Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Bartholomew Hunt

Kovi

50 posts in this topic

You play on bad teams where you're told not today defense, your plus/minus will be bad.

Vinny Lecavalier is on that list too, and he won a Cup and for a time anyway was one of the top five players in the league. He also played on a lot of terrible teams.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, hockey is not a swimming, running, or skiing competition where it all depends on you personally. All team sports are about a team. One player can't win ant can't lose anything. To achieve a big result it must be a whole unit, and not only of good players, but also balanced with player types and with a a good chemistry. So such list of worst players is an absolute BS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I just never seemed to understand the existence of when i started following hockey. I just don't think a +/- holds any truth to how good a player is on the ice and how much he contributes. If anything, the +/- should be used as a line format during that one season so you can see how good a line works rather than individual players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why +/- is stupid:

so that happened to kovy about 300+ times???

Edited by EdgeControl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+/- is just as ridiculous as shooting %

 

at the very least with a +/- a goal happened... you don't get better or worst cause a dude slapped the puck from the red line in the goalies chest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would venture to say that +/- (over a long period of time) correlates to the more advanced stats, and verifies the eye test.  Kovy's just not that good in his own end or along the boards. in a very specific role such as PK defender his skills show, but in a free thinking 5 vs 5 situation it breaks down mentally. maybe there is something to the russians only play offense myth (in this case)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is short handed so there is no +/-

 

Shorthanded goals do, in fact, count against +/-.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would venture to say that +/- (over a long period of time) correlates to the more advanced stats, and verifies the eye test.  Kovy's just not that good in his own end or along the boards. in a very specific role such as PK defender his skills show, but in a free thinking 5 vs 5 situation it breaks down mentally. maybe there is something to the russians only play offense myth (in this case)

 

that would explain why Datsyuk was nominated for the selke for 5 straight years and won 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+/- is just as ridiculous as shooting %

 

at the very least with a +/- a goal happened... you don't get better or worst cause a dude slapped the puck from the red line in the goalies chest.

 

Shooting% is NOT ridiculous.  It's a bit like BABIP in baseball (Batting Average on Balls In Play)...it gives you an idea of who's getting some luck and who isn't.  There's also other factors...for example, at quick glance, one might look at Kovalchuk's Devils shooting% and wonder why it's lower.  Part of playing for bad teams (as Kovy did for much of his time as a Thrasher) is that you get to face more backup goalies than a good team would.  That could definitely help boost one's shooting% a bit.   

 

As far as shooting luck goes, Loktionov is a good example.  Has he scored some pretty goals?  Yes.  But he's shooting 28.6%, on 21 shots in 16 GP as a Devil.  Considering that even the lowest save% goalies in today's NHL usually find a way to stop 90% of the shots they face, would you expect Loki to keep putting in pucks at that rate...or for opposing goalies to stop less than 72% of his shots?   

 

True scorers also need shots on goal (lots of them) to keep finding the back of the net; as shown above, Loki averages 1.31 SPG.  So doing the math:  he doesn't get many shots on goal, and his shooting% is abnormally high.  16 GP is a small sample, to be sure, but his high shooting% and low SOG total point to a guy who's probably not going to continue his feel-good story.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The book on Lokti was that he was a playmaker first.. above all else, so maybe his goals are just a plus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shooting% is NOT ridiculous.  It's a bit like BABIP in baseball (Batting Average on Balls In Play)...it gives you an idea of who's getting some luck and who isn't.  There's also other factors...for example, at quick glance, one might look at Kovalchuk's Devils shooting% and wonder why it's lower.  Part of playing for bad teams (as Kovy did for much of his time as a Thrasher) is that you get to face more backup goalies than a good team would.  That could definitely help boost one's shooting% a bit.   

 

As far as shooting luck goes, Loktionov is a good example.  Has he scored some pretty goals?  Yes.  But he's shooting 28.6%, on 21 shots in 16 GP as a Devil.  Considering that even the lowest save% goalies in today's NHL usually find a way to stop 90% of the shots they face, would you expect Loki to keep putting in pucks at that rate...or for opposing goalies to stop less than 72% of his shots?   

 

True scorers also need shots on goal (lots of them) to keep finding the back of the net; as shown above, Loki averages 1.31 SPG.  So doing the math:  he doesn't get many shots on goal, and his shooting% is abnormally high.  16 GP is a small sample, to be sure, but his high shooting% and low SOG total point to a guy who's probably not going to continue his feel-good story.   

 

As usual, Sterio is being cavalier about what he's talking about - could be because he doesn't know what he's talking about.  But he is referring here to shots %, or Fenwick, or any of these things.  He has not learned to distinguish between shooting percentage, which has had a meaning in the NHL for years, and shots% or some other word.

