***FINAL*** 2011-12 Qualitative +/- Ratings (see Post #1)

tarheelhockey

Offside Review Specialist
Feb 12, 2010
84,977
137,333
Bojangles Parking Lot
I haven't been following this thread religiously to know the rules, but on that Raymond goal, Bowman definitely deserves a minus. It was right in front of me. His failure to clear on an easy attempt at the beginning at that sequence allowed the entire play to happen. As soon as he failed to clear, my buddy said that's trouble and sure enough, it lead to the goal.

Sounds good to me. I really wish highlight videos captured full sequences.
 

tarheelhockey

Offside Review Specialist
Feb 12, 2010
84,977
137,333
Bojangles Parking Lot
Game 34 @ Florida
2-3 OTL




ES GOALS FOR

1st 18:38 Gleason (McBain, Ruutu)
This was on the Panthers goalie and defense, no changes.

2nd 13:45 LaRose (unassisted)
+1 LaRose, second game in a row he's created a goal off this type of forecheck.
+1 Bowman for rushing Garrison into a weak pass, giving LaRose that opportunity
+1 Staal as he was also part of the forecheck and threw a subtle pick on Weiss
Defensemen were in a change, no idea who they were but they stay even.

ES GOALS AGAINST

1st 4:16 Bergenheim (Mattias, Jovanovski)
-1 Spacek, as the goal was pretty much just him failing to lay the body.
Nodl, McBain, LaRose, Staal even

OT 3:08 Versteeg (Weiss, Campbell)
-1 Ruutu, who was just awful on that shift
-1 Harrison for trying to be a goalie
-1 Faulk for looking completely lost
Jokinen even

Totals for the game
+1 Bowman
+1 LaRose
+1 Staal
-1 Faulk
-1 Harrison
-1 Ruutu
-1 Spacek
 

tarheelhockey

Offside Review Specialist
Feb 12, 2010
84,977
137,333
Bojangles Parking Lot
Ok, here's a slightly more complete analysis of the numbers to try and make them more useful. Just a reminder about an important observation we've discovered thus far:

* It is extremely important to look at BOTH goals-for and goals-against, separate from the total +/-. The total is basically just showing us a bunch of "plus" forwards and "minus" defensemen -- which is a standard expectation that tells us nothing useful. Looking at both columns, you can pretty clearly see which players are effective at either end of the ice relative to their position. *

Now we have a large enough sample size for most players to give us some useful info. But still, we have a situation where players who are on the ice a lot have the biggest numbers by default. So, let's adjust their numbers to account for time on ice.

* TOI was rounded to the nearest minute prior to calculation. The formula is: [(GF or GA) / ES TOI] * 60
Player | Plus | Minus | Plus-per-60-minutes| Minus-per-60-minutes
Forwards | | | |
Tim Brent | 6 | 4 | 1.39 | 0.93
Patrick Dwyer | 6 | 3 | 0.80 | 0.40
Jussi Jokinen | 10 | 3 | 1.58 | 0.47
Chad LaRose | 11 | 8 | 1.37 | 1.00
Alexei Ponikarovsky | 6 | 3 | 0.87 | 0.43
Tuomo Ruutu | 13 | 7 | 1.69 | 0.91
Jeff Skinner | 15 | 8 | 2.03 | 1.08
Eric Staal | 10 | 7 | 1.08 | 0.76
Anthony Stewart | 5 | 3 | 1.39 | 0.83
Brandon Sutter | 8 | 5 | 0.99 | 0.62
Jiri Tlusty | 8 | 7 | 1.17 | 1.02
Defensemen | | | |
Bryan Allen | 5 | 9 | 0.57 | 1.03
Justin Faulk | 1 | 5 | 0.19 | 0.96
Tim Gleason | 6 | 8 | 0.61 | 0.82
Jay Harrison | 4 | 12 | 0.62 | 1.86
Derek Joslin | 1 | 4 | 0.38 | 1.35
Jamie McBain | 8 | 10 | 1.02 | 1.28
Joni Pitkanen | 7 | 12 | 1.22 | 2.09

Observations:

- Jokinen is our best all-round player at ES.
- Skinner has incredible offensive production, but his defense leaves a whole lot to be desired.
- LaRose is even or worse than Brent at both ends of the ice.
- Despite what we might think, Stewart does a respectable job on offense.
- Dwyer and Ponikarovsky have insanely low rates of defensive errors.
- Pitkanen has been great on offense, but crazy-bad on defense.
- Harrison has also been atrocious on defense, but doesn't have the excuse that he produces points.
- Faulk is better defensively and much worse offensively than his style of play would suggest.
 
