Confirmed with Link: Maple Leafs re-sign Nikita Zaitsev for 7 years, $4.5M per

[Throw More Waffles]

I mean, sure. But it's still way less effective than several alternatives, have way too much confounding elements to it, and the individual players isn't even the driving factor of their +/-.

There's simply no reason to use that metric. Even if there's a huge differential, you are better off looking at other numbers to get more, better and more reliable information.

Nope.

I agree plus/minus is tricky when comparing two players on two different teams.

But the same coach? Goalie? System?

I'm sorry. Plus/minus means a lot when comparing the same team.

No matter how you try and defend a player that you like, the simple fact of the matter is that when HE was on the ice, a **** ton of pucks went into OUR net when compared to other defensemen.

No matter how you slice it, that is a BAD thing.

 

[Walshy7]

Nope.

I agree plus/minus is tricky when comparing two players on two different teams.

But the same coach? Goalie? System?

I'm sorry. Plus/minus means a lot when comparing the same team.

No matter how you try and defend a player that you like, the simple fact of the matter is that when HE was on the ice, a **** ton of pucks went into OUR net when compared to other defensemen.

No matter how you slice it, that is a BAD thing.

Why not compare to is actual d partner most of the season? Different pairs get different match ups, Morgan rielly -20 in less games was a fairly regular partner, where is the rielly hate? I don't get it he is 3 year NHL vet

 

[Enemy]

Enemy approves. Good contract.

 

[hd1344]

Not hating the contract. 7 years a bit long but that is the price to pay to keep the AAV down. If the cap moves upwards in those 7 years then it is less of an issue.

IMO, if the Leafs can improve their D-corps overall then it might preclude Zaitsev from being the default "tough matchup" guy if they can find someone/some pair to take a bit of these tough minutes away.

I was expecting more offense out of him, but then again he had >35 points very quietly so I am not at all displeased.. Having 2 of our top 4 locked down long term (5+ years left) for 5 million or less is a positive in my books.

 

[The Thin White Duke]

Nope.

I agree plus/minus is tricky when comparing two players on two different teams.

But the same coach? Goalie? System?

I'm sorry. Plus/minus means a lot when comparing the same team.

No matter how you try and defend a player that you like, the simple fact of the matter is that when HE was on the ice, a **** ton of pucks went into OUR net when compared to other defensemen.

No matter how you slice it, that is a BAD thing.

Gardiner makes a bad play and turns the puck over while the rest of the line and his RD is making a line change, the second Zaitsev puts both feet on the ice the puck is in the back of the net and he has a minus.

Alternatively, Zaitsev spends his whole shift defending against Crosby/Ovechkin, gets the puck out clean, and heads off when he sees Crosby/Ovechkin changing. Gardiner gets on the ice as the other team's 3rd line does and the forwards put the puck in, Gardiner gets a plus.

Even strength goals don't happen often enough in a game to be able to get really meaningful information out of them, they're heavily impacted by fluke events. Shots happen at 10x the rate of goals, it makes more sense to look at them, fluke events happen proportionately less often.

 

[LeafFever]

The fnny thing is all we heard since that Hall.Larrson trade is how incredibly difficult and expensive it is to get a top 4 D. The Leafs got a young RH top 4 D as a UFA. and people are complaining about a 4.5 million cap hit??

 

[hd1344]

The fnny thing is all we heard since that Hall.Larrson trade is how incredibly difficult and expensive it is to get a top 4 D. The Leafs got a young RH top 4 D as a UFA. and people are complaining about a 4.5 million cap hit??

Agreed. No assets surrendered. Following these boards, most people would have like a deal around 4 Million or so. an extra 500 K per year doesn't bother me at all. If it comes to a point where Zaitsev is becoming a liability towards the end, many teams in the NHL have been able to get out of these types of contracts.

 

[hullsy47]

Nice. Thought it was going to be 5+

good signing fair deal

 

[Griffin76]

The fnny thing is all we heard since that Hall.Larrson trade is how incredibly difficult and expensive it is to get a top 4 D. The Leafs got a young RH top 4 D as a UFA. and people are complaining about a 4.5 million cap hit??

I'm surprised nobody has gotten so petty as to say it's $21530 too much and 37 days too long. It's a great deal. It was his first year in the league and he was definitely a top 4 player. I expect him to reach his prime by year 2 or 3 in his extension and by year 7 even if he regresses back to what he is now it's still a great deal for both sides.

