Confirmed with Link: Canucks sign D Ian Cole to 1-Year, $3M Deal

[RobertKron]

If a defensive D man is minus 41 he’s had a terrible season. Plus minus might be a stat fans don’t care too much about but the players do care. They don’t like being a minus. Their coaches don’t like them being a minus either. Most bottom six forwards and bottom pairing D need to at least be evens for their club to be successful. Too many minus players in those roles equals a bad club. The elite scoring guys can be minus and still carry their teams on the PP.
So the plus minus is a good stat, especially for supporting role players.

Many of the things you are describing are team concepts that can't necessarily be relied upon to tell an accurate story when you zoom in like that. Plus-minus somewhat inherently leads to this, as it is a team stat applied to the individual without context.

This also doesn't address that OP's initial stance was that you make your team better by just going and finding guys with a good plus-minus to replace your bad plus-minus players, which is obviously silly since plus minus isn't giving you useful information for that without context. Like, nobody thinks that the team is going to be better by just replacing JT Miller with like Kyle Palmieri, since everybody understands that plus-minus is essentially useless without context.

Like, this is what all this plus-minus talk is referring to:

Well OEL was more like a 2nd pairing guy his last 3 seasons base on his average TOI. His minus 24 is why he was bought out and guys like Cole and Soucy brought in. You want to win games? You replace minus guys for plus guys.

 

[Fatass]

Many of the things you are describing are team concepts that can't necessarily be relied upon to tell an accurate story when you zoom in like that. Plus-minus somewhat inherently leads to this, as it is a team stat applied to the individual without context.

This also doesn't address that OP's initial stance was that you make your team better by just going and finding guys with a good plus-minus to replace your bad plus-minus players, which is obviously silly since plus minus isn't giving you useful information for that without context. Like, nobody thinks that the team is going to be better by just replacing JT Miller with like Kyle Palmieri, since everybody understands that plus-minus is essentially useless without context.

Like, this is what all this plus-minus talk is referring to:

I’m pretty sure players don’t like winning the Green Jacket.

 

[RobertKron]

I’m pretty sure players don’t like winning the Green Jacket.

Were Matthias Ohlund and Sami Salo substantially worse players than Marek Malik in 03-04?

 

[biturbo19]

If a defensive D man is minus 41 he’s had a terrible season. Plus minus might be a stat fans don’t care too much about but the players do care. They don’t like being a minus. Their coaches don’t like them being a minus either. Most bottom six forwards and bottom pairing D need to at least be evens for their club to be successful. Too many minus players in those roles equals a bad club. The elite scoring guys can be minus and still carry their teams on the PP.
So the plus minus is a good stat, especially for supporting role players.

You're kind of dancing around the context that can make +/- at least a vaguely useful measure here.

On a "good team" you want bottom-6 forwards, bottom-pairing D, etc. to be a solid + player for sure. Crushing the minutes they're responsible for. Yes.

But how you get there, and how you avoid having a defensive D end up a -41 or whatever, is by having a strong TEAM that insulates players and slots them into appropriate roles in the depth chart and handling appropriate minutes for their ability level.


A defenceman doesn't get to -41 without being thrown into huge minutes that they're absolutely drowning in. It's more of a team context indicator. It suggests that defenceman is not suited to handling the sort of big, tough matchup minutes they've been pressed into. There's value in understanding that. But it doesn't inherently mean that same defenceman wouldn't be a plus player if you could slot them in more appropriately to lesser, or softer minutes, insulated behind a better matchup pair/with a better partner/behind a forward corps that is more responsible defensively and scores more at the other end to bolster that +/-.


But that's really the value of +/-. It's understanding how a player does in a particular role within the context of a team. Bad teams are bad, because they have a lot of players slotted into minutes they're not capable of winning. That's why every year, the green jacket frontrunners are always largely clustered around the worst teams.

 

[RobsonStreet]

it takes a true stats guy to confidently contradict someone who has watched a player on another team in every game for three years.

yes his ga/60 at even strength last year is tied with burns and slightly better than skjei, but there may be a "reverse clutch" syndrome at play to make the goals he is on for stand out.

Ironically, there’s actually a stat that suggests this is probably the case for Pesce. Corey Sznajder (patreon) manually tracks puck retrievals, zone entries, etc. Pesce is simultaneously one of the league leaders in aggressively trying to force turnovers at the blueline and is effective at this style of defense.