Last edited:

Zombie Mike Murphy

Registered User
Mar 18, 2011
737
3
You sure your math is right? How is Allen at a 0.06 Plus, with 5 +s, wheras Gleason is at a 0.60 with 6 +s, surely the ice time is similar? You sure you didn't misplace a few decimals?

Edit: Did the math myself..., ES TOI from NHL.com

Gleason: (6 pts / 586 minutes) * 60 = 0.614
Allen: (5 pts / 524 minutes) * 60 = 0.572

At work so I don't have time to check the rest of them...
 

tarheelhockey

Offside Review Specialist
Feb 12, 2010
84,977
137,333
Bojangles Parking Lot
You sure your math is right? How is Allen at a 0.06 Plus, with 5 +s, wheras Gleason is at a 0.60 with 6 +s, surely the ice time is similar? You sure you didn't misplace a few decimals?

Edit: Did the math myself..., ES TOI from NHL.com

Gleason: (6 pts / 586 minutes) * 60 = 0.614
Allen: (5 pts / 524 minutes) * 60 = 0.572

At work so I don't have time to check the rest of them...

Good catch... I did indeed misplace a decimal (had it as 0.057 rounding up to 0.06).

I also noticed a few, but not all, other players had small discrepancies of 0.01 in either direction. Maybe nhl.com adjusted their TOI or something. Anyway, I ran it through again and it's current as of right now.
 

Blueline Bomber

AI Generated Minnesota Wild
Sponsor
Oct 31, 2007
38,857
39,466
Since it was talked about earlier in the topic, I'm thinking I might go through this season and see which players took "bad" penalties that ended up with a PPG goal against.

The only thing I'd need would be a concrete definition of a "bad" penalty. To take the first game of the season as an example:

- 2 PPGs against.

- Penalties by Faulk (Interference), Jokinen (Unsportsmanlike) and Staal (Interference) caused them.

- One gave the Lightning a 2-1 lead, the other a 3-1 lead.

- Other penalties in the game included Allen (Interference), Allen (Roughing) and Faulk (Holding).

I think in this situation, Jokinen and Staal's penalties were the "bad" penalties to take. Jokinen's complaints to the ref turned a PK into a full 2-minute 5-on-3 against. Staal's call turned a one-goal game into a game that quickly got out of reach. Faulk's holding call might also be considered bad (since it would have given the Lightning the lead had they scored on it), but IIRC, he took the penalty to prevent a goal.
 

Boom Boom Apathy

I am the Professor. Deal with it!
Sep 6, 2006
48,174
97,099
Since it was talked about earlier in the topic, I'm thinking I might go through this season and see which players took "bad" penalties that ended up with a PPG goal against.

The only thing I'd need would be a concrete definition of a "bad" penalty. To take the first game of the season as an example:

- 2 PPGs against.

- Penalties by Faulk (Interference), Jokinen (Unsportsmanlike) and Staal (Interference) caused them.

- One gave the Lightning a 2-1 lead, the other a 3-1 lead.

- Other penalties in the game included Allen (Interference), Allen (Roughing) and Faulk (Holding).

I think in this situation, Jokinen and Staal's penalties were the "bad" penalties to take. Jokinen's complaints to the ref turned a PK into a full 2-minute 5-on-3 against. Staal's call turned a one-goal game into a game that quickly got out of reach. Faulk's holding call might also be considered bad (since it would have given the Lightning the lead had they scored on it), but IIRC, he took the penalty to prevent a goal.

Not a bad idea, the problem I see with it though is it's highly dependent on the outcome of the PP and the subjective nature of the penalty taken.

For instance, if a guys is seen to be fighting for a puck and get's a holding penalty, but the PK unit kills it off, it would be not seen as a bad penalty. He was fighting for the puck, playing hard, and penalties happen. Now, if that same scenario happens and the other team scores the game winning goal, one could argue that it was foolish to take a holding penalty at that point in the game and it lead to the game winning goal so it was a bad penalty.

I personally think any lazy penalties (lazy trips, lazy holds, or lazy hooking) and dumb penalties (retaliation, unsportsmanlike, clearly running a guy when you can stop etc..) are bad penalties. Even if they are killed off by the PK unit, it disrupts the flow of the game, keeps guys like Skinner off the ice. That's a bad penalty in my book.