 

[Pi]

Jake Gardiner was a +24 (on the Ice for 24 more GF than GA at 5v5), while Zaitsev was a -22 (on the Ice for 22 more GA than GF at 5v5).

That's a +46 goal differential in Gardiner's favour among teammates.

When Gardiner is on the ice the Leafs are scoring more goals and when Zaitsev is on the ice the opposition is depositing pucks in Leafs net.

Why didn't Kessel win the Selke last year? Went from -34 to +9! That's a 43 goal improvement.

 

[zeke]

Nope.

I agree plus/minus is tricky when comparing two players on two different teams.

But the same coach? Goalie? System?

I'm sorry. Plus/minus means a lot when comparing the same team.

No matter how you try and defend a player that you like, the simple fact of the matter is that when HE was on the ice, a **** ton of pucks went into OUR net when compared to other defensemen.

No matter how you slice it, that is a BAD thing.

No, plus/minus is even worse when comparing players on the same team, actually.

 

[Throw More Waffles]

Gardiner makes a bad play and turns the puck over while the rest of the line and his RD is making a line change, the second Zaitsev puts both feet on the ice the puck is in the back of the net and he has a minus.

Alternatively, Zaitsev spends his whole shift defending against Crosby/Ovechkin, gets the puck out clean, and heads off when he sees Crosby/Ovechkin changing. Gardiner gets on the ice as the other team's 3rd line does and the forwards put the puck in, Gardiner gets a plus.

Even strength goals don't happen often enough in a game to be able to get really meaningful information out of them, they're heavily impacted by fluke events. Shots happen at 10x the rate of goals, it makes more sense to look at them, fluke events happen proportionately less often.

Sure. Flukes happen.

But over a long enough timeline everything balances out. I mean, they play 82 freaking games.

I guess Bobby Orr sure was "lucky" when he went +124. It's a ridiculous suggestion.

When players we like are having a great season, everyone is always sure to point out how great their plus/minus is. When a player we like has a bad plus/minus? "Bad luck".

It's a stat that means A LOT over the course of an entire season. When Zaitsev was on the ice, a **** ton of pucks went into our net.

It's only "luck" in the same sense that assists would be "luck". You could say "Zaitsev sets up an easy goal, but the leaf player hit the post. Assists are just luck." It's ridiculous.

 

[Throw More Waffles]

Why not compare to is actual d partner most of the season? Different pairs get different match ups, Morgan rielly -20 in less games was a fairly regular partner, where is the rielly hate? I don't get it he is 3 year NHL vet

I think Reilly had a mediocre year as well, and I'm pretty sure this board wasn't very impressed with his season.

I remember reading here a few years ago and posters that questioned if Rielly would really become "elite" were considered trolls. It was apparently "trolling" to even speculate that Rielly may not be elite.

Things change pretty quickly I guess...

 

[Throw More Waffles]

No, plus/minus is even worse when comparing players on the same team, actually.

No it's not. Same goalie. Coaching system.

Your opinion is incorrect.

 

[Damisoph]

I think Reilly had a mediocre year as well, and I'm pretty sure this board wasn't very impressed with his season.

I remember reading here a few years ago and posters that questioned if Rielly would really become "elite" were considered trolls. It was apparently "trolling" to even speculate that Rielly may not be elite.

Things change pretty quickly I guess...

I think his playoff performance has made certain people think twice about Rielly's potential.

 

[Morbo]

Sure. Flukes happen.

But over a long enough timeline everything balances out. I mean, they play 82 freaking games.

I guess Bobby Orr sure was "lucky" when he went +124. It's a ridiculous suggestion.

When players we like are having a great season, everyone is always sure to point out how great their plus/minus is. When a player we like has a bad plus/minus? "Bad luck".

It's a stat that means A LOT over the course of an entire season. When Zaitsev was on the ice, a **** ton of pucks went into our net.

It's only "luck" in the same sense that assists would be "luck". You could say "Zaitsev sets up an easy goal, but the leaf player hit the post. Assists are just luck." It's ridiculous.

It only means a lot if you have no understanding of quality of competition or player usage.

 

[Throw More Waffles]

Why didn't Kessel win the Selke last year? Went from -34 to +9! That's a 43 goal improvement.

Uh... because he went from a team with -48 goal differential to a team with +49 goal differential.

