GDT: Oilers @ Ducks - 7 PM PT - 4 AM CET

[Sojourn]

You could do his whole career, all -47 of them, would it really make you feel better? The fact that he's stacking -'s is the problem, not how they are attained.

Let's go back to this.

I'd like to hear more about how you think it's more important that he is getting the minuses, than how they are happening. Do you understand what the word accountability is? Responsibility? You're actually saying it doesn't matter whether he's responsible. It doesn't matter if he did his job, just because he was on the ice.

This is the entire basis for what you're saying. It makes no difference what he does.

 

[Ducks DVM]

You're telling me that plus minus is garbage? Thanks, but I think that's subjective... I'm not trying to convince anyone how to think or view anything. I've actually come looking for answers. I presented a straight forward question and Soj answered yes, and some answers no, and some tried to discredit my posting here today from having an agenda.

It IS a garbage stat, because it's influenced by things a player has zero control of. This post isn't looking for answers :

You could do his whole career, all -47 of them, would it really make you feel better? The fact that he's stacking -'s is the problem, not how they are attained.


His play is good, I haven't said otherwise.

The only reason that a +/- would be concerning in a discussion of a player is if it was actually reflective of his play. Being "concerned" about it when it isn't actually his fault or reflective of his play is ignoring that and rather transparently trying to mask an agenda while ignoring what the stat actually does and does not mean.

He's -2 because Getzlaf has been a complete moron in OT. So what's your concern about Fowler? That he's considered the best option to be out on the ice with a complete moron?

Golden boy Lindholm is -7, while Fowler is getting the harder minutes and is -9 (thanks captain, my captain). Beauchemin is -1 logging the most minutes on a bad team. Huh. That sorta makes you think, doesn't it.

 

[Carolinas Identity*]

Let's go back to this.

I'd like to hear more about how you think it's more important that he is getting the minuses, than how they are happening. Do you understand what the word accountability is? Responsibility? You're actually saying it doesn't matter whether he's responsible. It doesn't matter if he did his job, just because he was on the ice.

This is the entire basis for what you're saying. It makes no difference what he does.

The #hcanes board does a "quantitative +/- thread" every year. May hap something like this might be feasible here?

 

[Sojourn]

Hah! Beat you, DVM.

Admittedly, you wrote more.

 

[Sojourn]

The #hcanes board does a "quantitative +/- thread" every year. May hap something like this might be feasible here?

I'm all for more information, as long as it's accompanied by context.

But I need the context, because it isn't enough to say that a player was a minus player for a game. Tell me why that's on him, and not someone else, or even the team as a whole.

It's no different when a player scores a goal in a game. Statistically, it's a good thing, but it doesn't mean the player had a good game. It doesn't even mean the player was the primary reason the goal was scored. That's important information. You can get bogged down in the details, but a lack of details is just as bad.

 

[Ducks DVM]

Hah! Beat you, DVM.

Admittedly, you wrote more.

Something about a blind clock finding a squirrel twice a day or something...

 

[Sojourn]

That sounds right.

 

[DaDucks*]

So, in regards to whether we should ever be concerned on the total number of -'s accumulated,
I'll put you guys down as a no.....

 

[Ducks DVM]

So, in regards to whether we should ever be concerned on the total number of -'s accumulated,
I'll put you guys down as a no.....

Only if you want to be called out on a different agenda. That's clearly not close to what I said.

 

[KingJoffrey]

Freddy's .935% wasn't sustainable. It was bond to happen that he will have some bad games too. It's pretty sad that some posters with their Gibson pants throw him under the bus after these two games.

 

[Lord Flashheart]

I agree wholeheartedly And so is the loser point. Oh how I wish hockey would just do what soccer does. bring back ties (1 pt each) and make a win worth 3 pts.

I have less than 0 clue as to why this league treats ties like anathema. If it's good enough for the NFL and soccer, why not here?

Also getting points for losing is stupid. The Kings first Cup, they shouldn't even have made the Playoffs. They benefited by losing 15 games in OT. Dallas missed entirely, but actually had two more wins. That is dumb #dumb

Because ice hockey is nowhere near as popular as those two. It's not even close really. Your average hockey fan wants to go to a game, see some dynamic fast paced play with hitting, drink few beers, ask their knowledgeable friend they're with "what is an offside" and see the winner. People like to know who the winner and who the loser is. It's in our nature.

Now soccer and NFL can afford to uphold so called traditional values, hockey can not.

 

[DucksAreCool]

Ok, then this is an accurate summary then?


So, despite his play, bad/unlucky things consistently tend to happen when he's on the ice and it's been that way the majority of his career.

