Lance Bouma

[1989]

Great player. Stupid GM.

The only way I would want to see Risebrough come back to the Flames is to be in the ticket selling department since he cant play anymore. He should not have anything to do with hockey management or scouting and developing players

By the way, if you dont remember, this is what Risebrough did

Toronto Maple Leafs acquired
Doug Gilmour
Jamie Macoun
Kent Manderville
Ric Nattress
Rick Wamsley

Calgary Flames acquired

Craig Berube
Alexander Godynyuk
Gary Leeman
Michel Petit
Jeff Reese

I'm well aware, and it sucks that it happened.
But I guess I am not petty enough to hate on someone for doing something they thought was going to turn out okay. Some of the trades Sutter made have set back this organization for the last half a decade but I'd still welcome him back.

I never said I wanted Risebrough as GM or assistant GM or anything in upper front office. People have tried to put those words in my mouth but I never framed it that way. I think he could redeem himself as part of the alumni group in Calgary that is so strong, and he could find work as a scout or just be part of the alumni association in general.

I realize it's not going to happen, but it is what it is.

 

[Johnny Hoxville]

I'm well aware, and it sucks that it happened.
But I guess I am not petty enough to hate on someone for doing something they thought was going to turn out okay. Some of the trades Sutter made have set back this organization for the last half a decade but I'd still welcome him back.

I never said I wanted Risebrough as GM or assistant GM or anything in upper front office. People have tried to put those words in my mouth but I never framed it that way. I think he could redeem himself as part of the alumni group in Calgary that is so strong, and he could find work as a scout or just be part of the alumni association in general.

I realize it's not going to happen, but it is what it is.

Just to be clear, I know you never stated that you wanted him back as a GM. But for me personally, I will never forget what he did with Gilmour, and how he pushed out a guy like Niewy because of his ego. He was a great player no doubt, but I wouldn't be to excited to see him rejoin the Flames.

 

[OvermanKingGainer]

"Lance Bouma is a bad possession player"

That's what the numbers say. And since no one would confuse Bouma for Pavel Datsyuk, it's pretty safe to say he's not a great possession player.

But is he really that bad at "possession"?

In my opinion - no.

In the last two seasons, when not out there with one of our five not-so-great defensemen (Engelland, Smid, Russell, Wideman, Butler), Bouma's possession/CF in 5vs5 (Close) situations over a 318:01 minute sample size has been 50.3%. - in that span he was on the ice for 140 defensive zone faceoffs, 122 neutral zone faceoffs, and only 90 offensive faceoffs. This is a guy who was starting in the defensive zone about 14% more often than in the offensive zone, yet still finished as a positive possession player when on the ice with decent defensemen behind him.

So whenever someone pulls up a stat that tells you Bouma is a "bad possession player", just remember - possession is a teammate stat. When Bouma is on the ice with competent teammates, he is just fine. He won't light the world on fire but he won't drag the team down either.

 

[Lunatik]

Was it worth it to bump this thread to spew advanced stats.

So called possession numbers are extremely flawed because they don't actually measure possession. If you want to measure possession it's simple, track the time a team/player is in possession of the puck. All this crap does is measure shots/shooting attempts... Etc. if team A shoots from everywhere their possession numbers will be high, but if a team B cycles and looks for higher quality shot opportunities their possession numbers will be lower. Even though team B will likely have a much higher amount of time in possession. These numbers are so basic and remedial they tell the vaguest, smallest amount of the story. Without so much more information such as TIME OF POSSESSION or QUALITY SCORING CHANCES, they are as useful as a tit on a bull.

 

[Ace Rimmer]

Was it worth it to bump this thread to spew advanced stats.

Yes, because it's relevant.

My issue with using possession numbers (from my very limited understanding) is that thee stats penalize the player for blocked shots - why Russel is also a "poor" advanced stats player.

What would be nice is if someone broke down an "idiot's guide to advanced stats" to help people like me understand them better.

 

[OvermanKingGainer]

My issue with using possession numbers (from my very limited understanding) is that thee stats penalize the player for blocked shots - why Russel is also a "poor" advanced stats player.

Well, not quite. The basic SAT (corsi) stat ignores shotblocking, but uSAT, unblocked shot attempts (fenwick) factors in blocked shots. That's not why Russell is a "poor" advanced stats player - he's a poor advanced stats player because he often gets hemmed in the Flames zone and ices the puck his fair share. He blocks a lot more shots because of how hemmed-in he gets - the blocks are the symptom, not the cause.

