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

[Throw More Waffles]

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.

Did Zaitsev really play that much harder competition than Gardiner spanning the entire season? Enough to amount to a fifty goal differential between their +/-'s?

Just sounds like a lot of lame excuses to defend players we like.

I'm not being anti leaf or anything. I'm saying Gardiner's excellent +/- is a direct result of stronger defensive play than Zaitsev. Which simply makes sense, given we're comparing 6 years experience to a rookie.

 

[Morbo]

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 +/-.

I really have no idea what you're talking about, but if you want to understand +/- then try to comprehend that different players on the same team face different levels of competition and are deployed differently by their coaches.

 

[Throw More Waffles]

I really have no idea what you're talking about, but if you want to understand +/- then try to comprehend that different players on the same team face different levels of competition and are deployed differently by their coaches.

Wouldn't that apply to assists as well?

I guess assists are a useless statistic as well.
Er... at least when assists don't tell us what we want to hear.

 

[Nithoniniel]

Difference between assists and plus/minus is that the former deals with what you do directly, the latter deal with what happens when you are on the ice.

There's been studies done on the usefulness of plus/minus. Instead of marrying an opinion, why not read up on those that have done a lot of work on it?

If you want to save yourself the time, they've pretty much found out that plus/minus is a result of, in order (if I remember correctly):

1) Team
2) Competition & Usage
3) PDO-effects
4) Player in Question
5) Special Team Usage

Finally, as I said earlier, regardless of what you actually want to use plus/minus to gauge, there are much more effective tools available. Why would you not use them instead?

 

[Throw More Waffles]

Difference between assists and plus/minus is that the former deals with what you do directly, the latter deal with what happens when you are on the ice.

There's been studies done on the usefulness of plus/minus. Instead of marrying an opinion, why not read up on those that have done a lot of work on it?

If you want to save yourself the time, they've pretty much found out that plus/minus is a result of, in order (if I remember correctly):

1) Team
2) Competition & Usage
3) PDO-effects
4) Player in Question
5) Special Team Usage

Finally, as I said earlier, regardless of what you actually want to plus/minus to gauge, there are much more effective tools available. Why would you not use them instead?

No. Assists depend on what the guy you pass it to does.

If you're setting a lot of people up well, you'll gather the assists, regardless of "luck".

And if you're a defenseman playing exceptional defence all year, your +/- will go up compared to your teammates who are playing lousy defense, regardless of luck.

 

[Pi]

Did Zaitsev really play that much harder competition than Gardiner spanning the entire season? Enough to amount to a fifty goal differential between their +/-'s?

Just sounds like a lot of lame excuses to defend players we like.

I'm not being anti leaf or anything. I'm saying Gardiner's excellent +/- is a direct result of stronger defensive play than Zaitsev. Which simply makes sense, given we're comparing 6 years experience to a rookie.

Gardiner is better than Zaitsev, he did get easier competition than Zaitsev but did good even when things got tough, I don't think you would find anyone here that can defend Zaitsev > Gardiner. Gardiner is better than Zaitsev at the moment and if Zaitsev can be as good as Gardiner has been for us this year over his 7 years, he lucked out big time in terms of the contract.

 

[Menzinger]

Breaking down +\-

http://www.arcticicehockey.com/2014/6/5/5602668/why-plus-minus-is-the-worst-statistic-in-hockey

 

[Morbo]

Wouldn't that apply to assists as well?

I guess assists are a useless statistic as well.
Er... at least when assists don't tell us what we want to hear.

No idea what you're talking about.

 

[Throw More Waffles]

No idea what you're talking about.

Yes you do. You're just being stubborn because I'm proving your argument wrong. The ol' stick your head in the dirt defence.

You say +/- isn't a reliable stat because players "face different competition" and are "deployed differently by their coaches."

Well... wouldn't those two aspects affect players assist numbers as well? I guess that means that, according to YOUR logic, assists are another stat that don't mean anything.

Couldn't we apply that logic to pretty much every statistic? I guess every statistic is irrelevant. Every player in the nhl is equally good as every other player in every way.

 

[Throw More Waffles]

Breaking down +\-

http://www.arcticicehockey.com/2014/6/5/5602668/why-plus-minus-is-the-worst-statistic-in-hockey

I just read the article.

I mean, it's interesting. But I still think it's a strange inaccurate point he's making.

His argument is about two identical players. Player A and Player B are on the same team.

Player A plays twice as many games as Player B. So player A's +/-'s is twice as high as player B's. Author claims it makes the +/- stat inaccurate. But couldn't we say the same of other stats? If player A plays twice as many games as player B, wouldn't player A have twice as many assists? How does it make the stat inaccurate? Are assists also not an accurate stat?

