GDT: Seattle @ Columbus | 7 PM EST

[Fred Glover]

Are you asking for my source? My source: trust me bro.

Did you stay in a Holiday Inn last night ((no malice in my comments hopefully you get the joke)

 

[alphafox]

How can you be 100% sure? How can you even be 50% sure? Are you in the room?

Agree, this is definitely a gamble and there is no way of knowing. However to be fair JT Miller has a serious history as an abrassive team member and has a widely known history of having team conflicts in VAN (Bo Horvat) as well as less specific rumors/stories in NY.

EP40 is a big swing but to me he would probably thrive in a situation like this team who seems to have built a very supportive culture and it less of a microscope than the big market Canadian teams. Furthermore, I think his production drop is due to pushing through and not fully recovering from his knee injury and we likely won't see him back to full capability until next year. But, if we could get him for the right price and he hits he represents the sort of upgrade that could mean cup runs for this team for years. With Ep40-Monahan-Fantilli down the middle.

Its a home run swing and now might not be the time to take it, but We have the potential to do something special with our center corps while still having money to sign a alot of the developing core and overhaul the back end.

 

[DankoCBJ]

Rarely have I seen a defense of a position so flimsy.

Ofcourse I dont really know 100% sure what is happening in Vancouver. Just my personal read on things.

But that being said, I would still trade for EP if the price is right. Not for JT Miller. I just dont think they end up trading EP.

But we have a good one going here now so I am more than fine if DW sits this one out.

Have a good weekend fellow CBJ fans!!

 

[majormajor]

I don't see how a shorthanded goal corrupts this stat. If you score a shortie, that plus is earned. The minus for giving up a shortie also.

What corrupts it, to me, is when guys make a play that leads to a goal, but went for a line change before the goal is scored and miss out on the plus, and the guy that didn't do anything gets it because he was on the ice when the goal happened, or when it works the other way for a minus.

All these things, though, aren't common enough events to really have a bearing on the stat.

It corrupts the stat because you'll get 5 or so minuses each year simply for being a PP player. And you'll get 5 or so plusses per year simply for being a PK player. Even if you are a PP player who is exceptionally conscientious and good at preventing shorthanded goals, you will still get more minuses from the few your team gives up, compared to the player who doesn't play PP. It's not a level playing field.

 

[Monstershockey]

It corrupts the stat because you'll get 5 or so minuses each year simply for being a PP player. And you'll get 5 or so plusses per year simply for being a PK player. Even if you are a PP player who is exceptionally conscientious and good at preventing shorthanded goals, you will still get more minuses from the few your team gives up, compared to the player who doesn't play PP. It's not a level playing field.

I think it all evens out over the course of a season. I guess if you take it as an exact number it may corrupt it, but if you look at it as distance from even it shouldn't. Plus or minus 5 isn't really a big deal over a full season.

Let's say Marchanko finishes +20. Is it really a huge difference if its +15 or +25? He still is far enough away from even that you could figure he is a positive offensive player.

I get what you're saying, just don't think it is a big deal over a full season.

 

[majormajor]

I think it all evens out over the course of a season. I guess if you take it as an exact number it may corrupt it, but if you look at it as distance from even it shouldn't. Plus or minus 5 isn't really a big deal over a full season.

Let's say Marchanko finishes +20. Is it really a huge difference if its +15 or +25? He still is far enough away from even that you could figure he is a positive offensive player.

I get what you're saying, just don't think it is a big deal over a full season.

It doesn't even out if you're a PP player being compared to someone who isn't. And it doesn't even out if you're on a bad team in empty net situations.

For example, when Erik Karlsson won his last Norris, he was -26. He got a lot of shit for it. He was actually an even player 5v5. 96 GF, 96 GA. It was mostly empty net goals against and some shorthanded goals against. That's a huge difference, even looking from some distance. You would simply be misled. The stat community is unanimous about this, +/- should be replaced with the 5v5 or ES only version.

 

[Monstershockey]

It doesn't even out if you're a PP player being compared to someone who isn't. And it doesn't even out if you're on a bad team in empty net situations.

For example, when Erik Karlsson won his last Norris, he was -26. He got a lot of shit for it. He was actually an even player 5v5. 96 GF, 96 GA. It was mostly empty net goals against and some shorthanded goals against. That's a huge difference, even looking from some distance. You would simply be misled. The stat community is unanimous about this, +/- should be replaced with the 5v5 or ES only version.

Actually the -26 did what it should. It was high enough to make you look deeper into it to see if it was really warranted.

Part of the problem is how much other players on the ice, or football field, for instance, could effect anothers numbers. When you get numbers that high, but yet your eye tells you something different, you can usually figure it out by looking deeper. Kind of like Bjorkstrand's -35 a few years back. I'm sure if you dig, that number may not represent Bjorkstrand's play, but the others that were on the ice with him.

You can't take +/- at face value, but you can use the number, if it seems too high or low to look further into the stats too see if it is warranted, which is probably what was taken into consideration with Kalsson.

If you use it to compare players straight up, then yeah, it's a flawed comparison.

 

[majormajor]

Actually the -26 did what it should. It was high enough to make you look deeper into it to see if it was really warranted.

So the stat was off by so much that people looked into it to see that it wasn't properly representative of the players play?

That kind of sounds like a not useful stat to me.

And in this case, most people are not digging in to Erik Karlsson's underlying numbers and seeing all the 6 v 5 goals against, they're just seeing the -26 and thinking he maybe shouldn't have won the Norris.

 

[Nikolajs Sillers]

Are you asking for my source? My source: trust me bro.