Which is why +/- works much better when comparing players of the same team. Same coach. Goalie. Etc.

 

[Deebo]

When players we like are having a great season, everyone is always sure to point out how great their plus/minus is.

No, those who correctly value +/- never use it.

 

[Deebo]

Which is why +/- works much better when comparing players of the same team. Same coach. Goalie. Etc.

They play against different players and are deployed in different situations.

 

[Throw More Waffles]

It only means a lot if you have no understanding of quality of competition or player usage.

Then stop citing assists as an important stat as well.

If the argument is that +/- is based mostly on "luck" (lol), then so are assists.

You pass to a guy leading to a breakaway. Goalie saves it. BAD LUCK. Assists are a useless stat.

You pass to a guy and he scores. But goal called off for goalie interference. BAD LUCK. Assists are a useless stat.

And on and on we could go.

Of course, people with common sense would say that if you repeatedly set up teammates with many great scoring chances, over a long enough time line it will be reflected in your number of assists.

Similarly, people with common sense would say that if you're a defenceman who repeatedly makes solid defensive plays in your zone, over a long enough time line it will be reflected in your +/-.

 

[Throw More Waffles]

They play against different players and are deployed in different situations.

Then wouldn't that be the same with every statistic in hockey?

I guess all stats are useless.

Every player is equally good.

 

[Menzinger]

Sure. Flukes happen.

But over a long enough timeline everything balances out. I mean, they play 82 freaking games.

I guess Bobby Orr sure was "lucky" when he went +124. It's a ridiculous suggestion.

When players we like are having a great season, everyone is always sure to point out how great their plus/minus is. When a player we like has a bad plus/minus? "Bad luck".

It's a stat that means A LOT over the course of an entire season. When Zaitsev was on the ice, a **** ton of pucks went into our net.

It's only "luck" in the same sense that assists would be "luck". You could say "Zaitsev sets up an easy goal, but the leaf player hit the post. Assists are just luck." It's ridiculous.

The problem regarding trying to draw strong analysis from +/-is that even over the course of a season goals are rare events especially on a game to game basis. And luck is still very much at play: goalie has an off night and lets in a trio of weak goals than the skaters on the ice get penalized in plus minus despite not being at fault themselves.

As for Orr - good players can of course naturally have good +\- records but we can point to many other stats that would better inform of that fact

 

[Duke Silver]

No, plus/minus is even worse when comparing players on the same team, actually.

Not that I disagree with plus/minus being useless, but genuinely curious to hear your viewpoint on this.

 

[Throw More Waffles]

The problem regarding trying to draw strong analysis from +/-is that even over the course of a season goals are rare events especially on a game to game basis. And luck is still very much at play: goalie has an off night and lets in a trio of weak goals than the skaters on the ice get penalized in plus minus despite not being at fault themselves.

As for Orr - good players can of course naturally have good +\- records but we can point to many other stats that would better inform of that fact

It's like any stat. Context is important.

It's not the "be all end all" most important statistic or anything. But it is a useful piece for the overall puzzle.

Assists, for example, aren't really important for a 4th line defensive/pk specialist. We wouldn't assess that player based on how many assists he got. But that doesn't mean assists, in general, are a useless statistic. And assists are also often just luck.

For a defenseman like Zaitsev, I think +/- (compared to other defensemen on his team) is a useful statistic to keep mind of in addition to many other statistics. He was dead last on the entire team. Another defenseman, Gardiner, was almost fifty points higher in +/-. It shows that, overall spanning the entire season, Gardiner was making much better decisions on the spot and was more defensively responsible. And he should be, given it was his sixth season, as opposed to first season.

Far too many people think +/- is relevant only when it tells them what they want to hear about a player. I consistently think +/- is a a useful stat regardless of whether it's high/low on a player I like/hate. But it is only but a small piece of the overall puzzle.

 

[Pi]

Not that I disagree with plus/minus being useless, but genuinely curious to hear your viewpoint on this.

I think it has to do with QoC. IMO, Sheltered players will have higher +/- than non sheltered players.

For example, if you're facing the 3rd and 4th lines on other teams while there are other players on your team facing Crosby/Malkin for 20-30 mins, there are very good chances that you're going to end up with a + while your teammates end up with the minus.

That means it should be easier to compare +/- to other players on different teams provided they face similar competition.