Stopping a guy on a breakaway, cross checking a guy in front of the net to stop a goal, protecting your goalie, or penalties taken in the course of aggressively playing the game (not lazy ones), are ok IMO no matter what the outcome of the PK.

Just my $0.02
 

tarheelhockey

Offside Review Specialist
Feb 12, 2010
84,977
137,333
Bojangles Parking Lot
For instance, if a guys is seen to be fighting for a puck and get's a holding penalty, but the PK unit kills it off, it would be not seen as a bad penalty. He was fighting for the puck, playing hard, and penalties happen. Now, if that same scenario happens and the other team scores the game winning goal, one could argue that it was foolish to take a holding penalty at that point in the game and it lead to the game winning goal so it was a bad penalty.

And the even tougher thing about this is that your best PK'ers are going to be punished a little extra for not being on the ice to help kill their own penalites.
 

Blueline Bomber

AI Generated Minnesota Wild
Sponsor
Oct 31, 2007
38,857
39,466
Stopping a guy on a breakaway, cross checking a guy in front of the net to stop a goal, protecting your goalie, or penalties taken in the course of aggressively playing the game (not lazy ones), are ok IMO no matter what the outcome of the PK.

Just my $0.02

My problem with that is there are certain penalties that come from being aggressive, which is fine, but they're also incredibly dumb. Ponikarovsky, for instance, has taken a couple elbowing penalties throughout the course of the year. They all came from him finishing a check, but finishing it with an elbow to the head.

It was a penalty taken in the course of aggressive play, but it was an unnecessary one to take, since he could have finished the check without the elbow.

And I'm of the opinion that any penalty taken by a PKer is a dumb one to take (barring the special case of preventing a goal). If you know you're relied upon on the PK, you also know you have to be especially careful not to take a penalty. Sutter does a great job of this.
 

Boom Boom Apathy

I am the Professor. Deal with it!
Sep 6, 2006
48,174
97,099
My problem with that is there are certain penalties that come from being aggressive, which is fine, but they're also incredibly dumb. Ponikarovsky, for instance, has taken a couple elbowing penalties throughout the course of the year. They all came from him finishing a check, but finishing it with an elbow to the head.

It was a penalty taken in the course of aggressive play, but it was an unnecessary one to take, since he could have finished the check without the elbow.

And I'm of the opinion that any penalty taken by a PKer is a dumb one to take (barring the special case of preventing a goal). If you know you're relied upon on the PK, you also know you have to be especially careful not to take a penalty. Sutter does a great job of this.

But that's kind of my point. Of course not all penalties taken during aggressive play are ok, of course some are dumb. And one penalty taken in the 1st period might be considered "OK" but a bad one in OT. It's extremely subjective to what you (or I or anyone else) thinks is a bad penalty, vs. what someone else does. Lastly, people's personal bias towards players will come into play no matter how hard one tries. For instance, Sutter will get the benefit of the doubt and Ruutu will be guilty until proven innocent.

If you want to give it a try, go for it. I just see a lot of variables and opinions affecting it which would make it difficult to be meaningful, but I could be wrong.
 

tarheelhockey

Offside Review Specialist
Feb 12, 2010
84,977
137,333
Bojangles Parking Lot
It would be great to have some raw data, if nothing else, to give us a starting point. Just knowing who took a penalty, the circumstances, and the outcome of the PK would be very interesting but a lot of work to compile.
 

tarheelhockey

Offside Review Specialist
Feb 12, 2010
84,977
137,333
Bojangles Parking Lot
Game 35 vs. Phoenix
3-4 L


No TV = No YT
http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/console?hlg=20112012,2,494&fr=false


ES GOALS FOR

1st 9:21 Ruutu (Ponikarovsky, Jokinen)
+1 McBain for an especially savvy shot-fake/pass that softened the D
+1 Jokinen for an also-savvy slap-pass to Poni... though it might have been to Gleason
+1 Ponikarovski for getting the puck toward the net
+1 Ruutu for being the only guy on the team anymore willing to score a dirty goal
Gleason even.

2nd 5:49 Nodl (Spacek)
+1 Nodl for having his head up on the weird bounce, plus a quick accurate shot.
Spacek, Allen, Stewart, Nash even.

2nd 12:15 Tlusty (Faulk, Harrison)
Fluke goal, no changes.

ES GOALS AGAINST

2nd 13:24 O'Reilly (Rundblad, Chipchura)
-1 Spacek for failing to get to a puck he really should have had
-1 Staal for a bad turnover at the point
Allen, Stewart, LaRose even.