Getting beaten at the blueline is one of those loud types of D mistakes so it wouldn’t surprise me if we remember these. To use a dated Canucks example, Brent Sopel’s one weird trick was keeping pucks in at the offensive blueline. I remember he did it a lot and when it didn’t work he looked like a pylon.

 

[F A N]

Were Matthias Ohlund and Sami Salo substantially worse players than Marek Malik in 03-04?

Put into context though, Malik was very effective here and allowed Jovo to do his thing. Playing at the height of the WCE era with Jovo also helped Malik's +/-. But one can certainly argue that Malik played very well. It doesn't mean he was a better than Ohlund and Salo on his own but in the minutes that he played and with Jovo he was every effective and his +/- certainly reflected the eye test.

I think Malik was underrated in his time because he was a "gentle giant." He played well during Carolina's Cup run (they all did), was great here, and I think even in New York, Rozsival looked better than he was when he had Malik.

 

[Nick Lang]

I think +/- stats doesn't tell the whole story but it isn't a useless stat. Put into context, it is useful stat.

I've still never seen why it is seen as a useless stat. Is it not good when you are on the ice when your team scores and off it when the opposition scores? Sure sometimes you might jump on or off as a goal is scored but that will even itself out unless you are lazy or make bad line changes. Of course some players play with better players/teams, or in tougher positional situations, but that is the context you use when valuing the stat. I feel the measure of a good player is to add more than they give away. That is definitely something I would strive for.

In addition, it's good for measuring between players on the same team, and then players on other teams in similar positions.

 

[RobsonStreet]

I've still never seen why it is seen as a useless stat. Is it not good when you are on the ice when your team scores and off it when the opposition scores? Sure sometimes you might jump on or off as a goal is scored but that will even itself out unless you are lazy or make bad line changes. Of course some players play with better players/teams, or in tougher positional situations, but that is the context you use when valuing the stat. I feel the measure of a good player is to add more than they give away. That is definitely something I would strive for.

In addition, it's good for measuring between players on the same team, and then players on other teams in similar positions.

It’s counterintuitive, but the worst players on a given team are likely to have a plus minus not too far below zero; they are so bad their icetime is heavily managed. The green jacket leaders may not be great, but they are rarely the worst skater on the team. I like to think of this as the John Scott effect.

 

[F A N]

I've still never seen why it is seen as a useless stat. Is it not good when you are on the ice when your team scores and off it when the opposition scores? Sure sometimes you might jump on or off as a goal is scored but that will even itself out unless you are lazy or make bad line changes. Of course some players play with better players/teams, or in tougher positional situations, but that is the context you use when valuing the stat. I feel the measure of a good player is to add more than they give away. That is definitely something I would strive for.

In addition, it's good for measuring between players on the same team, and then players on other teams in similar positions.

I think with some players there's a reason why they have good +/- stats. Karlsson, for example, as dynamic as he is, he's never been great defensively. Lidstrom, on the other hand, was terrific defensively and is among the all time leaders. Sure Lindstrom played on some good teams but he also contributed to the team being good. The Oilers in the McDavid era have not been an elite team and surely they did not have a great D with great goaltending. Yet he has rarely been a minus player. It's the same with the Sedins. Sedins usually have good +/- stats and watching them play over the years it's because they spend most of their time in the offensive zone controlling possession.

It’s counterintuitive, but the worst players on a given team are likely to have a plus minus not too far below zero; they are so bad their icetime is heavily managed. The green jacket leaders may not be great, but they are rarely the worst skater on the team. I like to think of this as the John Scott effect.

View attachment 734091

But that's no different from looking at why a player's goal total is surprisingly high. They might be riding shotgun next to an elite playmaker. There are also countless of players who seem capable of putting up decent offensive numbers who are out of the league. Maybe they are bad defensively and or got most of their points from the PP. If a Dman is +20 but there are 5 other Dmen on the team who are +40 then obviously the +20 stat might not mean that that Dman is good.

Scott is rarely on the ice. But if he manages to play 40 games with 0 goals and 1 point and an even +/- maybe he hasn't hurt his team defensively in the minutes that he did play. And if you watch him play he probably goes in, throws a few hits, and tries to get into a fight and then spends the rest of his time riding the bench. At the end of the day, his +/- still tells us that basically when he is on the ice not much scoring happens.

