic. My eyes tell me more about who is at fault than a stat (now that I have a DVR and can look over the entire sequence when a goal is scored, etc.).
When looking at past events, statistical data is far and away a better measure of a player's performance than solely relying on human observation and human memory (even with DVR and things like that). Its not even close. If a player played well, then there would be some statistical data to suggest it. And if a player played bad then there would also be some statistical data to suggest it. That is not to say that it is any better of a predictor of future performance, but they are exponentially better in describing past events. Hard data, when used correctly, is basically always better than the human eye and memory.

I can usually see the other viewpoint of things, but no one's eyes (even a trained scout) are more reliable than hard statistical data in describing past performance. Its just not humanly possible, and its backed up by mounds of scientific research. Our eyes and memory are just not that reliable. They just aren't. I guess its hard to accept, but it is a reality. Compared to some other defenseman on our team, Stuart has just not been that good. I don't know how he will perform in the future, but there is no way one could reasonably argue that he has had a good season despite every stat saying otherwise. To do so, one would have to place all of the blame on everyone else and excuse him from all responsibility. That is a huge, huge leap of faith. There may be other factors to explain his poor play (injuries, taking on too much responsibility, playing with checking line players, getting worn down, etc.) but those just explain why he played bad and why he should improve in the future. They don't in anyway suggest that he actually played well for the entire stretch of this season. If you want to say that he will be a huge part of our team going forward and will be an asset on the second pairing, then I really can't argue with that b/c that is your opinion. But, the argument seems to be that he actually had a very good season so far this year despite there being no data to suggest it. And, there is just no way I can get behind that type of thinking given how faulty our memories are.

Quote:


Grind lines should have poor Corsi ratings, should they not? If they're told to dump the puck, waste time off the clock, try to get the puck off the other team, etc., the very philosophy is at odds with Corsi is measuring (and by that virtue, declaring it is the "right" thing to do).
They will have poor Corsi ratings and I mentioned on the 1st page that you also need to look at defensive zone%. You also can just look at the defensive stats to gauge a player's defensive value. That is why its not the be all, end all. Stuart is a defensive d man and at the beginning of this discussion, I looked at his defensive stats. Good grind lines will have poor Corsi ratings but they won't have bad defensive statistics. They would have great defensive statistics. We don't see that with Stuart. Hence, the problem is not with his Corsi rating. Its with his defensive statistics.

Quote:
Just like the shot blocking example, it's the wrong thing to do if you're interested in those figures, but any coach worth his salt will tell you otherwise.
This is a straw man. No one ever said it was the wrong thing to do and I already explained that in my last post.


Last edited by Roy S: 03-28-2010 at 07:26 PM.
Roy S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2010, 10:44 AM
  #44
Roy S
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,780
vCash: 500
Not to dump on Stuart, but...

http://www.ontheforecheck.com/2010/3...least-valuable

Its by no means saying he is the worst player or anything like that. He suffers b/c he is compared to Lidstrom and suffers b/c of Kronwall's lengthy absence and the other injuries, and on and on it goes. Basically, he just looks really bad compared to his other Red Wing teammates.

This article looks at who has had the toughest assignments in the NHL and tries to put the "least valuable players" in context. However, he doesn't show up in this one, either:

http://www.puckprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=504

I don't know what else to say. There are plenty of reasons why he has struggled and why he may not in the future. But, to this point, he has just not been good this season. Every single stat says the exact same thing and every piece of data compiled says the same thing. Babcock hasn't talked about him in glowing terms in a long, long time. He was consistently mentioned as the guy who would perhaps most benefit from the Olympic Break, and it was not b/c he was playing so well before the break. Even watching him play, I don't get what all the fuss is about or why some think he is a great player. I see him making a lot of mistakes on the ice and making a lot of poor decisions and he is a well below average offensive player.

IDK. I'm done with the subject. He has not had a good season, but it doesn't mean that he won't have good performances in the future. And, that is all that really matters.

Roy S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2010, 11:00 AM
  #45
Jussha
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,540
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scottwood View Post
Not to dump on Stuart, but...

http://www.ontheforecheck.com/2010/3...least-valuable

Its by no means saying he is the worst player or anything like that. He suffers b/c he is compared to Lidstrom and suffers b/c of Kronwall's lengthy absence and the other injuries, and on and on it goes. Basically, he just looks really bad compared to his other Red Wing teammates.

This article looks at who has had the toughest assignments in the NHL and tries to put the "least valuable players" in context. However, he doesn't show up in this one, either:

http://www.puckprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=504

I don't know what else to say. There are plenty of reasons why he has struggled and why he may not in the future. But, to this point, he has just not been good this season. Every single stat says the exact same thing and every piece of data compiled says the same thing. Babcock hasn't talked about him in glowing terms in a long, long time. He was consistently mentioned as the guy who would perhaps most benefit from the Olympic Break, and it was not b/c he was playing so well before the break. Even watching him play, I don't get what all the fuss is about or why some think he is a great player. I see him making a lot of mistakes on the ice and making a lot of poor decisions and he is a well below average offensive player.

