You know what they really need?

[brelic]

Well, just looked up "Schultz" and "Corsi" on Google, and the first few hits are two different articles on how Nick Schultz has the worst Corsi in the league (with Min and Edm). One from 2012 and one from the end of last season in March 2014.

 

I thought maybe the eye test was failing me so I went up to look his current Corsi stats. Not good. So far he has a 46 CF%

 

Ranked near the bottom of the league are Blair Jones (36.7), Coburn (36.9), Akeson (38.2), and VandeVelde (38.9). In fact, most of our team is near the bottom of the NHL. MacDonald is at 43, Couturier is at 43.3, Lecavalier is at 41, Bellemare is at 46.

 

So I started wondering just who the heck on our team was above 50 (more shots directed at the opposing net than at ours when they're on the ice).

 

It's a short list. Cola (50.8), Simmonds and Raffl (52.6), Voracek (53) and Giroux (53.1). Four regulars and a new guy. Our best guy, Giroux, is ranked 212th in the league. So I started looking up the list..... seems he's behind such puck possession luminaries like Upshall, Mike Hoffman (who??) and Adam Lowry. Ok, all kidding aside, most of the guys in the top 200 are the ones you'd expect (Crosby, Stamkos, Doughty, et al), the ones having great starts (Toffoli, Brock Nelson), and then there's a whole bunch of them I suspect are 'beneficiaries' of playing on strong lines or with strong players for parts of each game. Shawn Thornton might fit in that category. Dan Carcillo (59.5, 26th in the NHL) is definitely in that category.

 

I guess my question is what does this all mean? What is the implication of having a bad team Corsi, or the vast majority (75%) of your players below 50?

 

I remember reading something about no team having won the Stanley Cup with a negative Corsi (below 50). And it's apparently a very good predictor of playoff qualification and playoff performance. 

 

In other words, it would appear we're headed for some serious disappointment if it doesn't get turned around

 

Any Corsi experts want to chime in? 

 

I'll try to find that graph on playoff performance/qualification.

 

EDIT: In case you're interested: http://www.puckalytics.com/skatercorsistats.html

[OccamsRazor]

The related question for me is if you remove Schultz, does that affect Del Zotto's game? 

 

He's been our best defenseman since moving away from Schenn and being paired with Schultz. I don't know how much of it is related to the pairing and how much to the other moving parts on defense that went down, the opponents, how our forwards played, etc.

 

But if DZ is playing so well right now with Schultz as his steady partner, would you risk messing that up as a coach?

 

I'd keep Schenn on the bench, personally. He's easily the worst of our 7 defensemen. I can't say that he's worse than CC yet because I"ve only seen two games, but I wouldn't be surprised if that were the case.

 

It's not realistic to bench MacDonald or Coburn, but completely realistic to make Schenn a healthy scratch for a handful of games.

Good points. So just trade Mcdud......problem solved!!

[murraycraven]

Good points. So just trade Mcdud......problem solved!!

 

make it happen!!! PLEASE!

[peter puck]

Patience is what they need most. You get the chicken by hatching the egg not smashing it. A little more cowbell wouldn't hurt either.

[ruxpin]

I'm honestly not seeing what people are seeing in Shultz.

 

If all that is being said is that a #7 guy has been put into the first pair and his head hasn't exploded, I can get behind that.  He hasn't completely embarrassed himself, and I guess that's all you can ask for from a perennially horrible defenseman you signed to be your #7.

 

I guess he's okay on a third pair, but I haven't seen the "he's played really well" that is being thrown around about him either here or on some of the broadcasts.  I suspect what has happened is that people who watch predominantly Flyers' hockey have forgotten what an actual good defenseman looks like (since it has been so long) so that Shultz somehow passes for that criteria.

 

I'm only impressed that a #7 guy steps into the minutes he has.  And like I said, he hasn't been an utter disaster, so that's a good thing.  But impressive or "good?"  Not really.  He would so completely sit when MacDonald and Coburn get back in the lineup.  It's not even a question for me.

[flyercanuck]

@ruxpin

 

If you're a Flyers defenceman, and you haven't been an utter disaster, then that's not only impressive...it's prettty damn great!

[ruxpin]

In other words, it would appear we're headed for some serious disappointment if it doesn't get turned around

 

I enjoyed your post and learned some things, but sadly don't know enough about Corsi to answer any of your points.  But I couldn't resist the above.  For anyone to have "serious disappointment" they would have had to actually expect anything serious from this crew.  If that's the case, they deserve not only disappointment but a coupon for a lobotomy reversal.  This is, at best, a "sneak into the first round because other teams tanked but die a horrible death in the first round" team.

