+/- Kessel

[dredeye]

Shows how dumb the stat can be at times. You could 5 power play points in a 5-1 win and end out -1

No it doesn't. Your best penalty killer or defensive forward kills penalties and your best offensive players play a power play. It would skew the +/- in a way that wouldn't fairly distinguish the overall game or the player in general

 

[Sokil]

I find it to be a worthwhile stat when you compare guys on the same team.

For example, Kessel was a -10 while Clarke Macarthur was a +2 on the same team, and with the first line scoring much more than the second.

Indicates that the first line was terrible defensively.

Kessel easily puts in the least amount of effort defensively between him Lupul and Bozie.

So we can arrive at the conclusion that Phil Kessel is one of the worst defensive top-six players in the league.

Pretty open and shut.

Agreed.

 

[4evaBlue]

Kessel can do better in one on one battles. On the half wall , the corners or behind the net, he could really improve this area of his game. Last night he rarely won any of those battle area situations. It jumped out at me. Im sure this must bother the coach. His blazing speed and shot offset these areas. He might be the weakest Leaf player in these battle areas, yet the best and most dangerous when the puck gets on his stick

He could also be an asset in breaking up odd men rushes, like how Liles bailed out Franson against the Habs. He doesn't have to dominate along the boards to be effective defensively.

 

[Bomber0104]

He could also be an asset in breaking up odd men rushes, like how Liles bailed out Franson against the Habs. He doesn't have to dominate along the boards to be effective defensively.

To be effective defensively, you have to be good along the boards.

It almost goes without saying.

The puck finds its way there a zillion times per game.

 

[yakfish]

+/- is one of the most useless and overrated stats out there.

 

[Bomber0104]

+/- is one of the most useless and overrated stats out there.

Not really.

If you're on the ice when your team score a goal, plus.

If you're on the ice when your team is scored against, minus.

What is so useless about tracking the ins and outs?

 

[yakfish]

Not really.

If you're on the ice when your team score a goal, plus.

If you're on the ice when your team is scored against, minus.

What is so useless about tracking the ins and outs?

A tracking system for the ins and out is great if your a part of the play. I believe they call that "Goals" and "Assists"! But a stat that records what happens on the ice that you have nothing to do with is pointless.

 

[King Mapes]

Look at this way Kessel was leading forwards in the NHL last year for being on the ice for goals against, that should tell you something about his defensive abilities.

He plays on a bottom 2 defensive TEAM and has the most icetime among forwards for us. Of course he will at least be close to leading

 

[613Leafer]

+/- should be standardized against your team.

But even then it doesnt take into account quality of opposition. Which is why Corsi based and other advanced stats are more helpful.

 

[Bomber0104]

A tracking system for the ins and out is great if your a part of the play. I believe they call that "Goals" and "Assists"! But a stat that records what happens on the ice that you have nothing to do with is pointless.

Hardly is no one at fault for a goal against. Just like hardly no one is responsible for a goal for.

I don't know how you can honestly believe that a goal against has nothing to do with the players on the ice...

He plays on a bottom 2 defensive TEAM and has the most icetime among forwards for us. Of course he will at least be close to leading

Then that means Phil Kessel is one of the largest contributors to the team being bottom 2 defensively, logically.

 

[4evaBlue]

+/- should be standardized against your team.

But even then it doesnt take into account quality of opposition. Which is why Corsi based and other advanced stats are more helpful.

Corsi would be useful if it used zone possession time instead of shots on net. Our season opener was a perfect example. The Habs had us pinned in our zone for a good 5+ mins, which eventually lead to the goal against, yet their hardly generated any shots on net because we kept them to the outside.

I also don't like how the players assigned to checking roles have a much lower quality score than they should simply because they play against the best lines on most nights.

Corsi may be more useful than +/-, but that really isn't saying much.

 

[7even]

Hardly is no one at fault for a goal against. Just like hardly no one is responsible for a goal for.

I don't know how you can honestly believe that a goal against has nothing to do with the players on the ice...

I step on to the ice on a line change and immediately get scored on. I'm a minus player. I'm sitting in the corner on the cycle when the centre loses the puck at the top of the circle, odd man rush the other way, we get scored on and I'm a minus. Defensemen loses the puck at the point, breakaway, I'm a minus. Look at that, a -3, I must be terrible defensively.

It's a stupid stat.