 

[RobertKron]

Put into context though, Malik was very effective here and allowed Jovo to do his thing. Playing at the height of the WCE era with Jovo also helped Malik's +/-. But one can certainly argue that Malik played very well. It doesn't mean he was a better than Ohlund and Salo on his own but in the minutes that he played and with Jovo he was every effective and his +/- certainly reflected the eye test.

I think Malik was underrated in his time because he was a "gentle giant." He played well during Carolina's Cup run (they all did), was great here, and I think even in New York, Rozsival looked better than he was when he had Malik.

I don't disagree with anything you've said here as I quite liked Malik, but I also have to point out that you began your post with "put into context." Plus-Minus is a stat that doesn't tell you all that much without contextualization.

 

[RobsonStreet]

I think with some players there's a reason why they have good +/- stats. Karlsson, for example, as dynamic as he is, he's never been great defensively. Lidstrom, on the other hand, was terrific defensively and is among the all time leaders. Sure Lindstrom played on some good teams but he also contributed to the team being good. The Oilers in the McDavid era have not been an elite team and surely they did not have a great D with great goaltending. Yet he has rarely been a minus player. It's the same with the Sedins. Sedins usually have good +/- stats and watching them play over the years it's because they spend most of their time in the offensive zone controlling possession.



But that's no different from looking at why a player's goal total is surprisingly high. They might be riding shotgun next to an elite playmaker. There are also countless of players who seem capable of putting up decent offensive numbers who are out of the league. Maybe they are bad defensively and or got most of their points from the PP. If a Dman is +20 but there are 5 other Dmen on the team who are +40 then obviously the +20 stat might not mean that that Dman is good.

Scott is rarely on the ice. But if he manages to play 40 games with 0 goals and 1 point and an even +/- maybe he hasn't hurt his team defensively in the minutes that he did play. And if you watch him play he probably goes in, throws a few hits, and tries to get into a fight and then spends the rest of his time riding the bench. At the end of the day, his +/- still tells us that basically when he is on the ice not much scoring happens.

Just to be clear, you’re using a career seven minutes a game player (when he wasn’t a healthy scratch) to argue in favour of plus minus.

 

[krutovsdonut]

+/- gets a bad rap. it's a useful initial indicator like corsi. you can quickly roughly adjust it based on other players on the same team and relative deployment around the league, but a deeper dive is needed to draw substantive concusions.

a bad +/- is like a smoke alarm going off. sometimes the house is on fire, but often it's just that someone has burned the toast. either way, it requires investigation to understand why it is happening.

a good +/- is like a bounce on your fishing float. sometimes it is just wave action, but often it is a fish coming on. you need to pay close attention when it happens.

 

[Nick Lang]

It’s counterintuitive, but the worst players on a given team are likely to have a plus minus not too far below zero; they are so bad their icetime is heavily managed. The green jacket leaders may not be great, but they are rarely the worst skater on the team. I like to think of this as the John Scott effect.

View attachment 734091

Good point. I agree with F A N's thinking here. When I look at this stat I say well John Scott is a plug but yet when he plays out there he manages to be pretty much a zero sum player over his time. So he's not hurting you that much while he's out there, let's look closer and see how this is accomplished. As you said it's with managed ice time, but that's what you are looking for. Now you can compare that to other 4th liners and estimate how they would do with that same deployment, or weather you need a better player because you can't afford to keep sheltering him.

I think with some players there's a reason why they have good +/- stats. Karlsson, for example, as dynamic as he is, he's never been great defensively. Lidstrom, on the other hand, was terrific defensively and is among the all time leaders. Sure Lindstrom played on some good teams but he also contributed to the team being good. The Oilers in the McDavid era have not been an elite team and surely they did not have a great D with great goaltending. Yet he has rarely been a minus player. It's the same with the Sedins. Sedins usually have good +/- stats and watching them play over the years it's because they spend most of their time in the offensive zone controlling possession.