IDK. I'm done with the subject. He has not had a good season, but it doesn't mean that he won't have good performances in the future. And, that is all that really matters.

Is there a way to look at Stuart's CORSI though for the first 40 games of the season and then the following 20-30 games? imo he did seem to have a very first solid 40 games and as a defensive dman seemed like he was giving consistent good play. However, basically once the new year started he was quite horrible and a lot of his mistakes resulted in timely goals against us. If this could be done, it would be interesting to compare his first 40 game corsi to the next 30 games and see if CORSI would show him as having a much better season.

Also, Stuart seems to be very good defensively in a PK situation, but not as much ES. Can this be separated as well by CORSI, cause an area where he appears to excel, that being PK defense, would favor a poorer corsi cause you are for most part hemmed in your zone trying to block and prevent shots.

I haven't had a chance to read all the CORSI stuff yet, but that might make Stuart's overall CORSI lower than it should be if EV and PK are put together

Also for dmen who get to play the PP it may make theirs arbitrarily higher if CORSI is just for overall TOI

Jussha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2010, 11:11 AM
  #46
Roy S
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,780
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jussha View Post
Is there a way to look at Stuart's CORSI though for the first 40 games of the season and then the following 20-30 games? imo he did seem to have a very first solid 40 games and as a defensive dman seemed like he was giving consistent good play. However, basically once the new year started he was quite horrible and a lot of his mistakes resulted in timely goals against us. If this could be done, it would be interesting to compare his first 40 game corsi to the next 30 games and see if CORSI would show him as having a much better season.

Also, Stuart seems to be very good defensively in a PK situation, but not as much ES. Can this be separated as well by CORSI, cause an area where he appears to excel, that being PK defense, would favor a poorer corsi cause you are for most part hemmed in your zone trying to block and prevent shots.

I haven't had a chance to read all the CORSI stuff yet, but that might make Stuart's overall CORSI lower than it should be if EV and PK are put together

Also for dmen who get to play the PP it may make theirs arbitrarily higher if CORSI is just for overall TOI
We shouldn't get hung up on Corsi. That looks at overall play at ES and b/c he's a one dimensional player, he is not going to look that good in that stat. He's supposed to be a defensive d man and should probably be judged on even strength defensive stats and PK stats. I can't find a breakdown by month or anything, but his defensive stats plummeted over the course of the last 30 to 40 games. He was pretty solid up to that point (though, I think calling him our best d men was a huge stretch and unfair to Lidstrom). But, he couldn't sustain that level of play over the long haul and that has basically been the criticism of Stuart for his entire NHL career. He lacks consistency and doesn't always play up to his abilities.

Roy S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2010, 11:15 AM
  #47
Jussha
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,540
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scottwood View Post
We shouldn't get hung up on Corsi. That looks at overall play at ES and b/c he's a one dimensional player, he is not going to look that good in that stat. He's supposed to be a defensive d man and should probably be judged on even strength defensive stats and PK stats. I can't find a breakdown by month or anything, but his defensive stats plummeted over the course of the last 30 to 40 games. He was pretty solid up to that point (though, I think calling him our best d men was a huge stretch and unfair to Lidstrom). But, he couldn't sustain that level of play over the long haul and that has basically been the criticism of Stuart for his entire NHL career. He lacks consistency and doesn't always play up to his abilities.
I think the reason those statements were being made because Stuart was playing at a higher level than normal for himself in those first 40 games, and although Lidstrom wasn't horrible or amazing by any means, relative to what Lidstrom is capable of, he looked like he might be in a decline. However, he has been very good the past 30 games, and hopefully it really was just maybe minor injuries nagging away at him that caused his play in the first 40 games to not be what we are accustomed to from him

Jussha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2010, 11:22 AM
  #48
Harold Snepsts
Registered User
 
Harold Snepsts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 5,327
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jussha View Post
I think the reason those statements were being made because Stuart was playing at a higher level than normal for himself in those first 40 games, and although Lidstrom wasn't horrible or amazing by any means, relative to what Lidstrom is capable of, he looked like he might be in a decline. However, he has been very good the past 30 games, and hopefully it really was just maybe minor injuries nagging away at him that caused his play in the first 40 games to not be what we are accustomed to from him
Stuart definitely was. He was a horse for this team in the first half of the season and one of the MVPs, stepping up during all the injuries. Then he seemed to hit the wall before the Olympic break and started making noticeably bad plays. Maybe the extra minutes caught up with him or something. Or it was the adjustment of getting guys back. I don't know, but he had an awful stretch there before he recovered.

