Post-Game Talk: Bruins beat Tim Thomas & his Panthers 6 - 2

[member 96824]

You make a good counter-point but it is offset somewhat by the fact that both Soderberg and Eriksson DID contribute directly to Smitty's PP goal and thus put up some points in that game. Plus/minus rating is more important when evaluating defensemen, but still is important for forwards... just not quite as much.

IMO +/- is relevant when talking relative to a team's goal differential. If you're -10 and your overall team is -13, it doesn't say much.

If you're -1 and your team is +25, that tells another story.

 

[Minny Shinny]

Before yesterday, the Panthers had the 9th best team CORSI.

#stats

 

[member 96824]

Before yesterday, the Panthers had the 9th best team CORSI.

#stats

More proof that corsi is a fraud haha.

 

[Sea Bass Neely]

PP time doesn't count towards plus/minus, so that would be irrelevant. Either Kelly dove off the ice to prevent the minus laugh, or Paille only avoided it because he was on the ice for Sugar's dangle/snipe/celly? I typically don't just take plus/minus at face value and try to delve deeper, because many times there are extenuating circumstances (like a soft goal or bad turnover by one line member, etc.).

Correct. It does count toward plus-minus if the PP unit allows a SH goal tho, but i'm sure you knew that already. Conversely, allowing a goal on the PK doesn't count toward plus-minus ratings unless the PK unit scores a shorty.

I think plus-minus is a more effective barometer of a statistic in evaluating the performance D-men... it's also note-worthy for forwards, just significantly less so for reasons you stated.

This is because one single forward can make a horrible turnover which then leads to a goal, and everyone on the ice takes a minus on their rating even if they had nothing to do with it. D-men are often more culpable because the are there to prevent scoring off a turnover in the offensive end.

So if ONE player makes a poor turnover, if the D happens to plays like Swiss cheese on any given breakdown--->goal against, or the goaltender just flat-out lets in a flukey, soft goal... everyone on the ice takes a hit on their plus-minus ratings. So it has to be taken with a grain of salt and other considerations are certainly necessary... again especially for forwards. You can't overly rely on the rating to judge performance.

Ironically, making this assertion i am indirectly defending Kelly since he is in the negative (-1, but still in the negative) on the season. So using the plus/minus rating to validate Kelly's production and overall play isn't exactly the best stat to use... especially for a guy regarded as a mostly one-way defensive guy who chips in every 4 games with a point.

I put much more stock in the pretty play that Eriksson and Soderberg set up for an easy PP goal by Smitty. Besides, that goal in the closing seconds of the 2nd period was a beauty that left Rask almost no chance of saving it without some luck.

Points, production are more important for forwards as long as their plus/minus is at least reasonable and not far into the negative.

 

[Sea Bass Neely]

IMO +/- is relevant when talking relative to a team's goal differential. If you're -10 and your overall team is -13, it doesn't say much.

If you're -1 and your team is +25, that tells another story.

Well then i guess Kelly is not the defensive stud he is made out to be as he is in the negative for the year (-1).

 

[member 96824]

Well then i guess Kelly is not the defensive stud he is made out to be as he is in the negative for the year (-1).

I mean i don't think it tells the complete story, especially defensively...I think a large disparity between the teams GD and players plus minus speaks more to a guys overall game....but it's certainly worth bringing up as a barometer when you lag or outperform your teammates significantly.

 

[GloveSave1]

Nobody said Thomas should be brought up on charges, but keep on exaggerating

You can tell you were/are a goalie I have played hockey for a long time, primarily as a d-man, so from a young age, we were taught that nobody touched your goalie. There have been many occasions when an extra whack has resulted in an opposing forward looking up at me from the inside of our net. That being said, I find goalies to sometimes be overly sensitive about their "personal space" in the crease, especially considering they are far more heavily padded than the rest of us

My son was scrimmaging another team from our organization last week and he was parked at the top of the crease (outside) and the goalie whacked him in the back of the head (with his glove) a couple of times on the first couple of shifts. He was pretty ticked when he came to the bench, so I told him next time out, politely tell the goalie that if he hit him again he was going to knock him on in his a$$. It has been my experience that a fair amount of goalies (not saying this is you) fall into the "dish it out, but can't take it" category

No, but Marty McSorley and the law getting involved was brought up in connection to this discussion. Sure...there was plenty of hasty back-pedaling after good old Marty was brought up, but it goes to show the level of hysteria this incident was simmering at, last night.

So it was worthy of a joke.

Goalies are protected from contact because they are focused on the puck and it is easy to get injured by an opposing player making simple contact. Knees. Ankles. Whatnot. Also, of course, the game would be nuts if you could interfere with goalies stopping pucks. I've always been a fairly firm believer that outside of the crease is another story and okay for legal contact...going against the goalie union there, I guess......I thought the Ryan Miller reaction to Lucic was petty...If you stray, you can pay...but that's clearly not the reality, just a good idea...