But that's no different from looking at why a player's goal total is surprisingly high. They might be riding shotgun next to an elite playmaker. There are also countless of players who seem capable of putting up decent offensive numbers who are out of the league. Maybe they are bad defensively and or got most of their points from the PP. If a Dman is +20 but there are 5 other Dmen on the team who are +40 then obviously the +20 stat might not mean that that Dman is good.

Scott is rarely on the ice. But if he manages to play 40 games with 0 goals and 1 point and an even +/- maybe he hasn't hurt his team defensively in the minutes that he did play. And if you watch him play he probably goes in, throws a few hits, and tries to get into a fight and then spends the rest of his time riding the bench. At the end of the day, his +/- still tells us that basically when he is on the ice not much scoring happens.

I was thinking exactly this while I was reading RobsonStreet's response. In the same sense goals and assists are a useless stat too as it's almost completely dependent on how good your team is, who your line mates are, and how you are deployed. We all just automatically factor things like he plays with Crosby, or McDavid, or on the Vegas Knights. No different than +/- really. This goes further to extend to the concept of advanced stats. They are also somewhat meaningless unless you watch the games and have the context from which they are derived.

 

[LaVal]

I've still never seen why it is seen as a useless stat. Is it not good when you are on the ice when your team scores and off it when the opposition scores? Sure sometimes you might jump on or off as a goal is scored but that will even itself out unless you are lazy or make bad line changes. Of course some players play with better players/teams, or in tougher positional situations, but that is the context you use when valuing the stat. I feel the measure of a good player is to add more than they give away. That is definitely something I would strive for.

In addition, it's good for measuring between players on the same team, and then players on other teams in similar positions.

It's definitely not useless, but it's not very accurate. It can only really be used for general observations.

For example, can you look at a rookie defensemen leading his team in +/- and think he's a top defensive player on the team, or is that a result of him getting sheltered minutes and zone starts by the coach as he eases him into the league?

On the other hand if a player is a -15 on a team that's scored 50 goals more than they surrendered, that's pretty much going to be a giant red flag no matter what the situation.

 

[Nick Lang]

+/- gets a bad rap. it's a useful initial indicator like corsi. you can quickly roughly adjust it based on other players on the same team and relative deployment around the league, but a deeper dive is needed to draw substantive concusions.

a bad +/- is like a smoke alarm going off. sometimes the house is on fire, but often it's just that someone has burned the toast. either way, it requires investigation to understand why it is happening.

a good +/- is like a bounce on your fishing float. sometimes it is just wave action, but often it is a fish coming on. you need to pay close attention when it happens.

Very well put. That's how I approach it. I expect players to fall in a certain acceptable range when I do a quick look at counting stats. If it jives cool, if not well than let's look deeper and see what's happening here.

It's definitely not useless, but it's not very accurate. It can only really be used for general observations.

For example, can you look at a rookie defensemen leading his team in +/- and think he's a top defensive player on the team, or is that a result of him getting sheltered minutes and zone starts by the coach as he eases him into the league?

On the other hand if a player is a -15 on a team that's scored 50 goals more than they surrendered, that's pretty much going to be a giant red flag no matter what the situation.

As above. I completely agree with this post.

 

[tyhee]

I said it in the other thread...I have no trust in Francesco Aquilini, Stan Smyl or Ron Delorme to notice these things. These guys are not very bright.

There is another possibility, that being that they haven't retired the number, consider it open, and the "controversy" is fan or media-driven. The team just doesn't consider it an issue.

I would favour that position, being in the camp that isn't big on retiring numbers. I'm not at all sure it makes sense to retire any numbers, not even 99 for the Oilers.

I don't see any reason to retire a number because it was the number of an active player.

 

[krutovsdonut]

Ironically, there’s actually a stat that suggests this is probably the case for Pesce. Corey Sznajder (patreon) manually tracks puck retrievals, zone entries, etc. Pesce is simultaneously one of the league leaders in aggressively trying to force turnovers at the blueline and is effective at this style of defense.

Getting beaten at the blueline is one of those loud types of D mistakes so it wouldn’t surprise me if we remember these. To use a dated Canucks example, Brent Sopel’s one weird trick was keeping pucks in at the offensive blueline. I remember he did it a lot and when it didn’t work he looked like a pylon.

yeah, i thought it might perhaps be something like that. the original poster might indeed be a crank but he may also be seeing something so i would have been interested to get into a civil discussion with him, instead of having to read people piling on the guy with petty literalist arguments. it gets tiresome to see people here turf defending and flexing instead of taking the opportunity to maybe learn about hockey. some people here definitely should take a summer vacation.

some dmen do have scouted flaws that can be exploited by other teams in crucial situations. i have no idea if pesce is one but i was interested to hear some eye test comments and don't understand why there are so many people here needing to shout down a guy who is running down a player on another team.

