LD Ivan Provorov (2015, 7th, PHI) II

[TeddyBare]

Yes and no. He was -5, but one was the empty net goal. It was almost unfair to put him out there to probably get another minus, but I think it was his coach Hakstol trying to show some faith in him.

First goal is Streit not playing defense and out fishing (a recurring theme this season so far paired with the "veteran" Provorov covering for the 39 year old...he was the worse of the pair tonight) leading to 2 on 1 and then not even covering the post when he was right there to do so. Second goal Provorov lost an edge. I really don't know what he can do about that. Terrible timing. Third goal he was on his man, but Matt Read completely lets Anisimov go to the net undeterred. Fourth was a smart read leading a rush, putting on the breaks, hitting the trailing Couturier who then bobbles it, which leads to an odd man going the other way. Then the empty net.

He didn't look overwhelmed on the goals or make many poor reads or anything, just awful luck in part. And when he made a mistake there it was in the back of the net, often his teammates not helping out either. Ghost made even worse turnovers which didn't go in, but it goes that way sometimes. He was excellent all preseason and in his first 2 games. It was a very weird game is how I'd put it. He was bad, but not -5 bad. He still made plenty of smart plays. He's cool as a cucumber but his coaches and teammates need to cheer him up. And people on the main boards probably made a thread just to engage in schadenfreude.

Who cares about +/-

Such a stupid stat.

 

[snipes]

He's a very good player. He'll be fine.

 

[CristianoRonaldo]

His idol is Hernan Crespo? =)

Ronaldo R9.

 

[Juicy Pop]

It's just a huge step for any 19 year old, no matter how good, to step into the NHL and immediately have to play top pair minutes against one of the most dangerous offensive lines in the game. He could have had three straight games like this and I still wouldn't be worrying; he just needs time to adjust and Philly really needs to get Gudas and MDZ back in the lineup to take some pressure off of him.

 

[Magua]

Who cares about +/-

Such a stupid stat.

Yes, yes it is, but box score watchers and narrative seekers cling to it. As I wrote on the Flyers board, a season and a half ago, Couturier got excoriated in the media for going -5 in a game. He's a Selke level 2-way forward. Things happen. It was a bad game, no two ways about. But Provy also couldn't catch a break for the life of him. Every time something bad could happen or he made a mistake, he paid for it. The entire Flyers defense was awful and many of them got away with even worse mistakes. He did not look overwhelmed.

But like clockwork, people are going to pile on the rookie in his 3rd game questioning his readiness. He's been fantastic every game since camp started, preseason and regular season. Except for this one. Things happen. It doesn't help that he's a 19 year old rookie d man, paired with a 39 year old bottom pairing, offensively sheltered Mark Streit as the de facto top pair......in game 3, against top players like Kopitar or Kane. With Philly missing their top 2 d men, he's being thrown to the wolves and has handled it fantastically. Tonight the wolves got him. I trust that won't happen next game. He's so damned smart and skilled out there. You can see it each game.

 

[Brayden Fattison]

Sounds like he had a terrible night tonight. Happens to everyone, just surprised someone made a thread about it on the mains. To Philly fans was it as bad as people are claiming?

Just a Rangers' fan crowing about a division rival's top prospect having bad game. He looked bad, but nothing uncharacteristic of a rookie 19-year-old.

 

[Kshahdoo]

Panarin - Anisimov - Kane line can make any defenseman look bad. It happens from time to time.

 

[Delete99991]

Brutal night for him, and I wouldn't say he was unlucky.

They're not doing him any favours by giving him prime time minutes with a guy like Streit, who stopped playing defense two years ago.

 

[SansaStark]

one bad game does not mean anything.
anyone who doesnt think this guy is gonna be a beast has not watched him.
Ivan will be fine

and thats coming from a devs fan

 

[Skinnyjimmy08]

Who cares about +/-

Such a stupid stat.

agreed.

But +- is always pointed out if a player people like had a great game or is always pointed out if a player people hate had a bad game.

Bottom line is he had a rough game. Hopefully he can bounce back. Its always a test to young kids after a bad game to see how mentally prepared they are to have a good bounceback game

IMO they will lessen his playing time next game and hope for a solid game to regain his confidence and then slowly raise his mins again

 

[Kamiccolo]

Who cares about +/-

Such a stupid stat.

What is stupid is to dismiss stats for no reason.

Is it useful to point to it and say "He was -1, he had a bad game defensively" ? No.

Is it useful to look at a sample size and see over half a season or more this player is largely in the -, and therefore we can say they are not having a good defensive season? Yes it is IMO.

