Meds wrote: Larry Goodenough wrote:
Rome actually made some defensive plays tonight that were good. I still think he's useless and that the team is better off with Alberts in the lineup over Rome. Even with his handful of good reads, Rome still managed to play on the only defensive pairing that finished a minus. His penalty in the first when he went after Hall was stupid. The puck at the other end of the ice and the ref right beside him.....yeah.....why not throw Taylor Hall on his ass for no apparent reason? Here's a hint: "whistle".
In Rome's defence, Canucks Army has Rome's scoring chances differential at +3 (8 for/5 against). That was 2nd best behind Tanev +4 (7-3). Hamhuis was -1 (3-4), Bieksa even (4-4) and Salo/Edler were -1 each (2-3)
Scoring chance differentials mean nothing. Every shot on net can be considered a scoring chance because the possibility exists that the goalie will whiff on it and the puck ends up in the back of the net. However, every scoring chance is not necessarily a shot on net. So Hamhuis, Bieksa, Salo, and Edler, could be a -1 on the differential while keeping the Oiler's to the outside and surrendering shots that Schneider could see coming a mile away. Technically scoring chances, but not really threats to score unless Schneider screwed it up.
Rome was on for one of the Oiler's goals against and on the bench for all of the Canucks goals.
Well, no. Scoring chances mean something. Every shot can go in, but the likelihood of a shot from the scoring chance area going in is much greater. If you have more scoring chances than your opponent, the likelihood of you scoring more goals goes up the same degree. It's not an opinion, its evidence with empirical proof.
Canucks Army describes in fairly good detail what most NHL teams consider a "scoring chance" and have illustrations as to the shape of the area in front of the net that constitutes the scoring area. They count pucks directed at the net from the scoring area, plus shots from outside that are screened or involved significant puck movement before the puck is shot. They do this because Gillis and Vigneault are on record as stating they evaluate play and players based on scoring chances for and against, not shots.
If Hamhuis is keeping Oilers to the outside and allowing only shots that Schnieder can see, he'll never be considered to have been on the ice for a scoring chance against.
Now, Rome was on the ice for the most scoring chances against, that seems to be the part you're concerned about. However, I pointed out he was also suprisingly on the ice for the most scoring chances for. The combined picture shows he did OK.
Yes, scoring chances are influenced by score, other teammates, opponents and luck. But over the course of a whole game, that stuff often evens out. If you're a d-man on the ice for 8 scoring chances for and 5 against, I don't know how you could be labeled "useless".
I would suggest there actually is a use for a 6th d-man who comes out of games with a positive scoring chance differential. Because that d-man will make it more likely you'll win the game than not.