 

[RobertKron]

i missed this. calling me kellyanne now? really? you went there a second time and also misgendering me? that seems kind of personal. isn't that both sexist and flaming?

how about you just debate the issues straight up and keep your foul unpleasant poltical and sexist taunts and other garbage insults to yourself. may i remind you that are the one you brought up trump and politics in here by calling me a trump apologist to start this, right out of the blue, which was personally insulting as you intended it to be. you resort to snark and insults to try and "win" a discussion way too much ( ironically, much like trump). being a longtime poster should not give you a free ride to do that especially to defend a buddy as you did there.

and i might add, "suspicion" of what exactly? how about you spell out your slimy innuendo there as well so we all know what you are accusing me of? it sure seems like another thinly veiled personal attack on me that has nothing to do with our discussion or hockey, and i like how you stated it while pretending not to want to go into politics. pretty passive aggressive to bring up politics, throw out political nsults then run and hide behind the rules against political discussion.

I called you Kellyanne Krutov because Kellyanne Conway is the one who made the "alternative facts" claim that you were basically echoing. I was originally going to call you Spicer'sDonut, but then I remembered that it was a different stooge who said it. Shouldn't be that tough to follow.

Furthermore, referencing that situation isn't calling you a Trump apologist. I made the reference because it's an analogous situation where someone who has shown themselves to play fast and loose with facts says something that directly contradicts reality, and then another party ridiculously swoops in and claims that they're just presenting their own facts and that anyone who would dare to call them wrong is actually the real bad guy here.

Moreover, I wasn't hiding behind the rules on political discussion. Honestly, I probably break those rules pretty frequently on here because they're stupid rules. I just don't really feel that going into the whole topic of the Firehose of Falsehood and whatnot would really make a lot of sense on here. But yes, I did decide to point out that your rationalization of the incident as Trump lying to get attention and to get his side out against the mean ol media is basically the exact same position taken by every "oh he's a jerk, but..." weirdo ever, and that maybe you should tune up your filter on that stuff because that's a narrative that overlooks a lot of important elements.

Edit: On further thought, the "suspicious" comment was made while omitting the secondary thought which was that I don't really remember you to tend to be that guy. I was mistaken to have not included that part, and I do apologize for that, because it would have probably been somewhat disarming.

 

[krutovsdonut]

I called you Kellyanne Krutov because Kellyanne Conway is the one who made the "alternative facts" claim that you were basically echoing. I was originally going to call you Spicer'sDonut, but then I remembered that it was a different stooge who said it. Shouldn't be that tough to follow.

Furthermore, referencing that situation isn't calling you a Trump apologist. I made the reference because it's an analogous situation where someone who has shown themselves to play fast and loose with facts says something that directly contradicts reality, and then another party ridiculously swoops in and claims that they're just presenting their own facts and that anyone who would dare to call them wrong is actually the real bad guy here.

Moreover, I wasn't hiding behind the rules on political discussion. Honestly, I probably break those rules pretty frequently on here because they're stupid rules. I just don't really feel that going into the whole topic of the Firehose of Falsehood and whatnot would really make a lot of sense on here. But yes, I did decide to point out that your rationalization of the incident as Trump lying to get attention and to get his side out against the mean ol media is basically the exact same position taken by every "oh he's a jerk, but..." weirdo ever, and that maybe you should tune up your filter on that stuff because that's a narrative that overlooks a lot of important elements.