If they are somewhere close around 0 it probably isn't bad, but if a guy is like -15 or more, that should tell you something.

 

[Vikke]

What is stupid is to dismiss stats for no reason.

Is it useful to point to it and say "He was -1, he had a bad game defensively" ? No.

Is it useful to look at a sample size and see over half a season or more this player is largely in the -, and therefore we can say they are not having a good defensive season? Yes it is IMO.

If they are somewhere close around 0 it probably isn't bad, but if a guy is like -15 or more, that should tell you something.

Yeah, that it's a terrible stat.

 

[GoJetsGo55]

What is stupid is to dismiss stats for no reason.

Is it useful to point to it and say "He was -1, he had a bad game defensively" ? No.

Is it useful to look at a sample size and see over half a season or more this player is largely in the -, and therefore we can say they are not having a good defensive season? Yes it is IMO.

If they are somewhere close around 0 it probably isn't bad, but if a guy is like -15 or more, that should tell you something.

Zetterberg was -15 last season. Is he a bad player defensively?

Ryan O'Reilly -16.

Justin Faulk -22.

Look at those scrubs!

 

[Kamiccolo]

Zetterberg was -15 last season. Is he a bad player defensively?

Ryan O'Reilly -16.

Justin Faulk -22.

Look at those scrubs!

Yes... They played on bad teams. Zetterberg is not good anymore.

I suppose I should have added just like anything it's a tool to help build a bigger picture. Look at the teams +/- as well

Buffalo Team -21 ROR -16
Carolina Team -28 Faulk -22
Detroit Team -13 Zetter -15

So if you follow what I said earlier, we see out of here the only standout is ROR who is clearly great defensively which aligns with the player. The other two are negligible either way and are closer to average defensively than good.

My fault for forgetting that part, but it's what happens when I'm on here at work and get distracted mid post

 

[Kamiccolo]

Yes... They played on bad teams. Zetterberg is not good anymore.

I suppose I should have added just like anything it's a tool to help build a bigger picture. Look at the teams +/- as well

Buffalo Team -21 ROR -16
Carolina Team -28 Faulk -22
Detroit Team -13 Zetter -15

So if you follow what I said earlier, we see out of here the only standout is ROR who is clearly great defensively which aligns with the player. The other two are negligible either way and are closer to average defensively than good.

My fault for forgetting that part, but it's what happens when I'm on here at work and get distracted mid post

I can't edit unless a MOD can do it for me, but I mean ROR and Faulk are good and Zetter is negligible here.

 

[Breakers]

What is stupid is to dismiss stats for no reason.

Is it useful to point to it and say "He was -1, he had a bad game defensively" ? No.

Is it useful to look at a sample size and see over half a season or more this player is largely in the -, and therefore we can say they are not having a good defensive season? Yes it is IMO.

If they are somewhere close around 0 it probably isn't bad, but if a guy is like -15 or more, that should tell you something.

And what if that player is on a bad line change for a ton of shifts and just skews the data for that sample size?

or Empty net goals?

The amount of problems with +/- is so far reaching.

 

[Kamiccolo]

And what if that player is on a bad line change for a ton of shifts and just skews the data for that sample size?

or Empty net goals?

The amount of problems with +/- is so far reaching.

What if they are on the ice doing nothing when it is scored?

It all evens out with a larger sample size.

Also if you are screwing up a line change THAT regularly, then you ARE bad defensively as the goals are your fault.

 

[Breakers]

What if they are on the ice doing nothing when it is scored?

It all evens out with a larger sample size.

Also if you are screwing up a line change THAT regularly, then you ARE bad defensively as the goals are your fault.

Who says it is you that is screwing it up????

Other line or defensive pairing plays till dog tired, does a bad change you jump on the ice for all of 2 seconds & YOU GET A MINUS.

Your team is struggling to find offense and your team is constantly down 1 goal late in the third and you give up some empty netters YOU GET A MINUS.

You could be shutting down your opponents top centerman and keeping him pointless, yet they are still scoring and YOU GET A MINUS

 

[Kamiccolo]

Who says it is you that is screwing it up????

Other line or defensive pairing plays till dog tired, does a bad change you jump on the ice for all of 2 seconds & YOU GET A MINUS.

Your team is struggling to find offense and your team is constantly down 1 goal late in the third and you give up some empty netters YOU GET A MINUS.

You could be shutting down your opponents top centerman and keeping him pointless, yet they are still scoring and YOU GET A MINUS

You could do this for every single stat if you want too.

Corsi doesn't matter! What if one guy shoots 10 times from the side board and another guy shoots 3 times from the slot? One guy generates more offense on paper but it's due to weaker shot selection.