His 2nd argument is save percentage. He says what if the teams goalie has a higher save percentage when Player A's on the ice than player B. It would skew player B's +/-, making it inaccurate. Again, couldn't we say the same for assists? If all season the other teams goalie for some reason has a lower save percentage when Player A is on the ice, player A would get more assists. I guess, once again, assists also mean nothing.

I mean, there's a few other easily countered arguments, but I doubt anybody would read the whole thing if I continued.

 

[Duke Silver]

No. Assists depend on what the guy you pass it to does.

If you're setting a lot of people up well, you'll gather the assists, regardless of "luck".

And if you're a defenseman playing exceptional defence all year, your +/- will go up compared to your teammates who are playing lousy defense, regardless of luck.

I've read a lot of dumb arguments on these boards but this one has outdone them all. Good lord.

 

[Throw More Waffles]

I've read a lot of dumb arguments on these boards but this one has outdone them all. Good lord.

A perfectly logical argument.

Solid defensive play from a defenseman, in the long run, will lead to few goals going in.

Solid playmaking from a forward, in the long run, will lead to more assists.

There are a lot of intangibles that could affect both. You seem to suggest those intangibles are "luck" when it comes to +/-, but "skill" when it comes to assists.

Sorry if the argument challenges your flawed opinion.

 

[Muston Atthews]

Solid defensive play from a defense man will lead to less goals going in, until your winger flubs a pass and it's in the back of the net while you're skating off for a change. This is why plus minus isn't a good stat.

But you're right about assists and case in point is Matthews. Hyman had the third most high danger chances in the league and buried next to none with Matthews but we all know Matthews is a great playmaker and passer. The assist total doesn't reflect that.

However, you get a talented winger on Matthews wing to bury those chances and his assists will sky rocket. You can change the lines as much as you want but if someone on your line messes up you're still getting the minus.

I get your logic but it's not the same

 

[Throw More Waffles]

Solid defensive play from a defense man will lead to less goals going in, until your winger flubs a pass and it's in the back of the net while you're skating off for a change. This is why plus minus isn't a good stat.

But you're right about assists and case in point is Matthews. Hyman had the third most high danger chances in the league and buried next to none with Matthews but we all know Matthews is a great playmaker and passer. The assist total doesn't reflect that.

However, you get a talented winger on Matthews wing to bury those chances and his assists will sky rocket. You can change the lines as much as you want but if someone on your line messes up you're still getting the minus.

I get your logic but it's not the same

I'm not saying they're exactly the same.

But the ways they are partly similar is that they both rely on things out of your control.

So a winger flubs a pass and the other team scores. You say it affects the defensemans +/- so it's not a good stat.

But couldn't we say something similar with assists? You set a guy up with a clear cut open net, but his stick breaks. Or he fans. Or he hits the post. You set up the goal, but it didn't go in, so assists aren't a good stat.

What I think is that both stats are useful to some degree. If you're a good playmaker, the assists will add up in the long run, regardless of those bad luck fanning on the puck moments.

And if you're a good defender, your +/- will be higher than the weak defensive players in the long run, regardless of those bad luck 'winger fans on the puck and the other team scores' moments.

 

[Morbo]

Yes you do. You're just being stubborn because I'm proving your argument wrong. The ol' stick your head in the dirt defence.

You say +/- isn't a reliable stat because players "face different competition" and are "deployed differently by their coaches."

Well... wouldn't those two aspects affect players assist numbers as well? I guess that means that, according to YOUR logic, assists are another stat that don't mean anything.

Couldn't we apply that logic to pretty much every statistic? I guess every statistic is irrelevant. Every player in the nhl is equally good as every other player in every way.

Does anybody have the foggiest notion what this is about?

 

[Walshy7]

Does anybody have the foggiest notion what this is about?

its about "proving" Zaitsev sucks and his contract is too much $ and term.

 

[Throw More Waffles]

Does anybody have the foggiest notion what this is about?

I'm 90% certain you're just trolling at this point. But just in case it's that 10%...

You specifically said that +/- isn't a reliable stat because players "face different competition" and are "deployed differently by their coaches."

Are you still with me? How could you be lost at this point? I'm simply QUOTING what you said. So if you're confused at this point, then you are confused by your very own argument. Not mine.

Now, my counter argument is that a players assist numbers would ALSO be affected by the fact that they "face different competition" and are "deployed differently by their coaches."

So I ask... should assists no longer be considered a reliable statistic as well, based on YOUR logic?

 

[Throw More Waffles]

its about "proving" Zaitsev sucks and his contract is too much $ and term.

Not that Zaitsev sucks. He was a rookie and there were definitely some positives in his play this season.

But given that he had the worst +/- on the team (a full FIFTY points lower than our best defenseman) it raises some questions about his defensive play. Maybe $30 million as a reward for one mediocre season was a little ridiculous.

As with many "typical fans" on this board, the stats that don't in this instance tell them what they want to hear are rendered "useless". But it's just "biased fan" syndrome.