[flyercanuck]

I enjoyed your post and learned some things, but sadly don't know enough about Corsi to answer any of your points.  But I couldn't resist the above.  For anyone to have "serious disappointment" they would have had to actually expect anything serious from this crew.  If that's the case, they deserve not only disappointment but a coupon for a lobotomy reversal.  This is, at best, a "sneak into the first round because other teams tanked but die a horrible death in the first round" team.

 

 

Yip. And going forward I'd much rather grab one of those top ten picks in this draft. 

[ruxpin]

@ruxpin

 

If you're a Flyers defenceman, and you haven't been an utter disaster, then that's not only impressive...it's prettty damn great!

 

 

Yeah, valid point.  I was kind of thinking similarly when posting.  So in the sense that a #7 who has completely sucked elsewhere stepped into a pretty big role and was NOT an epic disaster, good on him.

 

But objectively...meh.   The thing I'll give him is that MDZ inexplicably played better next to him.   I don't have any answer to why that is.  Do you?   Even if I don't know "why" it does seem to be true.

 

Having said all of that, if not being a disaster enables the team to trade away some of its bigger salaried "he's not a complete disaster" defensemen, I'm okay with that.

[flyercanuck]

@ruxpin

 

I think MDZ is playing well because he's a talented guy who saw his lifelong dream fading away if he didn't get his act together. I don't really think Shultz is a catalyst in this, othere than he's his partner and Del Zotto is fighting for his life as an NHLer.

[brelic]

I'm honestly not seeing what people are seeing in Shultz.

 

If all that is being said is that a #7 guy has been put into the first pair and his head hasn't exploded, I can get behind that.  He hasn't completely embarrassed himself, and I guess that's all you can ask for from a perennially horrible defenseman you signed to be your #7.

 

I guess he's okay on a third pair, but I haven't seen the "he's played really well" that is being thrown around about him either here or on some of the broadcasts.  I suspect what has happened is that people who watch predominantly Flyers' hockey have forgotten what an actual good defenseman looks like (since it has been so long) so that Shultz somehow passes for that criteria.

 

I'm only impressed that a #7 guy steps into the minutes he has.  And like I said, he hasn't been an utter disaster, so that's a good thing.  But impressive or "good?"  Not really.  He would so completely sit when MacDonald and Coburn get back in the lineup.  It's not even a question for me.

 

 

Not that +/- is the arbiter of all good things, but Schultz is +10 over the last 8 games, with no games in the "-".

 

Here's are our 5 regulars over that period:

 

Schultz, +10. He's also top 20 in the league in blocked shots.

Del Zotto, +5

Streit, +4

Grossmann, +2

Schenn, +2

 

He looks fine to me on the ice. In other words, the minutes don't seem to be bogging him down.

[radoran]

Not that +/- is the arbiter of all good things, but Schultz is +10 over the last 8 games, with no games in the "-".

 

Here's are our 5 regulars over that period:

 

Schultz, +10. He's also top 20 in the league in blocked shots.

Del Zotto, +5

Streit, +4

Grossmann, +2

Schenn, +2

 

He looks fine to me on the ice. In other words, the minutes don't seem to be bogging him down.

 

Honestly, he's exactly what you want in a "7" and is the kind of "stay at home" guy you need to balance out a delZotto taking risks.

 

Over the long haul (not to mention playoffs), I think he gets more exposed, but in short bursts, he can be the responsible guy you need holding down the fort.

[ruxpin]

Honestly, he's exactly what you want in a "7" and is the kind of "stay at home" guy you need to balance out a delZotto taking risks.

 

Over the long haul (not to mention playoffs), I think he gets more exposed, but in short bursts, he can be the responsible guy you need holding down the fort.

 

This exactly.

[aziz]

I remember reading something about no team having won the Stanley Cup with a negative Corsi (below 50). And it's apparently a very good predictor of playoff qualification and playoff performance. 

 

which makes sense.  the stat is just the number of shot attempts for versus shot attempts against.  broadly speaking, if you are taking more shots than the other team, you are going to win more often than not.

 

personally, i think it an un-nuanced and easily misapplied stat, especially when you start applying it to specific players without taking their role into account.  of course schultz has a poor corsi.  he is a defensive defenseman.  no one ever claimed he was a possession driver or anything else.  he is a guy who tries to stop the other team from scoring.  that's his job.  he will generate very few shots for, and will be working to prevent shots against from going in the net.  keep in mind that corsi is not "shots on goal for versus shots on goal against".  it is shot *attempts*.  a wild wrist shot from the point that goes 10 feet wide counts.  a shot that hits a forward in the skate 2 feet in front of the shooter counts.  

 

so, a guy deployed as a specifically defensive asset will have little chance of shot-for generation, will always be dealing with shots against.  of course he will have a low corsi.  does that really mean anything, though?  i kinda don't think so.

[Vanflyer]

And wishing Pronger

 

Pronger contract really does not have impact (other than taking up a contract space) and handcuffing signings in the summer time until the first day of the season when the LTIR hits. Just saying. :-P