 

+/- sucks, but for Lecavalier and Kovalchuk it indicts their careers pretty well - neither guy is a significant + player at even strength, because both guys are terrible at defense.  Each gets a bunch of minuses tacked on because +/- is terrible and counts empty net goals, short handed goals, and things it has absolutely no reason to count except that players I guess 'deserve' pluses and minuses for those things, but it completely warps their meaning.  Both guys have played in front of terrible goaltending for most of their careers too, which doesn't help - they should each probably have around half the minuses they do, and if they had played for decent teams their whole careers, they'd be about even.

Edited by Triumph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As usual, Sterio is being cavalier about what he's talking about - could be because he doesn't know what he's talking about.  But he is referring here to shots %, or Fenwick, or any of these things.  He has not learned to distinguish between shooting percentage, which has had a meaning in the NHL for years, and shots% or some other word.

 

+/- sucks, but for Lecavalier and Kovalchuk it indicts their careers pretty well - neither guy is a significant + player at even strength, because both guys are terrible at defense.  Each gets a bunch of minuses tacked on because +/- is terrible and counts empty net goals, short handed goals, and things it has absolutely no reason to count except that players I guess 'deserve' pluses and minuses for those things, but it completely warps their meaning.  Both guys have played in front of terrible goaltending for most of their careers too, which doesn't help - they should each probably have around half the minuses they do, and if they had played for decent teams their whole careers, they'd be about even.

 

haha ok thats it. so its cause "i dont know and don't understand" lol okay...

 

See thats the thing with you, you CLEARLY think you're one of the only one who "understand" those numbers and "microstats" and makes you feel superior. It's not complicated AT ALL and it's not worth putting that much into them other than showing indications. sucks that the good ol' "watching the game" to judge players is so accessible for any IQ you don't feel good enough about yourself basing everything on that.

 

But hey if i ever learn? will i be able to go all cocky, know-it-all and jerk on everyone like you do all the time? and act superior and sh!t ? man i hope i can understand the complexity of that matter one day, must be awesome to look down on people from that high. how i envy your enormous  and superior IQ mannnnn. 

 

i could bet a sh!t load of money that you NEVER played real sports other than in gym classes and you try to overcompensate that lack of experience by using numbers. Or if you did play sports you must have been terrible at it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sterio:  You used the words incorrectly and someone did not understand what you meant.  It's as simple as that.  Be clearer what you're talking about and you won't have to get things you understand explained to you again.

 

Microstats are very easy to understand, something which I have said 100000 times on this board.  The application of them is not always simple, though.  And I watch plenty of games.  The microstats believers I know watch way more games than the average hockey fan.

Edited by Triumph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh here we go!

 

Another Sterio-Tri bout!

 

:e-drama:

 

ah there's no point. I don't give a sh!t cause it's not as if i'm the only one calling him out for that. and he doesnt give a sh!t either cause he's above all of us in his mind.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that would explain why Datsyuk was nominated for the selke for 5 straight years and won 3

he's obviously the reason for "in this case". pasha had to prove himself on the ice, he was no way an "entitled"  star

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sterio:  You used the words incorrectly and someone did not understand what you meant.  It's as simple as that.  Be clearer what you're talking about and you won't have to get things you understand explained to you again.

 

Microstats are very easy to understand, something which I have said 100000 times on this board.  The application of them is not always simple, though.  And I watch plenty of games.  The microstats believers I know watch way more games than the average hockey fan.

What did that last line have anything to do with anything? Sounds like you had too small of a sample to have drawn a conclusion from that set of data. Also, I'm pretty sure sterio's first language is french based on the twitter posts he puts up here that he translates from french to english, so good job jumping on his grammar/syntax....

You really need to work on taking the edge out of your explanations. You want more people to believe in the stats you believe in? Stop being a jerk about it and maybe people will listen.

Sterio - Personally insulting Tri isn't gonna help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I second both of ATLL's comments. Please tone the vitriol down guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What did that last line have anything to do with anything? Sounds like you had too small of a sample to have drawn a conclusion from that set of data. Also, I'm pretty sure sterio's first language is french based on the twitter posts he puts up here that he translates from french to english, so good job jumping on his grammar/syntax....

You really need to work on taking the edge out of your explanations. You want more people to believe in the stats you believe in? Stop being a jerk about it and maybe people will listen.

Sterio - Personally insulting Tri isn't gonna help.

 

well yeah im french as F**k lol 

 

but it's not about the way i phrased what i said or wtv. I will explain this one last time.

 

I've played lot's of sports, all positions, mostly hockey and soccer and at a decent level and i won championships. I have lot's of experience of whats going on in a team and how players work. Im sure a bunch of you guys does too, im not saying im better than everyone here.

 

That being said, i've been on team where guys that would either 

 

1- Shoot the puck / ball ALL GAME LONG from anywhere at the right time or at the wrong time. Anytime they have a chance they'll shoot. Now from those guys, some we're really good and would score or get good scoring chances, which should increase their % of success. Some others would be literally useless, shooting wide or shooting right into the goalies chest or weak shots that'd never go in or directly to the opposing team.