As for me, I enjoyed the "odd tussle," as Grapes would say. . It rarely got that far as I aimed to do damage ASAP. You don't have to use the paddle, the blocker up under the chin is effective. Funny though, as it connects to what we're talking about, I never started anything. I had plenty to worry about stopping pucks...but I wasn't going to be taken advantage of or put at risk of injury all season because people get the wrong idea around the league. Getting physical was always in connection to another player getting too brash or doing something stupid to a teammate. Small whacks at the soft spots are common-place warning shots when toes start creeping into the crease.

As for your kid's incident. That goalie probably gets many youngsters out his way with those actions. Scares them off. You gave him good advise. But he should get used to that...there's worse than that in front of the net. It's all game out there. Give what you get.

 

[RI.B FAN]

Every time I watch this, I still can't believe the saves this guy came through with in the clutch.



If it weren't for Thomas, yes Thomas, especially that pad save on the 2 on 1 in OT vs the habs, we'd still be whining a/b what happened in 2010. Some of you would still be in therapy. Instead it's a distant memory.

Thanks, Timmah.

Best 6 minutes of my day!!!

 

[Pie O My]

Correct. It does count toward plus-minus if the PP unit allows a SH goal tho, but i'm sure you knew that already. Conversely, allowing a goal on the PK doesn't count toward plus-minus ratings unless the PK unit scores a shorty.

I think plus-minus is a more effective barometer of a statistic in evaluating the performance D-men... it's also note-worthy for forwards, just significantly less so for reasons you stated.

This is because one single forward can make a horrible turnover which then leads to a goal, and everyone on the ice takes a minus on their rating even if they had nothing to do with it. D-men are often more culpable because the are there to prevent scoring off a turnover in the offensive end.

So if ONE player makes a poor turnover, if the D happens to plays like Swiss cheese on any given breakdown--->goal against, or the goaltender just flat-out lets in a flukey, soft goal... everyone on the ice takes a hit on their plus-minus ratings. So it has to be taken with a grain of salt and other considerations are certainly necessary... again especially for forwards. You can't overly rely on the rating to judge performance.

Ironically, making this assertion i am indirectly defending Kelly since he is in the negative (-1, but still in the negative) on the season. So using the plus/minus rating to validate Kelly's production and overall play isn't exactly the best stat to use... especially for a guy regarded as a mostly one-way defensive guy who chips in every 4 games with a point.

I put much more stock in the pretty play that Eriksson and Soderberg set up for an easy PP goal by Smitty. Besides, that goal in the closing seconds of the 2nd period was a beauty that left Rask almost no chance of saving it without some luck.

Points, production are more important for forwards as long as their plus/minus is at least reasonable and not far into the negative.

never mind all that. i'll ask you a question that doesn't require an abacus to answer: If having a zero plus/minus in last nights game is bad, then what does it mean to have a minus 1 in last nights game?

 

[GloveSave1]

Best 6 minutes of my day!!!

What can ya say? ...wow...

Nah, nah...I just got something caught in my eye...haha...

Man, there's no better feeling than when you are locked in like that, and you know what the shooter is going to do right before they do it...

Locked. Down.

 

[ReggieMoto]

More proof that corsi is a fraud haha.

Wait! I thought Thomas was the fraud?

 

[GloryDaze4877]

No, but Marty McSorley and the law getting involved was brought up in connection to this discussion. Sure...there was plenty of hasty back-pedaling after good old Marty was brought up, but it goes to show the level of hysteria this incident was simmering at, last night.

So it was worthy of a joke.

Goalies are protected from contact because they are focused on the puck and it is easy to get injured by an opposing player making simple contact. Knees. Ankles. Whatnot. Also, of course, the game would be nuts if you could interfere with goalies stopping pucks. I've always been a fairly firm believer that outside of the crease is another story and okay for legal contact...going against the goalie union there, I guess......I thought the Ryan Miller reaction to Lucic was petty...If you stray, you can pay...but that's clearly not the reality, just a good idea...

As for me, I enjoyed the "odd tussle," as Grapes would say. . It rarely got that far as I aimed to do damage ASAP. You don't have to use the paddle, the blocker up under the chin is effective. Funny though, as it connects to what we're talking about, I never started anything. I had plenty to worry about stopping pucks...but I wasn't going to be taken advantage of or put at risk of injury all season because people get the wrong idea around the league. Getting physical was always in connection to another player getting too brash or doing something stupid to a teammate. Small whacks at the soft spots are common-place warning shots when toes start creeping into the crease.