See how this logic is put everywhere? I never once said it was the be all end all, I said it is a tool to paint a bigger picture like everything else.

If the team is THAT bad that every time they change a goal is scored, it will reflect on the team, and you can compare a player to the team. Your examples are bad counter points because those things are just as common as stepping onto the ice while your team mates are on an odd man rush and you get a +.

 

[Breakers]

I love this analysis done by Stathletes...... John Chayka's company that he founded.

In a five year study — compiled through game in, game out video analysis of every goal scored for and against the Edmonton Oilers from 2008 to 2013 — it’s apparent that on goals for, about 70 per cent of the plus marks are correctly assigned to players who make some contribution, major or minor, to the goal. But 30 per cent of the plus marks are awarded to players who make little or no contribution at all to the goal being scored.

On goals against, team derived plus-minus systems are even less fair and accurate. Half of the minus marks on goals against are handed out to players who make a major or minor mistake on the goal against, but half of the minus marks go to players who either had no impact on the play or were doing their job defensively but nonetheless are assigned a minus mark due to an erring teammate.

In the end, it’s safe to say that one third of the plus and minus marks handed out under the official plus-minus system are assigned to players who don’t deserve them, and the problem is greatest at the defensive end of the ice. This number of incorrect assignments is likely as high as 40 per cent of all plus-minus marks handed out.

 

[BrindamoursNose]

Last night he was terrible

 

[Beef Invictus]

Yes, yes it is, but box score watchers and narrative seekers cling to it. As I wrote on the Flyers board, a season and a half ago, Couturier got excoriated in the media for going -5 in a game. He's a Selke level 2-way forward. Things happen. It was a bad game, no two ways about. But Provy also couldn't catch a break for the life of him. Every time something bad could happen or he made a mistake, he paid for it. The entire Flyers defense was awful and many of them got away with even worse mistakes. He did not look overwhelmed.

But like clockwork, people are going to pile on the rookie in his 3rd game questioning his readiness. He's been fantastic every game since camp started, preseason and regular season. Except for this one. Things happen. It doesn't help that he's a 19 year old rookie d man, paired with a 39 year old bottom pairing, offensively sheltered Mark Streit as the de facto top pair......in game 3, against top players like Kopitar or Kane. With Philly missing their top 2 d men, he's being thrown to the wolves and has handled it fantastically. Tonight the wolves got him. I trust that won't happen next game. He's so damned smart and skilled out there. You can see it each game.

It was a really unfortunate night. A few other dmen made mistakes that I thought were worse than anything Provorov did, but got lucky. Provy had a weird night where nothing went right.

 

[sbtatter]

I love this analysis done by Stathletes...... John Chayka's company that he founded.

In a five year study — compiled through game in, game out video analysis of every goal scored for and against the Edmonton Oilers from 2008 to 2013 — it’s apparent that on goals for, about 70 per cent of the plus marks are correctly assigned to players who make some contribution, major or minor, to the goal. But 30 per cent of the plus marks are awarded to players who make little or no contribution at all to the goal being scored.

On goals against, team derived plus-minus systems are even less fair and accurate. Half of the minus marks on goals against are handed out to players who make a major or minor mistake on the goal against, but half of the minus marks go to players who either had no impact on the play or were doing their job defensively but nonetheless are assigned a minus mark due to an erring teammate.

In the end, it’s safe to say that one third of the plus and minus marks handed out under the official plus-minus system are assigned to players who don’t deserve them, and the problem is greatest at the defensive end of the ice. This number of incorrect assignments is likely as high as 40 per cent of all plus-minus marks handed out.

Certainly not a great stat, but over a season you can get some value from it within a team for guys who played close to the same opposition all year

 

[PEI Flyers Fan]

Plus minus isn't a perfect stat and Provorov will be better. Too bad this game will be mentioned by pundits for years to come.

 

[ijuka]

Who cares about +/-

Such a stupid stat.

Bad for high sample size like throughout a career, bad for comparing players on different teams - It mainly is bad over a long time because of things like empty net goals and shorthanded goals and whatnot. The reason the stat is frowned upon is mostly due to it being relatively poor at predicting future performance due to the aforementioned events and that the way the sample size functions is dumb and makes no distinction between +500/-520 and +10/-30.

However, -5 still says a lot if it happens in one game. 5 goals being scored by a team is in general not very common. It coincidentally happening when one opposing player is on the ice is in general extremely rare. "He was -5 that game" is a pretty good way of saying that he had a bad game, and it's in itself a pretty good argument for that in my opinion.

Now, if some of those goals also were by his personal mistakes, what exactly is there to argue about regarding the usage of this stat in this scenario?