In general, a good 5 man defensive unit should have a few outlets who can clear the puck and get it all the way down the ice. Bouma's a "poor" advanced stats player because most of the time, he's on the ice with at least three other guys simultaneously who don't function as outlets, nor does he, and he's used very defensively.

 

[Anglesmith]

/\ Definitely meshes with what we see.

 

[Johnny Hoxville]

Well, not quite. The basic SAT (corsi) stat ignores shotblocking, but uSAT, unblocked shot attempts (fenwick) factors in blocked shots. That's not why Russell is a "poor" advanced stats player - he's a poor advanced stats player because he often gets hemmed in the Flames zone and ices the puck his fair share. He blocks a lot more shots because of how hemmed-in he gets - the blocks are the symptom, not the cause.

In general, a good 5 man defensive unit should have a few outlets who can clear the puck and get it all the way down the ice. Bouma's a "poor" advanced stats player because most of the time, he's on the ice with at least three other guys simultaneously who don't function as outlets, nor does he, and he's used very defensively.

See I get that, but I also think it's flawed. As you say, it's a symptom and not the cause. Obviously when Russell blocks a shot, he's not in position to outlet the puck. But in instances that he IS, I think he does an above average job of getting the puck out of his own zone. So while that does explain his analytics, I also see the flaw with it because in other instances he is more than adequate at doing so.

 

[danmcd15]

See I get that, but I also think it's flawed. As you say, it's a symptom and not the cause. Obviously when Russell blocks a shot, he's not in position to outlet the puck. But in instances that he IS, I think he does an above average job of getting the puck out of his own zone. So while that does explain his analytics, I also see the flaw with it because in other instances he is more than adequate at doing so.

I'm a math and logic thinker so I appreciate advanced stats, but based on purely watching the game and as a fan, I am very comfortable when Russell is on the ice. I find he is excellent with the puck and makes good decisions when he needs to. Playing him with Hamilton will probably silence a lot of his advanced stat deficiencies. He played a lot of the year with Wideman last year and in my opinion, he isn't great in his own end which may be why their pairing was hemmed in more often than not. Russell spends a lot of time in front of the net it seems and I really dislike Wideman pressuring opponents forwards down low because he seems to lose those battles a fair bit.

 

[OvermanKingGainer]

See I get that, but I also think it's flawed. As you say, it's a symptom and not the cause. Obviously when Russell blocks a shot, he's not in position to outlet the puck. But in instances that he IS, I think he does an above average job of getting the puck out of his own zone. So while that does explain his analytics, I also see the flaw with it because in other instances he is more than adequate at doing so

The question would be, which instances occur more often? I mean, the difference between 43% and 50% is not huge - just watching a game it might appear to the eye like both instances occur equally often. What the analytics show is that one instance is happening a bit more often than the other. And when those sequences of getting hemmed in occur, yes, goals against do happen. And it's frustrating when the guys producing those goals are other teams' second tier guys like Matt Belesky and Rene Bourque.

I'm a math and logic thinker so I appreciate advanced stats, but based on purely watching the game and as a fan, I am very comfortable when Russell is on the ice. I find he is excellent with the puck and makes good decisions when he needs to.

I agree with this, but a big part of the problem is getting the puck in the first place. I don't fault Russell for being undersized but that's good reason not to pit him against top 6 forwards.

Playing him with Hamilton will probably silence a lot of his advanced stat deficiencies. He played a lot of the year with Wideman last year and in my opinion, he isn't great in his own end which may be why their pairing was hemmed in more often than not. Russell spends a lot of time in front of the net it seems and I really dislike Wideman pressuring opponents forwards down low because he seems to lose those battles a fair bit.

I'm also hoping this is the case, but Russell has also tanked Brodie in possession so I'm not all that optimistic.

 

[Anglesmith]

I also feel comfortable with Russel on he ice, but I acknowledge that a lot of that time is in his own zone. He does a great job in shutting down prime scoring chances, usually by blocking them, but he doesn't ultimately start thing back in the other direction, unfortunately.

 

[SmellOfVictory]

Was it worth it to bump this thread to spew advanced stats.

So called possession numbers are extremely flawed because they don't actually measure possession. If you want to measure possession it's simple, track the time a team/player is in possession of the puck. All this crap does is measure shots/shooting attempts... Etc. if team A shoots from everywhere their possession numbers will be high, but if a team B cycles and looks for higher quality shot opportunities their possession numbers will be lower. Even though team B will likely have a much higher amount of time in possession. These numbers are so basic and remedial they tell the vaguest, smallest amount of the story. Without so much more information such as TIME OF POSSESSION or QUALITY SCORING CHANCES, they are as useful as a tit on a bull.