3rd 4:20 Klesla (Korpikoski, Langkow)
-1 Bowman, who got caught flat-footed behind the goal line
-1 Harrison, who was literally standing around looking at the play instead of defending
-1 LaRose, who had a chance to take Korpikoski or the passing lane, and got neither
Faulk, Staal even.

3rd 10:48 Korpikoski (Morris, Whitney)
-1 McBain, who got caught WAY too far up-ice on a pinch and then got burnt by the assist
-1 Staal, who came all the way to the goal crease just to make a half-hearted poke at the puck
Nash and Gleason even. Gleason was involved there, but he had just negated a 3-on-2 and covered Morris' first option on the pass. He had every reason to think Korpikoski would be covered at least by Staal.

Totals for the game
+1 Jokinen
+1 Nodl
+1 Ponikarovski
+1 Ruutu
-1 Bowman
-1 Harrison
-1 LaRose
-1 Spacek
-2 Staal
 

tarheelhockey

Offside Review Specialist
Feb 12, 2010
84,977
137,333
Bojangles Parking Lot
Frankly, I'm starting to wonder about Jay Harrison. He makes a remarkable amount of defensive mistakes for a guy who is considered solid on the back end, and he contributes almost nothing offensively.

I like him as a team member, but I can't really say he has shown much this year to make him worth keeping.
 

Ole Gil

Registered User
May 9, 2009
5,694
8,843
Wow, you guys weren't kidding about subjective. The line creates a 3 on 2, Labarbera is clearly concerned about Dwyer crashing the far post, and Tlusty puts the puck towards the net with a 2 on 1 advantage in front for his linemates.

It was far from pretty, but even if it goes wide of Labarbera, or he can only knock it down, there is still a scoring chance to be had from the other two players. Of course if Labarbera knocks it down, and they get the rebound and score, Tlusty gets a plus 1. But it goes in, and he gets nothing.

Again, I know it's subjective, but more goes into a lot of these plays than you seem to be giving credit for. Just being on the rush drawing a defender, or giving the goaltender someone to worry about on the back door, even if they never touch the puck can have a big impact on the play.
 
Last edited:

Ole Gil

Registered User
May 9, 2009
5,694
8,843
It was a legitimate offensive chance for the team that ended with a goal. Sometimes the puck bounces off a leg, sometimes the goalie gets caught leaning, sometimes it gets tipped 3 times on the way through by offense and defensive players, and sometimes it's a beautiful tic tac toe play. They are all hockey, and putting the puck in a position where it has a chance to go in is all you can ask for.

Just like I wouldn't punish Nodl for the massive fluke bounce that led to his goal.

Just like I wouldn't give someone a + despite a fluke save, or a fluke bounce over their stick.
 

Blueline Bomber

AI Generated Minnesota Wild
Sponsor
Oct 31, 2007
38,857
39,466
That goal is on the goaltender, plain and simple. It's something that should have been stopped with no effort involved. The replays don't show it, but I was sitting a couple rows above Tlusty when he took that shot, and it was all Labarbera. He whiffed with his glove trying to scoop it up and it went 5 hole on him.
 

StormCast

Registered User
Jan 26, 2008
4,691
2,808
Raleigh, NC
That goal is on the goaltender, plain and simple. It's something that should have been stopped with no effort involved. The replays don't show it, but I was sitting a couple rows above Tlusty when he took that shot, and it was all Labarbera. He whiffed with his glove trying to scoop it up and it went 5 hole on him.
Yep, he had that vacant look like an infielder who let a ball go through his wickets. A super softy.
 

Ole Gil

Registered User
May 9, 2009
5,694
8,843
To use a poker analogy, you don't go allin because of a back door flush draw, but if a back door flush is part of your outs, and it hits, that's as valid a part of your chances of winning as anything else.

The chances of success on that play were not solely based on Labs knocking it in on himself. Faulk had a tip/screen chance with the guy covering him. And Dwyer had a chance on the back door if the puck gets through. On top of which, that forces Labs to do a little more with a higher degree of difficulty and probably led to the unlikely goal.

If you make a play that has a 3% chance of scoring made up of all the possibilities, and it's a .3% likely part that occurs, that's a part of it. The opportunity for it existed before it happened.

If a play has a .3% chance of working total, then sure, call it a fluke, and don't give him the +. But a good play that ends with a good result via one of the more unlikely paths to success is still a good play in my opinion.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->