As for CORSI, honestly unlike baseball, I think there's just too many variables going on at once for much useful in-depth statistical analysis of that degree. Ultimately it comes down to watching the games, and trying not to let your bias as a fan overwhelm what's happening.

Harold Snepsts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2010, 11:30 AM
  #49
Fugu
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
I don't think I ever said he was better than Lidstrom. I did point out that he was getting more ES IT than any other D on the team for a while, and/or that it was very, very close to defensemen who are getting 1.6-2x as much money. If you then factor in that he was playing the majority of that time with the lesser offensive players due to injuries pushing up whoever wasn't injured to the top unit and everyone else getting reshuffled, you couldn't really expect the same level of offensive performance. THEN if you factor in that the team put a lot more focus on defense (which will depress their shots on goal) while not being able to keep the shots against down to the levels of the recently great teams..... the Corsi will look worse. A dump/chase team by virtue of having the puck less may in fact have fewer shots on goal (although a trapping style will limit it for both teams, for example).

It's also difficult to reconcile the quality of shots allowed. The team may have a strategy to not worry too much about shots allowed (and to block shots more) from the perimeters as long as they're not allowing the higher quality shots. If you consider Babcock's philosophy of simply putting the puck on net as much as possible, the return rate may not be higher than 1 out of three sniping chances in close. He's counting on scrums and close-in battles that simply get him a goal. He doesn't care if it took five shots or ten as long as he comes out with goal for in the sequence (and manages to maintain pressure in the offensive zone).

  Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2010, 02:13 PM
  #50
Roy S
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,780
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
I don't think I ever said he was better than Lidstrom. I did point out that he was getting more ES IT than any other D on the team for a while, and/or that it was very, very close to defensemen who are getting 1.6-2x as much money. If you then factor in that he was playing the majority of that time with the lesser offensive players due to injuries pushing up whoever wasn't injured to the top unit and everyone else getting reshuffled, you couldn't really expect the same level of offensive performance. THEN if you factor in that the team put a lot more focus on defense (which will depress their shots on goal) while not being able to keep the shots against down to the levels of the recently great teams..... the Corsi will look worse. A dump/chase team by virtue of having the puck less may in fact have fewer shots on goal (although a trapping style will limit it for both teams, for example).

It's also difficult to reconcile the quality of shots allowed. The team may have a strategy to not worry too much about shots allowed (and to block shots more) from the perimeters as long as they're not allowing the higher quality shots. If you consider Babcock's philosophy of simply putting the puck on net as much as possible, the return rate may not be higher than 1 out of three sniping chances in close. He's counting on scrums and close-in battles that simply get him a goal. He doesn't care if it took five shots or ten as long as he comes out with goal for in the sequence (and manages to maintain pressure in the offensive zone).
Our team Corsi rating is actually outstanding and I believe its 2nd best in the West, only behind Chicago. So, I don't really follow what you're saying b/c our style or play this year has not really hindered our team Corsi rating. We've had bad luck in the shooting department as the other teams save percentage against us has been around .930 all year. That is not sustainable. Our offense has probably been better than our goals per game suggests, but we've had some bad luck (and a bunch of injuries). We are 3rd in shot differential in the entire NHL and average the 2nd most shots on goal per game in the NHL. There has been a noticeable drop off in our shot differential compared to the previous 4 seasons under Babcock, but that is mostly explained by the rash of injuries. Its been returning to previous levels once we got our players healthy.

Stuart's main problem is keeping goals off the board while on the ice. Its been 2 straight years where he has struggled in that department. I don't care what his Corsi says or anything like that. I already know that can underrate defensive players. Defensive stats, though, will not underrate said players. Corsi hates Ryan Johnson, but ESGAON/60 minutes shows that he excels in keeping goals off the board. Corsi hates Drew Miller in comparison to other forwards on our team. But, the defensive stats don't. He has allowed the fewest goals against on ice per 60 minutes among our forwards.

Ideally, we would have a publicly available tracking of individual performance that looks at individual scoring chances allowed, crucial giveaways in the defensive zone and things like that. I am almost positive that every team does do something like that as a form of quantitative scouting (which is another form of statistical analysis) or have consultants or some outside analytical department do that. It would make no sense not to do that. However, fans don't have that info publicly available and we have to go with what we got b/c I doubt any of us have the time to re-watch every game and then grade each individual player. Maybe Stuart would look a lot better with incredibly detailed quantitative scouting? I won't rule that out at all b/c that is very close minded and I come from an academic setting where we are always taught to keep asking questions and to think critically. Only the Red Wings front office really knows that. But, given that we do not have access to that info, its hard to just assume its everyone else fault and Stuart has just been the victim of being on the ice at the wrong time for 2 straight regular seasons. Its absolutely possible. For all I know, I could be wrong. I'm certainly not perfect in analyzing data or watching games with my eyes and I don't intend to give off that impression.


Last edited by Roy S: 03-29-2010 at 02:22 PM.
Roy S is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:06 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.