Edit: On further thought, the "suspicious" comment was made while omitting the secondary thought which was that I don't really remember you to tend to be that guy. I was mistaken to have not included that part, and I do apologize for that, because it would have probably been somewhat disarming.

that's a staggering bad faith leap there. you three times cast aspersions against me based on a massive reach of an intentionally insulting analogy using a topic i can't respond to without breaking the rules and then pretend it was all fair play, then give a half hearted shrug walk back apology at the end for the one you know you can't explain. and pretending you didn't mean to insult me calling me kellyanne really takes the cake. sure buddy.

you absolutely are hiding behind the rules, and it's dirty snickering pool you are playing. it seems like you're not much for contributing your own original thoughts here and opening yourself up to criticism, so much as picking holes with what others say with a healthy dose of snark and unwarranted air of superiority. sort of a meanspirited statler and waldorf heckling act without the benefit of good writers.

anyway, whatever. this place is peak toxicity right now mid-offseason and here i am letting myself be drawn into it. i'm the fool here for letting you get to me. moving on.

 

[RobertKron]

that's a staggering bad faith leap there. you three times cast aspersions against me based on a massive reach of an intentionally insulting analogy using a topic i can't respond to without breaking the rules and then pretend it was all fair play, then give a half hearted shrug walk back apology at the end for the one you know you can't explain. and pretending you didn't mean to insult me calling me kellyanne really takes the cake. sure buddy.

you absolutely are hiding behind the rules, and it's dirty snickering pool you are playing. it seems like you're not much for contributing your own original thoughts here and opening yourself up to criticism, so much as picking holes with what others say with a healthy dose of snark and unwarranted air of superiority. sort of a meanspirited statler and waldorf heckling act without the benefit of good writers.

anyway, whatever. this place is peak toxicity right now mid-offseason and here i am letting myself be drawn into it. i'm the fool here for letting you get to me. moving on.

 

[strattonius]

that's a staggering bad faith leap there. you three times cast aspersions against me based on a massive reach of an intentionally insulting analogy using a topic i can't respond to without breaking the rules and then pretend it was all fair play, then give a half hearted shrug walk back apology at the end for the one you know you can't explain. and pretending you didn't mean to insult me calling me kellyanne really takes the cake. sure buddy.

you absolutely are hiding behind the rules, and it's dirty snickering pool you are playing. it seems like you're not much for contributing your own original thoughts here and opening yourself up to criticism, so much as picking holes with what others say with a healthy dose of snark and unwarranted air of superiority. sort of a meanspirited statler and waldorf heckling act without the benefit of good writers.

anyway, whatever. this place is peak toxicity right now mid-offseason and here i am letting myself be drawn into it. i'm the fool here for letting you get to me. moving on.

You said in an earlier post that some people on here should take a summer break. I think you're right and should take your own advice.

 

[krutovsdonut]

You said in an earlier post that some people on here should take a summer break. I think you're right and should take your own advice.

thanks for the advice, but i prefer to stay. if nobody starts anything, there will not be any trouble.

 

[RobertKron]

thanks for the advice, but i prefer to stay. if nobody starts anything, there will not be any trouble.

yes seriously.

the notion that a player can have decent stats that don't track a metric is not exactyl controversial. if you are serious about learning about players rather than showing us how smart you are, then instead of dimissing that poster who has 100 times more experience scouting that player than you do, you could have asked him a couple of questions about his observation to see where it came from and perhaps learn something.

 

[F A N]

I don't disagree with anything you've said here as I quite liked Malik, but I also have to point out that you began your post with "put into context." Plus-Minus is a stat that doesn't tell you all that much without contextualization.

Plus/Minus stats tell you whether the player has been on the ice for more or less even strength goals and how many more/less. It's not a lot different from having high assists totals where you still need context in order to equate a player's high assists totals to being a good playmaker.

Just to be clear, you’re using a career seven minutes a game player (when he wasn’t a healthy scratch) to argue in favour of plus minus.

Just to be clear, I was responding to an example YOU brought up.

On the other hand if a player is a -15 on a team that's scored 50 goals more than they surrendered, that's pretty much going to be a giant red flag no matter what the situation.

Isn't this the discussion with Karlsson that started this whole +/- discussion? He had 101 points but was -36. Back in the day we had Dmen we describe as riverboat gamblers (nowadays these type of Dmen don't make and stay in the NHL).

 

[krutovsdonut]

still going huh? i see there's been some editing so i can't really answer that particular snark because there is no timeline anymore to show you starting and escalating this. while people cannot see why i was annoyed at you, they can still see your rationalization. i guess they will have to judge how legit it is given that all the posts you were defending as innocent got deleted for violation of various rules.

anyway, why don't we leave it now? bless your heart and such.