+/- Kessel

[Epictetus]

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.

The baseball-type error system is even worse than the current +\- system, since it makes it more 'subjective' rather than 'objective'.

The fatal flaw with the current baseball-type error system and what would carry over to your proposed system, is that it will not take 'range' into considersation.

What do I mean? Let's take your example. The defender who coughs up the puck will be docked a point, however, he's involved in the play. The player who is not involved in the play will not be docked a point. Therefore, the uninvolved player will be judged as defensively superior.

It happens all the time. Some players in baseball have the ball hit to them over 100 times less than other players at the same position, which decreases their chances of making an 'error'. You want the players to be more involved in the play, and possess more 'range' -- even if they make more mistakes. A player that gets to a ball and makes an error showcases more defensive-ability than a player who does not get to the ball at all.

The baseball-type error system under an NHL format would continue to suffer from this ignorance.

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

You want more objective. Even if +\- is a bad stat, it is still completely objective.

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?

While it's great to look at results, as that is all that matters, it is irrelevant when the results are tainted. In this case, with +\-, the results are exactly that: tainted.

The stat suffers the same fate as many other hockey stats: it is largely team-driven, so it is hard to quantify a player's contributions both offensively and defensively without considering a proponent's teammates.

 

[King Mapes]

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...



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

No it just means the whole team is bad. 5 guys are on the ice at a time. Brutal goaltending. He could have Kulemin on his line last year and been near worst. Is he bad defensively?

 

[-DeMo-]

I step on to the ice on a line change and immediately get scored on. I'm a minus player.

I find this argument odd for a minus, because are you not suppose to change when the puck is ethier in or on it's way into the offensive zone as opposed to when the other team is bringing it into the defensive zone? yes I realize this happens but it's usually considered a bad change. and therefore isn't it much more likely you would step on the ice for a goal scored for then against? espicially for Dmen, how often do they change when the puck is in the defensive zone or the other team is coming down on a rush?

 

[Tak7]

+/- is a broken stat.

Can be used and interpretted in so many different ways.

Pay very little attention to it. I know lots of coaches don't

 

[Bomber0104]

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?

I'm aware of the pitfalls because I understand how the stat is calculated and how it can be contextually applied to the sport. I'm also aware of some of its strengths and where it can be reasonably used to draw conclusions but again, I hardly need to look at a players +/- to tell me if they are good or bad defensively. It's more more validation.

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?

I'm not acting. I have an opinion and I state it just like everyone else. If you want to argue with me, I'll defend myself and state my reasoning. Simple as that.

I'm not going to type a half page opinion with supporting evidence. Not interested.

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

Near the top in offence...but the top in goals against.

That's why they were a minus line and one of the worst in the league.

 

[613Leafer]

What a silly debate.

Who cares what the +/- says about Kessel. Debate the merits of the stat all you want. WATCH him play, he's NOT good defensively and is also scared of physical contact.

Criticize the merits of +/- all you want, it doesn't make Kessel good or even average defensively.

 

[Bomber0104]

While it's great to look at results, as that is all that matters, it is irrelevant when the results are tainted. In this case, with +\-, the results are exactly that: tainted.

The stat suffers the same fate as many other hockey stats: it is largely team-driven, so it is hard to quantify a player's contributions both offensively and defensively without considering a proponent's teammates.

Not to say it isn't but I have this theory that over the long-run, the stat becomes smoothed out or evened out by virtue of it being tainted in both directions roughly equally.

We've read some examples here of how players can be unfairly penalized with a minus and those are valid criticisms, but I think that it is almost nearly as likely a player to be unfairly rewarded with a plus due to various circumstances.

In other words, the ebb matches the flow.

 

[Bomber0104]

What a silly debate.

Who cares what the +/- says about Kessel. Debate the merits of the stat all you want. WATCH him play, he's NOT good defensively and is also scared of physical contact.

Criticize the merits of +/- all you want, it doesn't make Kessel good or even average defensively.

Basically what I've also been saying. You don't need to see his plus/minus to know he's terrible defensively, in fact, one of the very worst defensive forwards in the entire NHL.

 

[Commander Clueless]

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.



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



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!)



Sometimes yes, sometimes no.



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.



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.

Simple flawed logic my friend.

Even if we assume your assumption is correct (Lupul-Bozak-Kessel being the worst top line in the league defensively) and we assume that "most casual hockey fans" are correct that Kessel is the worst on the line, that does not necessarily mean he is the worst forward in the league defensively.

There could easily be a worse player defensively on another top line that has defensive stalwarts covering for him that Kessel does not have and that's not even considering lines 2 through 4 throughout the league.

 

[King Mapes]

What a silly debate.

Who cares what the +/- says about Kessel. Debate the merits of the stat all you want. WATCH him play, he's NOT good defensively and is also scared of physical contact.

Criticize the merits of +/- all you want, it doesn't make Kessel good or even average defensively.

Everyone knows this but if he made it to FA after next season 30 teams would try to sign him.

 

[Liminality]

Basically what I've also been saying. You don't need to see his plus/minus to know he's terrible defensively, in fact, one of the very worst defensive forwards in the entire NHL.