It could be that consistently playing against the top lines of other teams means that when someone on the ice makes a mistake, the other team is more likely to score with it than when their third and fourth liners are the ones given those opportunities through a mistake.

 

[DaDucks*]

It could be that consistently playing against the top lines of other teams means that when someone on the ice makes a mistake, the other team is more likely to score with it than when their third and fourth liners are the ones given those opportunities through a mistake.

I'm not sure he's been consistently matched up with the other teams top line throughout the majority of his career.

 

[Sojourn]

He hasn't been. He also hasn't been playing as well the entire time as he is now, and yet you still want to focus on such a meaningless statistic because it's the only way you can marginalize a player you clearly do not like.

He's more physical. He's more assertive. He's shooting more. He's been our best defenseman. Pretty much everything people have been asking for. But "bad things happen when he's on the ice."

 

[Ducks DVM]

I agree wholeheartedly And so is the loser point. Oh how I wish hockey would just do what soccer does. bring back ties (1 pt each) and make a win worth 3 pts.

I have less than 0 clue as to why this league treats ties like anathema. If it's good enough for the NFL and soccer, why not here?

Also getting points for losing is stupid. The Kings first Cup, they shouldn't even have made the Playoffs. They benefited by losing 15 games in OT. Dallas missed entirely, but actually had two more wins. That is dumb #dumb

They eliminated ties because teams just went into shells with ten minutes left in a tie game, and took zero risks in overtime. It was boring as hell. The only exception would be at the end of the season if a team HAD to get 2 points to stave off elimination from playoff contention.

Now, it provides an extra ability for teams to get into to playoffs later in the season, and keeps butts in $eats$. It's not going away.

 

[DaDucks*]

Let's go back to this.

I'd like to hear more about how you think it's more important that he is getting the minuses, than how they are happening. Do you understand what the word accountability is? Responsibility? You're actually saying it doesn't matter whether he's responsible. It doesn't matter if he did his job, just because he was on the ice.

This is the entire basis for what you're saying. It makes no difference what he does.

According to you, the majority seem to be the cause of others. In a chronic systemic case such as this, I was asking at what point does it become a negative for Cam, if not yet, what is the limit? Which apparently there is none.

That's all....no real agenda there...I didn't wake up today thinking it would be a great day to bash Cam even though he's playing his best hockey. I've been consistent over years with my inquiries on the subject, even though its not a popular one, but when there's a link to his +/- and the way our season turns out, I'm definitely rooting for him to be in the positive.

 

[Ducks DVM]

According to you, the majority seem to be the cause of others. In a chronic systemic case such as this, I was asking at what point does it become a negative for Cam, if not yet, what is the limit? Which apparently there is none.

That's all....no real agenda there...I didn't wake up today thinking it would be a great day to bash Cam even though he's playing his best hockey. I've been consistent over years with my inquiries on the subject, even though its not a popular one, but when there's a link to his +/- and the way our season turns out, I'm definitely rooting for him to be in the positive.

It's an issue with HIM when the (-) is due to HIS play. This isn't rocket science.

When it isn't due to HIS play, it's a team issue, which while still an issue, isn't remotely what you're insinuating.

 

[DaDucks*]

It's an issue with HIM when the (-) is due to HIS play. This isn't rocket science.

When it isn't due to HIS play, it's a team issue, which while still an issue, isn't remotely what you're insinuating.

Then I have failed with my delivery. My last post is an accurate summary of my posting today.

Again, i've got you down for a no, regarding if Cam's -'s continue to outpace the majority of any player we've had the last several years, despite whether its his fault or not, is a problem.

 

[Ducks DVM]

Then I have failed with my delivery. My last post is an accurate summary of my posting today.

Again, i've got you down for a no, regarding if Cam's -'s continue to outpace the majority of any player we've had the last several years, despite whether its his fault or not, is a problem.

And again, that's not even close to what I said, and I'll call you out for misrepresenting me if you ever bring it up.

 

[Carolinas Identity*]

They eliminated ties because teams just went into shells with ten minutes left in a tie game, and took zero risks in overtime. It was boring as hell. The only exception would be at the end of the season if a team HAD to get 2 points to stave off elimination from playoff contention.

Now, it provides an extra ability for teams to get into to playoffs later in the season, and keeps butts in $eats$. It's not going away.

I bet you those shells would all but vanish if wins were worth three points.

 

[Kalv]

Freddy's .935% wasn't sustainable. It was bond to happen that he will have some bad games too. It's pretty sad that some posters with their Gibson pants throw him under the bus after these two games.

I pointed that out before. Team does not play well if their goalie has to make several unimaginable saves to earn an overtime victory vs a borderline playoff team.
I got my hopes up after the game vs Sharks but now i am back at being pretty pessimistic about this season