Confirmed Trade: [CGY/ARI] Michael Stone at 50% retained FOR 2017 3rd round pick and a 2018 cndl 5th

[BillDineen]

It's John Chayka, I bet he got a fantastic return from Calgary.

Finally, lets get the trades rolling

... time to criticize an HFBoards darling. He should have waited for a higher return.

 

[Machinehead]

Yeah basing on opinion on a chart is moronic. Advanced stats do not make someone good/bad they are not the be all and end all.

Actually it's an opinion based on shots which are kind of important. Ask every player in every interview ever.

"Um, you know, gotta get pucks on net, you know, and uh, pucks in deep, and uh, you know, yeah, uh, shots to the net."

 

[Machinehead]

I was hoping you could explain it more. A friend recommended this person to me, so I thought I'd share it here. I don't completely understand it, didn't seem like my friend really did either .

Well in the top two, the blue box is your team and the red box is the player.

You wanna be past the NHL line upper right, where you see "good"

A guy like Bergeron who is consistently great at corsiREL will have have his blue box in the top right and his red box in the bottom left.

A guy like Dan Girardi will have a blue box towards the bottom left and the red box towards the bottom right.

Stone's blue box is slightly lower and both are way below the line. It's telling us that Arizona is terrible and Stone is somehow worse.

The skater context one is interesting. Blue is Quality of Teammates and red is Quality of Competition. In this case, it's close, so Stone remains unaffected by HF's precious context.

If you wanna see an example of a truly buried player, check out David Savard on Columbus. What Tortorella does to him should legally be classified as torture.

 

[Lunatik]

Actually it's an opinion based on shots which are kind of important. Ask every player in every interview ever.

"Um, you know, gotta get pucks on net, you know, and uh, pucks in deep, and uh, you know, yeah, uh, shots to the net."

It's +/- for shots and we all know how useless +/- can be. This is the exact reason I loathe advanced stats because people like you will base their opinions on nothing more than some stupid chart rather than actually seeing the player play. It give absolutely zero context, which is needed for absolutely any statistic.

 

[kurtcobang]

Good trade for CGY. Basically no risk for them and D depth for a playoff push never hurts

 

[Machinehead]

It's +/- for shots and we all know how useless +/- can be. This is the exact reason I loathe advanced stats because people like you will base their opinions on nothing more than some stupid chart rather than actually seeing the player play. It give absolutely zero context, which is needed for absolutely any statistic.

We try to include context (which is literally a section in one of the charts posted in this thread) but it gets ignored.

 

[Machinehead]

Good trade for CGY. Basically no risk for them and D depth for a playoff push never hurts

I do like this move for Calgary.

He's better than Wideman and cost basically Monopoly money.

 

[Lunatik]

We try to include context (which is literally a section in one of the charts posted in this thread) but it gets ignored.

Simply put, if you think Russell was bad in Calgary, you are wrong. I don't give a **** what some stupid chart says. If you watched him in St. Louis, then watched him in Calgary the difference was night and day. Hockey is a game where not everything can be measured on some stupid graph.

 

[Machinehead]

Simply put, if you think Russell was bad in Calgary, you are wrong. I don't give a **** what some stupid chart says. If you watched him in St. Louis, then watched him in Calgary the difference was night and day. Hockey is a game where not everything can be measured on some stupid graph.

I don't care what you think you watched.

Since 2011 only Dan Girardi has had more shots taken against him than Kris Russell.

It's like telling me a 40 goal scorer can't score because "I watch him and I think I don't see him score"

 

[Mobiandi]

I don't care what you think you watched.

Since 2011 only Dan Girardi has had more shots taken against him than Kris Russell.

It's like telling me a 40 goal scorer can't score because "I watch him and I think I don't see him score"

That figure has to be skewed from 3 seasons of Hartley hockey

 

[Machinehead]

That figure has to be skewed from 3 seasons of Hartley hockey

If it were anybody else, I would agree, but Russell has been a walking invitation to shoot since he entered the league and still is right now on Edmonton.

 

[Lunatik]

I don't care what you think you watched.

Since 2011 only Dan Girardi has had more shots taken against him than Kris Russell.

It's like telling me a 40 goal scorer can't score because "I watch him and I think I don't see him score"

Only a advanced stats bible thumper would argue shots mean more than goals. People liek you give analytics a bad name.

 

[Machinehead]

Only a advanced stats bible thumper would argue shots mean more than goals. People liek you give analytics a bad name.

They're not, but it's impossible for defensemen to prevent goals allowing a ton of shots.

https://hockey-graphs.com/2014/07/0...-no-sustainable-control-over-save-percentage/

 

[Beville]

There I was hoping the Sens could've tried for him...

 

[Lunatik]

They're not, but it's impossible for defensemen to prevent goals allowing a ton of shots.

https://hockey-graphs.com/2014/07/0...-no-sustainable-control-over-save-percentage/

Yet during his 3 year career as a Flame he was on the ice for more 5v5 goals for than against despite being on the ice for more shots. Strange that reality backs up what I say more than some chart made by someone too bust staring at a spreadsheet to actually watch a game.

 

[MMC]

Well in the top two, the blue box is your team and the red box is the player.

You wanna be past the NHL line upper right, where you see "good"

A guy like Bergeron who is consistently great at corsiREL will have have his blue box in the top right and his red box in the bottom left.

A guy like Dan Girardi will have a blue box towards the bottom left and the red box towards the bottom right.

Stone's blue box is slightly lower and both are way below the line. It's telling us that Arizona is terrible and Stone is somehow worse.

The skater context one is interesting. Blue is Quality of Teammates and red is Quality of Competition. In this case, it's close, so Stone remains unaffected by HF's precious context.