One of the worst defensive players in the entire NHL? Alright then.

Kessel's speed alone on the backcheck makes him not the worst defensively.

 

[Bomber0104]

One of the worst defensive players in the entire NHL? Alright then.

Kessel's speed alone on the backcheck makes him not the worst defensively.

I honestly can't think of a more one dimensional forward than Phil Kessel in the league.

Not one.

 

[King Mapes]

I honestly can't think of a more one dimensional forward than Phil Kessel in the league.

Not one.

Because you likely don't watch a lot of other teams

 

[Bomber0104]

Because you likely don't watch a lot of other teams

I watch nearly every team...as a long-time Center Ice customer (now GameCenter).

 

[Tak7]

I honestly can't think of a more one dimensional forward than Phil Kessel in the league.

Not one.

The Kessel = one dimensional argument is amongst the most pathetic arguments I've heard from this ridiculous fan base.

How many pure scorers in the league aren't one-dimensional?

A reason why the huge point producers, put up huge points, is because they are one-dimensional players.

How many players in the league are purely multi-dimensional? Perfect players at both sides of the rink? Can count them on one hand most likely.

 

[Bomber0104]

How many pure scorers in the league aren't one-dimensional?

Well yeah, that's why they are called pure scorers. Because their contributions are purely scoring. There's very few in the league because you have to be crazy skilled to play and actually produce that way and not get demoted to the AHL because you're useless in other aspects.

 

[Bomber0104]

The Kessel = one dimensional argument is amongst the most pathetic arguments I've heard from this ridiculous fan base.

How many pure scorers in the league aren't one-dimensional?

A reason why the huge point producers, put up huge points, is because they are one-dimensional players.

How many players in the league are purely multi-dimensional? Perfect players at both sides of the rink? Can count them on one hand most likely.

Watching the Bruins/Winnipeg game...

Chara, Bergeron, Lucic, Horton, and Krecji.

There's one hand for one team...

 

[conway902]

Wasn't Kessel somethign like -10 against the bruins last year and even vs the rest of the league??

 

[TMLife*]

Plus minus is a flawed stat I think we can all agree on that.
Kessel is also flawed defensively I think we can all agree on that.

/thread

 

[achtungbaby]

Simple flawed logic my friend.

Even if we assume your assumption is correct (Lupul-Bozak-Kessel being the worst top line in the league defensively) and we assume that "most casual hockey fans" are correct that Kessel is the worst on the line, that does not necessarily mean he is the worst forward in the league defensively.

There could easily be a worse player defensively on another top line that has defensive stalwarts covering for him that Kessel does not have and that's not even considering lines 2 through 4 throughout the league.

I'll agree that Kessel might not be the worst defensive forward in the league, but your defense of him is: "whoa, hey there! There could be worse guys. We just don't know that because maybe their linemates aren't as crappy defensively as Kessels are?" I'm sure the Leafs thank you for charging to the rescue.

 

[7even]

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.

What if my team allows more goals than it scores?

And full circle.

 

[The Beyonder]

Plus minus is a flawed stat I think we can all agree on that.
Kessel is also flawed defensively I think we can all agree on that.

/thread

Who cares if he's defence is "flawed". I think he's improved, but at the same time, he wasn't drafted 5th overall in the NHL for defence. People scrutinize him way too much for it, when he's far more of a threat offensively than he is defencively. It's an aspect of the game that needs improving, and he has improved on it to the point where i really don't see him as a liability anymore.

And +/- is more of a line/team oriented statistics. It speaks nothing about a player's ability on defence. If Datsyuk played on the leafs and was a -7, and Phil played on the wings and was a +13, would you conclude that Phil was a better defender than Pavel? HELL NO!

 

[Sokil]

Plus minus is a flawed stat I think we can all agree on that.
Kessel is also flawed defensively I think we can all agree on that.

/thread

Clearly the stat works then

 

[The Beyonder]

I'll agree that Kessel might not be the worst defensive forward in the league, but your defense of him is: "whoa, hey there! There could be worse guys. We just don't know that because maybe their linemates aren't as crappy defensively as Kessels are?" I'm sure the Leafs thank you for charging to the rescue.

It is when he's one of the best goal scorers in the league. Sure he could he improve but you could say that about a lot of players in the league. Phil Kessel's defensive play is greatly exaggerated, he's on the ice to score goals and create chances for his team, let's not forget that; and he does a good job at it too.

 

[Commander Clueless]

I'll agree that Kessel might not be the worst defensive forward in the league, but your defense of him is: "whoa, hey there! There could be worse guys. We just don't know that because maybe their linemates aren't as crappy defensively as Kessels are?" I'm sure the Leafs thank you for charging to the rescue.

I wasn't trying to rush to Kessel's defense, I was trying to show the flaw in Bomber's logic that supposedly proved he was.

Kessel does need to work on his backchecking and defensive awareness. Hopefully Carlyle's style helps him and doesn't drive him away.

Still, the amount people rag on Kessel is ridiculous. Guy is an awesome player. He won't play the penalty kill but he's an elite offensive forward and not a liability to the team as some suggest.