Then that means Phil Kessel is one of the largest contributors to the team being bottom 2 defensively, logically.

That makes the assumption that preventing goals is a proportionally shared job.

 

[7even]

Corsi would be useful if it used zone possession time instead of shots on net. Our season opener was a perfect example. The Habs had us pinned in our zone for a good 5+ mins, which eventually lead to the goal against, yet their hardly generated any shots on net because we kept them to the outside.

I also don't like how the players assigned to checking roles have a much lower quality score than they should simply because they play against the best lines on most nights.

Corsi may be more useful than +/-, but that really isn't saying much.

There are ways to adjust for just about everything you said.

 

[4evaBlue]

There are ways to adjust for just about everything you said.

I'm sure there is, but it's not being done.

I step on to the ice on a line change and immediately get scored on. I'm a minus player. I'm sitting in the corner on the cycle when the centre loses the puck at the top of the circle, odd man rush the other way, we get scored on and I'm a minus. Defensemen loses the puck at the point, breakaway, I'm a minus. Look at that, a -3, I must be terrible defensively.

It's a stupid stat.

While it may be very objective, I think some kind of baseball type error system would work better. If some idiot decides to go for a bad linechange, that results in an odd man rush, dock him. If a defender coughs up the puck that directly results in a goal against, dock him. If a goalie lets in a ridiculously soft goal that any peewee goalie should have been able to stop, dock him.

 

[Bomber0104]

I step on to the ice on a line change and immediately get scored on. I'm a minus player. I'm sitting in the corner on the cycle when the centre loses the puck at the top of the circle, odd man rush the other way, we get scored on and I'm a minus. Defensemen loses the puck at the point, breakaway, I'm a minus. Look at that, a -3, I must be terrible defensively.

It's a stupid stat.

You're looking at just one side of the coin (minuses)

That's a biased outlook.

I step on to the ice, meanwhile my team is on a breakaway and scored, I'm a plus.

These things have a way of evening out if you accept all the information as valid and not just the kind that supports your argument.

 

[Bomber0104]

That makes the assumption that preventing goals is a proportionally shared job.

There's no I in team.

You should have watched Yakupov last night skating deep into his own end taking the body and disrupting puck movement.

What a player.

 

[FelixPotvin29]

A) Hardly is no one at fault for a goal against. B) Just like hardly no one is responsible for a goal for.

A - But NEVER are 5 players at fault, yet all of them get marked as such.

B - BS. Goal scoring is a direct result of 1 - 2 players - you can make an argument for 3. Most people today even have trouble with secondary assists as they are. Again, ALL 5 are rewarded for goals scored for.

It really makes no sense especially when you compared vastly different quality of teams, opponents and situations.

A) I don't know how you can honestly believe that a goal against has nothing to do with the players on the ice...

B) Then that means Phil Kessel is one of the largest contributors to the team being bottom 2 defensively, logically.

A - No one is saying has nothing to do with the players on the ice. They are saying it doesn't have to do with EVERYONE on the ice.

B - No, not logically. Perhaps by a stat that doesn't make too much sense for all the reasons I've stated and others have stated.

Let's use some critical thinking here. Here is also a list of players that according to YOU are major contributors to their teams lack of defensive play.

Martin St. Louis
Taylor Hall
RNH
Alexander Ovechkin
Corey Perry
Ryan Getzlaf
Jerome Iginla
...

 

[Bomber0104]

A - But NEVER are 5 players at fault, yet all of them get marked as such.

Usually is a combination of failed attempts to maintain and regain puck possession and can be traced to a lot more than a few players sometimes even all 5. I have no idea what base you have for this claim.

B - BS. Goal scoring is a direct result of 1 - 2 players - you can make an argument for 3. Most people today even have trouble with secondary assists as they are. Again, ALL 5 are rewarded for goals scored for.

All 5 usually have had a hand in maintaining or regaining puck possession and zone-entry. They should be rewarded.

It really makes no sense especially when you compared vastly different quality of teams, opponents and situations.

Which is why it is useful to compare players +/- on the same team knowing they have the same environment.

Clarke Macarthur +2
Phil Kessel -10 (scored way more too!)

A - No one is saying has nothing to do with the players on the ice. They are saying it doesn't have to do with EVERYONE on the ice.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

B - No, not logically. Perhaps by a stat that doesn't make too much sense for all the reasons I've stated and others have stated.