 

2- Then there's guys who really don't shoot often who mostly have a "johnny on the spot tap-in" kind of mentality who have to be sure they are in a good position to take a shot. Those guys mostly have a pass first mentality too. Their game is more about seeing the play and about positioning to produce. Or they are snippers who don't shoot often but know when to do it at the right time or if they think the pass is the best option they'll pass. You can also have that mentality and be terrible at it and don't produce of course.

 

So out of those 2 kind of players, you have the ones who shoots all the time, for some it works cause they are simply good, for some it doesnt cause they don't have a great shot or they can't aim. Or you have the reserved guy who doesnt shoot a lot but can aim.

 

For the last time, you can use stats to prove wtv you want it goes both ways, you can pick examples here and there to make a point, someone will be able to counter attack with other numbers.

 

but the more important thing is that you cannot calculate how dangerous each shots are, of course some could be great shots that the player made room for it or burned 5 guys for a breakaway. Or the dman can just come off the bench and happen to get the puck to the point and take a shot. 

 

There's wayyyyy too much luck and other factor to keep on pinning it on players or especially for Corsi and Fenwick which is even worst, you could have the best shift of your life and get 5 shots against cause the guys on the other side are sh!tting the bed or cause they've been caught in their end and are tired. Or you can have the worst shift or your life but your teammates gets 7 shots off rebounds and you don't touch the puck even once in that whole play.

 

so whats the point of always saying stuff like...

 

"this decent guy" is shooting at a crazy "some%" but obviously there's luck into that its not likely that he'll continue on that pace.

 

or 

 

"this superstar" is only shooting at "super low %" but the puck is just not going in he's unlucky or he's slumping

 

whats the point?!? it could change in the next game? buddy could have the best or worst game of his life or even changing linemates could do the trick or wtv. 

 

I HATE when guys are throwing around those stats especially for guys that they don't even watch so they don't even know the situations and everything.

 

bottom line, stats can prove stuff as they are exactly what they are telling you about a players, as much as they can be misleading. So there's really no point, especially when you just blame "luck" when they are not telling you what you want them to. Cause well that's the only way around it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well yeah im french as F**k lol

but it's not about the way i phrased what i said or wtv. I will explain this one last time.

I've played lot's of sports, all positions, mostly hockey and soccer and at a decent level and i won championships. I have lot's of experience of whats going on in a team and how players work. Im sure a bunch of you guys does too, im not saying im better than everyone here.

That being said, i've been on team where guys that would either

1- Shoot the puck / ball ALL GAME LONG from anywhere at the right time or at the wrong time. Anytime they have a chance they'll shoot. Now from those guys, some we're really good and would score or get good scoring chances, which should increase their % of success. Some others would be literally useless, shooting wide or shooting right into the goalies chest or weak shots that'd never go in or directly to the opposing team.

2- Then there's guys who really don't shoot often who mostly have a "johnny on the spot tap-in" kind of mentality who have to be sure they are in a good position to take a shot. Those guys mostly have a pass first mentality too. Their game is more about seeing the play and about positioning to produce. Or they are snippers who don't shoot often but know when to do it at the right time or if they think the pass is the best option they'll pass. You can also have that mentality and be terrible at it and don't produce of course.

So out of those 2 kind of players, you have the ones who shoots all the time, for some it works cause they are simply good, for some it doesnt cause they don't have a great shot or they can't aim. Or you have the reserved guy who doesnt shoot a lot but can aim.

For the last time, you can use stats to prove wtv you want it goes both ways, you can pick examples here and there to make a point, someone will be able to counter attack with other numbers.

but the more important thing is that you cannot calculate how dangerous each shots are, of course some could be great shots that the player made room for it or burned 5 guys for a breakaway. Or the dman can just come off the bench and happen to get the puck to the point and take a shot.

There's wayyyyy too much luck and other factor to keep on pinning it on players or especially for Corsi and Fenwick which is even worst, you could have the best shift of your life and get 5 shots against cause the guys on the other side are sh!tting the bed or cause they've been caught in their end and are tired. Or you can have the worst shift or your life but your teammates gets 7 shots off rebounds and you don't touch the puck even once in that whole play.

so whats the point of always saying stuff like...

"this decent guy" is shooting at a crazy "some%" but obviously there's luck into that its not likely that he'll continue on that pace.

or

"this superstar" is only shooting at "super low %" but the puck is just not going in he's unlucky or he's slumping

whats the point?!? it could change in the next game? buddy could have the best or worst game of his life or even changing linemates could do the trick or wtv.

I HATE when guys are throwing around those stats especially for guys that they don't even watch so they don't even know the situations and everything.

bottom line, stats can prove stuff as they are exactly what they are telling you about a players, as much as they can be misleading. So there's really no point, especially when you just blame "luck" when they are not telling you what you want them to. Cause well that's the only way around it.

Stats don't mean anything if they are used with small sample sizes. That's why the "shift of your life" example is invalid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0