As for your kid's incident. That goalie probably gets many youngsters out his way with those actions. Scares them off. You gave him good advise. But he should get used to that...there's worse than that in front of the net. It's all game out there. Give what you get.

Oh, don't worry he loves that sh**! He's only 10, but has a lot of Marchand in him Lately, the coach has been playing him at D because he's a good decision-maker. The funny part is that when he's on D, he's the first one clearing the F out, and chirping/chipping at him...but when he plays F, he is always parked on the edge of the crease causing trouble. Do as I say, not as I do sort of thing

On a more serious note, I'm not 100% positive, but was told that USA Hockey now has a pretty serious mandatory suspension for paddle infractions by goalies (I think it was 30 days or games?). The rule I find on the books is an automatic match penalty, which carries and ejection, 5 Min Major Penalty, and a suspension for the next two games along with potential for a hearing involving greater penalties.

I guess the days are gone when a youth hockey goalie could get a good blocker shot it on an opponent?

 

[Sea Bass Neely]

IMO +/- is relevant when talking relative to a team's goal differential. If you're -10 and your overall team is -13, it doesn't say much.

If you're -1 and your team is +25, that tells another story.

Oh overall team differential is absolutely a huge factor. There could be a guy who is only +6 on the year but if he is on a ****** team with a -60 rating that means he may have been among the lone bright spots on the entire roster and can be a better player than a +25 guy on a high-powered offense.

 

[Sea Bass Neely]

never mind all that. i'll ask you a question that doesn't require an abacus to answer: If having a zero plus/minus in last nights game is bad, then what does it mean to have a minus 1 in last nights game?

It would make it slightly worse of a performance, by the measures of that statistic. WTF is that kind of question supposed to mean?

 

[GloveSave1]

Oh, don't worry he loves that sh**! He's only 10, but has a lot of Marchand in him Lately, the coach has been playing him at D because he's a good decision-maker. The funny part is that when he's on D, he's the first one clearing the F out, and chirping/chipping at him...but when he plays F, he is always parked on the edge of the crease causing trouble. Do as I say, not as I do sort of thing

On a more serious note, I'm not 100% positive, but was told that USA Hockey now has a pretty serious mandatory suspension for paddle infractions by goalies (I think it was 30 days or games?). The rule I find on the books is an automatic match penalty, which carries and ejection, 5 Min Major Penalty, and a suspension for the next two games along with potential for a hearing involving greater penalties.

I guess the days are gone when a youth hockey goalie could get a good blocker shot it on an opponent?

Yeah, kids that age I wouldn't encourage anything put strong, straight-up, play. When you were talking about him getting punched in the back of the head I was thinking at least high school. haha

Refs and officials need to keep kids on the up and up until some rule bending is tolerated as games are refined...no whacking from goalies and no crease violations for kids...just focus on learning the game and how to play...

Yeah, even in high school and college there are stiff penalties...you have to be more coy...but sometimes, ****...ya do what ya gotta do, and take the time...that's what back-ups are for......the blocker under the chin is great because you have to get by all that damn head/face gear...haha...as I said, using the paddle is kinda a waste because you don't have to to get the desired effect - and it's highly scrutinized...

So, yeah...the battle between pesky forward and goaltender goes on...

It's good he likes the physical part of the game that early on and wants to go to the "not-easy" areas. He wants those goals. Good sign for the future. Just about every coach I've ever known will take a hard worker with average skill over a skill guy with an average work ethic any day o the week...hopefully he'll get both...

 

[Fossy21]

never mind all that. i'll ask you a question that doesn't require an abacus to answer: If having a zero plus/minus in last nights game is bad, then what does it mean to have a minus 1 in last nights game?

It means that line, without Kelly on the ice, made one mistake that game and had to pay for it. It also means Yeti + Loui were only on the ice for that power play goal. But as always +/- doesn't accurately portray their performance, since Paille had a great breakaway when he was still on their line, they had a 3-on-1 where Yeti hit the post and the rebound just barely missed Eriksson going towards the crease, they were close to scoring late in the game, etc. They made one defensive mistake and that ended up in the mesh. Kelly could've made 5 mistakes and been bailed out by the D/Tuukka and stayed +/- 0. So the answer to that, and the point I guess you're trying to get across, is that +/- doesn't prove that Kelly was bad, nor does it prove that the other two were worse (I'd say Kelly was alright and the others were really good).

And yeah, over a season, your +/- benefits from playing PK over PP. You're always going to give up shorthanded goals, and always going to score them. That means PK'ers get immunity to minus stats with a small chance of getting a plus and vice versa. Say that you're on the ice for 5 SHGA whilst your team mate is on the ice for 5 SHG scored, and that's 10+ differential for the latter to make up for. Also worth keeping in mind when looking at Marchand's +/-, though he creates most of those +'es himself (or with Bergy).