Very large holes in this dismissal of +/- which of course are easily pointed out. There's lots +/- can tell you. There's things +/- can't tell you.

I'd be a fool to completely neglect the stat.

But then again, I don't really need a stat to tell me Bozak/Kessel/Lupul are very poor defensively, especially compared to the other lines.

Let's use some critical thinking here. Here is also a list of players that according to YOU are major contributors to their teams lack of defensive play.

Martin St. Louis
Taylor Hall
RNH
Alexander Ovechkin
Corey Perry
Ryan Getzlaf
Jerome Iginla
...

Incorrect, because I can put some context behind a +/- .

Kessel's line was the worst defensive top line in the NHL and that's just an indisputable fact.

Most casual hockey fans note that Kessel is the worst defensive player on that line.

Therefore, Kessel is the worst defensive forward in the league.

Simple logic.

 

[Strangle]

points on the power play don't count towards +/-, and all goals for both teams last night were on the PP

Always seemed to me that the guy in the box should get -1 on a pp goal

 

[4evaBlue]

Always seemed to me that the guy in the box should get -1 on a pp goal

That's very objective, too. There are some good penalties to take, and there are dumb ones.

 

[ironrhcp]

There's no I in team.

You should have watched Yakupov last night skating deep into his own end taking the body and disrupting puck movement.

What a player.

Dude get over it, you're wrong. +/- is a pretty stupid stat and 9/10 will agree. Im pretty sure you're still arguing just because you want to win this little dispute. A very good defensive player on a crap team is not going to have as good of a +/- then a mediocre defensive player on a above average team. Does that mean hes a worse defensive player??? Phil Kessel being a +23 on Boston is a perfect example. Apparently according to that stat he use to be a great defensive player, and that clearly wasn't the case, he just happened to be on an above average team. Now he's a negative on a below average team. Do you see the correlation between the two?? Its a dumb stat end of story.

 

[Bomber0104]

Dude get over it, you're wrong. +/- is a pretty stupid stat and 9/10 will agree. Im pretty sure you're still arguing just because you want to win this little dispute. A very good defensive player on a crap team is not going to have as good of a +/- then a mediocre defensive player on a above average team. Does that mean hes a worse defensive player??? Phil Kessel being a +23 on Boston is a perfect example. Apparently according to that stat he use to be a great defensive player, and that clearly wasn't the case, he just happened to be on an above average team. Now he's a negative on a below average team. Do you see the correlation between the two?? Its a dumb stat end of story.

And for what I believe is now the fourth time, I have never stated that +/- should be compared across different teams.

Please read at least the current page of the thread before misrepresenting my opinion.

Thank you.

 

[Sokil]

A tracking system for the ins and out is great if your a part of the play. I believe they call that "Goals" and "Assists"! But a stat that records what happens on the ice that you have nothing to do with is pointless.

you got as far as the "ins" and forgot the "outs"

considering points are given usually to 3/5ths of the guys on the ice, often guys who do nothing in the play other than move the puck up, might as well give a + to everyone for their involvement; and a - for the opposite effect

 

[Sokil]

While it may be very objective, I think some kind of baseball type error system would work better. If some idiot decides to go for a bad linechange, that results in an odd man rush, dock him. If a defender coughs up the puck that directly results in a goal against, dock him. If a goalie lets in a ridiculously soft goal that any peewee goalie should have been able to stop, dock him.

that's be terrific. I'd love to be able to quantify who the boneheads of the league are.

You're looking at just one side of the coin (minuses)

That's a biased outlook.

I step on to the ice, meanwhile my team is on a breakaway and scored, I'm a plus.

These things have a way of evening out if you accept all the information as valid and not just the kind that supports your argument.

 

[FelixPotvin29]

And for what I believe is now the fourth time, I have never stated that +/- should be compared across different teams.

Please read at least the current page of the thread before misrepresenting my opinion.

Thank you.

I think it's fair enough, although you shouldn't be so certain it is 'simple logic' if you understand the pitfalls of potential +/- arguments. Why the act?

Perhaps it is the hook, line and sinker to getting reply's around here. If that matters to you which it really seems to. You tend to say outrageous things and then when put up to it come back with a little bit of a more intelligent reply. Try skipping the act first huh?

Just and FYI, to another one of your silly claims... Kessel and Lupul were among the league leaders in even strength points last season.