If you wanna see an example of a truly buried player, check out David Savard on Columbus. What Tortorella does to him should legally be classified as torture.

So what would you say Stone is at this point? Seems to me like a good #5-6 that was getting more minutes than he should have because he played on a bad team.

 

[Machinehead]

Yet during his 3 year career as a Flame he was on the ice for more 5v5 goals for than against despite being on the ice for more shots. Strange that reality backs up what I say more than some chart made by someone too bust staring at a spreadsheet to actually watch a game.

Yeah, there's this thing called goaltending...

and we all know how useless +/- can be

...and goaltending is exactly why.

Goaltening doesn't affect shot metrics which is why it's considered reliable when +/- is not. Goaltending skews the **** out +/-. And it's not about good or bad goaltending; it just throws a giant wrench into the data. (talk about context)

Let's say Russell never left the ice. He plays 60 minutes a game.

In that scenario, the other team would average 31 shots on goal per game.

Now you've convinced yourself that this is an effective way to prevent goals and I'm not going to talk you out of it, but just think about this:

Only five teams in the NHL allow 31 shots against per game. Three of five are in the bottom five of the NHL in goals against, one is 18th, and the other is 8th. The team that's 8th has the 3rd best save percentage in the league.

So you're looking at a 60% chance of being bottom five in the league at goals against and an 80% chance of being bottom half if Russell never leaves the ice.

But again, you've convinced yourself that Russell stopped the TWO THOUSAND shots on goal he allowed as a member of the Flames and not his goaltenders.

 

[Machinehead]

So what would you say Stone is at this point? Seems to me like a good #5-6 that was getting more minutes than he should have because he played on a bad team.

Either that, or a decent #4 just having a season from hell.

Will be interested to see what he does a pretty solid Flames team.

 

[TimThomas24]

Is this guy really a top 4 D? I never see him but was just assuming he's a #5.

 

[Ol' Jase]

Yet during his 3 year career as a Flame he was on the ice for more 5v5 goals for than against despite being on the ice for more shots. Strange that reality backs up what I say more than some chart made by someone too bust staring at a spreadsheet to actually watch a game.

Don't bother, man.

This guy has actually claimed specifically he knows more about the game then players, coaches, and GM's.

Don't waste your time.

 

[Machinehead]

Don't bother, man.

This guy has actually claimed specifically he knows more about the game then players, coaches, and GM's.

Don't waste your time.

Go ask Sabres fans about Dan Bylsma

 

[Mobiandi]

Yeah, there's this thing called goaltending...



...and goaltending is exactly why.

Goaltening doesn't affect shot metrics which is why it's considered reliable when +/- is not. Goaltending skews the **** out +/-. And it's not about good or bad goaltending; it just throws a giant wrench into the data. (talk about context)

Let's say Russell never left the ice. He plays 60 minutes a game.

In that scenario, the other team would average 31 shots on goal per game.

Now you've convinced yourself that this is an effective way to prevent goals and I'm not going to talk you out of it, but just think about this:

Only five teams in the NHL allow 31 shots against per game. Three of five are in the bottom five of the NHL in goals against, one is 18th, and the other is 8th. The team that's 8th has the 3rd best save percentage in the league.

So you're looking at a 60% chance of being bottom five in the league at goals against and an 80% chance of being bottom half if Russell never leaves the ice.

But again, you've convinced yourself that Russell stopped the TWO THOUSAND shots on goal he allowed as a member of the Flames and not his goaltenders.

But Calgary's goaltending was among the worst in the league during Russell's tenure here.

In 13-14, Ramo was the 32nd best goalie in the league and Reto Berra was 49th
In 14-15, Hiller was 19th and Ramo was 31st
In 15-16, Ramo was 36th and Hiller was 48th and Calgary was last in GA.

 

[Bounces R Way]

All the context you should need is Dave Tippet and the Arizona Coyotes. And maybe Dennis Wideman. They have all been a special sort of awful for much of the year. The Coyotes' second highest scoring forwards are Martin Hanzal and Tobias Reider with 24pts each. People act like it's only the defenceman's job to get the puck out of the zone, if your forwards are constantly being outplayed then as a Dman you're going to be defending a lot.

 

[Ol' Jase]

Go ask Sabres fans about Dan Bylsma

I know, man.

You're the smartest guy in all of hockey. I haven't forgotten.

I did think that Zone Starts have no correlation to Corsi in any way shape or form, as per you, so I don't understand how any chart graphing the two on any comparative level is valid.

Oh, wait, yes I do...

 

[Machinehead]

But Calgary's goaltending was among the worst in the league during Russell's tenure here.

In 13-14, Ramo was the 30th best goalie in the league and Reto Berra was 56th
In 14-15, Hiller was 20th and Ramo was 35th
In 15-16, Ramo was 32nd and Hiller was 50th and Calgary was last in GA.

You're right, but like I said, it's not even about good/bad goaltending, it's just a giant wrench into the data.

Russell is lucky. It's that simple.

Maybe it sounds weird, but the thing about goal-based data is the sample sucks. It gives you 0-7 events per game to extrapolate from. Shot-based data gives you in the ballpark of 100 events per game.

It doesn't take as much luck as you would think to be in the right place at the right time to be on the ice for the saves.

And if it does sound weird that he's a lucky player, I'd love to hear a better explanation as to how he kept 2,000 shots on goal out of the net.

They can't all be low-quality. A team will average a high-danger chance once in every three shots. Even if we're assuming Russell is great and we're doubling that to 1 in 6, that's still 334 good cracks at Calgary's net that he had absolutely nothing to do with preventing, but he was only on the ice for 168 goals. What happened to the other ones?