Luckily for you, they're also tracking high percentage scoring chance ratios, now! And in the vast majority of cases, they align pretty closely with shot attempt differential.

 

[Lunatik]

Luckily for you, they're also tracking high percentage scoring chance ratios, now! And in the vast majority of cases, they align pretty closely with shot attempt differential.

It may align closely, but it will tell a different story with the outliers, teams like the Flames who generate their offense on turnovers and off the rush. The Flames led the NHL in takeaways by a pretty decent margin (40 more than 2nd place, 58 more than 3rd , 68 more than 4th and 149 more than 5th) and that is how we generate so much of our offense.

 

[Anglesmith]

Luckily for you, they're also tracking high percentage scoring chance ratios, now! And in the vast majority of cases, they align pretty closely with shot attempt differential.

Have to be careful about those stats, though. A lot of people like to use WOI, for instance, and those methods are very experimental if you delve into the criteria, and very suspect.

From a results standpoint, WOI's criteria manages to conclude that last season, the Oilers were a very good defensive team that did a great job of limiting high quality scoring chances, and the Flames were terrible. When you watched the games, the Oilers defence allowed way too many easy goals, while Calgary never really relied heavily on goaltending, so that tells you everything you need to know.

In terms of subjective matters such as high-quality scoring chances, there's still no adequate numerical substitute for watching the game. If you think about it, it's a very difficult problem. What kind of algorithm, for instance, would be able to differentiate between a guy being left open in the slot for a one-timer vs. a guy being shoved to the ice under heavy duress and managing to flub a weak backhander on net from the slot with no traffic?

 

[Johnny Hoxville]

The question would be, which instances occur more often? I mean, the difference between 43% and 50% is not huge - just watching a game it might appear to the eye like both instances occur equally often. What the analytics show is that one instance is happening a bit more often than the other. And when those sequences of getting hemmed in occur, yes, goals against do happen. And it's frustrating when the guys producing those goals are other teams' second tier guys like Matt Belesky and Rene Bourque.

That is the downside with Russell, he is somewhat small in size for a dman and more prone to getting hemmed in his own zone. I would confidently say though that he's superior to Wideman at carrying the puck out of his own zone and makes a much better outlet pass when transitioning from offence to defence.

Considering shot blocks and the effect that has, and that he is prone to getting pinched in his own zone when facing a strong forecheck, well I can see how his analytics are not great. In saying all that, those are his drawbacks, I feel he's a well above average dman and does many things very well. I think he's a huge asset to any D-core in the NHL.

 

[Dertell]

From a results standpoint, WOI's criteria manages to conclude that last season, the Oilers were a very good defensive team that did a great job of limiting high quality scoring chances, and the Flames were terrible. When you watched the games, the Oilers defence allowed way too many easy goals, while Calgary never really relied heavily on goaltending, so that tells you everything you need to know.

Want to know who were dead last at allowing both high-danger chances and scoring chances, according to WOI?

The Oilers.

Why do flames fans repeat this lie that the Oilers were adv stats darling in any way?

You should re-watch the last ten game or so of regular season because the flames depended a lot on their goaltending and that was very clear just by watching the game. Even before that it wasn't pretty when Russell was on ice. Part of it was because of his habits of camping in the danger zone, conceding lots of room for the opposite team to shoot where they wanted.

 

[Anglesmith]

Want to know who were dead last at allowing both high-danger chances and scoring chances, according to WOI?

The Oilers.

Why do flames fans repeat this lie that the Oilers were adv stats darling in any way?

You should re-watch the last ten game or so of regular season because the flames depended a lot on their goaltending and that was very clear just by watching the game. Even before that it wasn't pretty when Russell was on ice. Part of it was because of his habits of camping in the danger zone, conceding lots of room for the opposite team to shoot where they wanted.

I got that from a guy who works for WOI on this site, so don't shoot the messenger.

Every time I think I find something on that site, it typically turns out to mean something completely different.

 

[InfinityIggy]

OKG, you should consider writing some articles. Your longer posts are really good at breaking down specific topics into full discussions.

 

[Johnny Hoxville]

OKG, you should consider writing some articles. Your longer posts are really good at breaking down specific topics into full discussions.

That sounded like an invitation to me.