an interesting read david.
fundamentally I have two basic disagreements with the advanced stats arguments used against weber.
1)as the article you referenced touched on, weber 'chooses' to pass the puck off to more mobile puckmovers like suter and josi, because he knows they are really better puck movers. and as a result his zone exit numbers look awful. it's not that he couldn't exit the zone, it's that he chooses better options to do so. it's as if he gets punished statistically because the preds have had the luxury of good puck movers paired with him
Actually, if Josi and the forwards were
better at getting the puck out of the zone once Weber got the puck to them, then Weber's numbers would look good. The numbers aren't tracking Weber's ability to exit the zone, but the ability of the
line to exit the zone (or lines since he's going to be out there with different formations). In this case, the numbers are helpful as they can identify the best
combinations of players to use to get a successful zone exit- particularly when combined with plain ol' eyesight on what a player does best.
Another takeaway here is that Weber is much too predictable in trying to get the puck to someone else when the better play is to start to bring the puck out himself. Teams don't even have to pressure him, they can overwhelm the other 4 NSH players believing that Weber will attempt to force the puck to one of them over bringing it out himself. I personally believe that he'd win a Norris or two if he could improve upon that.
2)shots for and against as a measurement against weber are really a skewed stat. there is no doubt that weber's man tends to shoot faster and farther out than he would against other not as physically threatening defensemen. so had you rather have a defensemen that forces more farther out low percentage shots (which drastically makes his shots against numbers look worse) or a guy who gives up fewer but higher percentage shots closer in? I personally would blindly guess that weber's man probably has one of the lowest shooting percentages in the league.
again, I see too much reliance on advanced stat numbers by too many to try to quantify what is really happening on ice.
Generally speaking, I feel the shots for/against numbers aren't skewed at all, but the interpretation of those numbers are way too player-centric and most discussion does not actually try to understand the numbers beyond "player A is not good" (so to speak).
Weber's numbers aren't bad due to the first or second shot in a defensive possession- those are pretty much exactly what you'd want: rushed or from the outside and generally poor in quality. With Weber, it goes back to his biggest issue. He'll separate a man from the puck from below the goal line and put it up the boards to a covered forward (often a mismatched forward). That turnover can lead to one or more quick shots on net while Weber is scrambling to recover from a prior great play.
Weber's initial decision with the puck can be faulted as well as the inability of his linemates to complete the zone exit. That leads to an extended shift and/or higher quality shots. Those are reflected in the statistics, but few look beyond that to understand why the statistics show what they show.
More specifically to triggrman's point, Corsi is not nearly as flawed as plus/minus. Both, at their core, reward and/or penalize the entire line based upon the results on the ice. Corsi is much more nuanced in trying to take into account line combinations, quality of competition, ice time, etc. That said, it still boils down to a single calculated value that most people attribute directly to the player instead of trying to understand the role that player has in the coach's schema, the player's abilities and deficiencies, and his linemates. Those that jump directly to that Corsi number without further evaluation can foster that feeling of Corsi being as flawed as plus/minus.
Human beings tend to like "black and white" answers instead deeply understanding a subject (and I'm no exception).
Now, analytics analysis geared toward the tendencies of the coach's preferred strategy could be very interesting to see. I'm not too sure that we see much of that today. The Subban/Weber trade shows some signs of that, particularly from Nashville.