 

[Ropesman]

I'm 90% certain you're just trolling at this point. But just in case it's that 10%...

You specifically said that +/- isn't a reliable stat because players "face different competition" and are "deployed differently by their coaches."

Are you still with me? How could you be lost at this point? I'm simply QUOTING what you said. So if you're confused at this point, then you are confused by your very own argument. Not mine.

Now, my counter argument is that a players assist numbers would ALSO be affected by the fact that they "face different competition" and are "deployed differently by their coaches."

So I ask... should assists no longer be considered a reliable statistic as well, based on YOUR logic?

I get what your saying but i feel like its just a weak comparison. When the player you pass to doesn't convert his scoring chance you don't get -1 assists. You don't add to your total but you also don't lose from your total.

With the amount of advanced stats out there now plus minus is pretty outdated. Throughout the time i have spent looking around the league for potential top 4 D never have i checked the players plus minus.

 

[saltming]

I just read the article.

I mean, it's interesting. But I still think it's a strange inaccurate point he's making.

His argument is about two identical players. Player A and Player B are on the same team.

Player A plays twice as many games as Player B. So player A's +/-'s is twice as high as player B's. Author claims it makes the +/- stat inaccurate. But couldn't we say the same of other stats? If player A plays twice as many games as player B, wouldn't player A have twice as many assists? How does it make the stat inaccurate? Are assists also not an accurate stat?

His 2nd argument is save percentage. He says what if the teams goalie has a higher save percentage when Player A's on the ice than player B. It would skew player B's +/-, making it inaccurate. Again, couldn't we say the same for assists? If all season the other teams goalie for some reason has a lower save percentage when Player A is on the ice, player A would get more assists. I guess, once again, assists also mean nothing.

I mean, there's a few other easily countered arguments, but I doubt anybody would read the whole thing if I continued.

Logic can be subjective or objective.
There are many objective arguments refuting your logic.

 

[Throw More Waffles]

I get what your saying but i feel like its just a weak comparison. When the player you pass to doesn't convert his scoring chance you don't get -1 assists. You don't add to your total but you also don't lose from your total.

With the amount of advanced stats out there now plus minus is pretty outdated. Throughout the time i have spent looking around the league for potential top 4 D never have i checked the players plus minus.

But aren't even the advanced stats heavily debated for their reliability? Do the advanced stats clash with Zaitsev having a terribly low +/-?

By and large the good playmakers get a lot of assists compared to players with poor playmaking skills.

And by and large the very defensively responsible players have a good +/- compared to their defensively flawed teammates.

Neither stat is the be all end all of all stats. But they are both very very telling.

Zaitsev was lowest +/- on the team. FIFTY goals below the best defenseman. I mean, the team ITSELF only had an 18 goal differential. And Zaitsev was FIFTY below Gardiner.

That should tell you a lot about their defensive play/awareness.

Writing the stat off entirely because it's not telling you what you want to hear seems silly to me.

 

[Throw More Waffles]

Logic can be subjective or objective.
There are many objective arguments refuting your logic.

And what would those objective arguments be?

"I likey like Zaitsev, so if his +/- is low, that means the stat is badie bads."

 

[Tak7]

The analytics breakdown of Zaitsev has him more comparable to Matt Hunwick than to Gardiner and Reilly.

Not a fan of the term on this deal, for that reason. There's still room for him to grow though. At his age, he isn't done improving. The Leafs better hope he isn't, that's for sure.

 

[Pholus]

And if you're a good defender, your +/- will be higher than the weak defensive players in the long run, regardless of those bad luck 'winger fans on the puck and the other team scores' moments.

How long is "in the long run?" Is it a few months? A full season? Multiple seasons?

I ask because if 1 season is long enough, than do you believe that Joel Edmundson is better defensively than Alex Pietrangelo? You should, because Edmundson had a better +/- this season. How many people do you think would agree that Edmundson is the better defensive player?

If 1 season is not long enough, than your conclusion is premature at best, because the sample size is not yet large enough.

I'm not arguing that you're wrong, as "better" stats also point out that Zaitsev wasn't great defensively, but you're literally picking one of the worst stats available to support your argument. Here (TLN) and here (PPP) are a couple of articles which make a much better case than you're currently doing.

 

[Morbo]

I'm 90% certain you're just trolling at this point. But just in case it's that 10%...

You specifically said that +/- isn't a reliable stat because players "face different competition" and are "deployed differently by their coaches."

Are you still with me? How could you be lost at this point? I'm simply QUOTING what you said. So if you're confused at this point, then you are confused by your very own argument. Not mine.

Now, my counter argument is that a players assist numbers would ALSO be affected by the fact that they "face different competition" and are "deployed differently by their coaches."

So I ask... should assists no longer be considered a reliable statistic as well, based on YOUR logic?

Comparing assists to +/- is not logical.