Jump to content

Photo

Kovi


  • Please log in to reply
49 replies to this topic

#1 Bartholomew Hunt

Bartholomew Hunt

    Rookie Devil

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 491 posts

Posted 25 March 2013 - 05:53 PM

Interesting little stat i just found 2 seconds ago. Pretty interesting to see him 2nd worst all time. Although playing in atlanta for years is a big factor in it.

 

http://www.nhl.com/i...tive=true&pg=33


  • 0

#2 Daniel

Daniel

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,803 posts

Posted 25 March 2013 - 07:25 PM

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
  • 0
Posted Image
I collect spores, molds and fungus.
Hello fellow American. This you should vote me. I leave power. Good. Thank you, thank you. If you vote me, I'm hot. What? Taxes, they'll be lower... son. The Democratic vote is the right thing to do Philadelphia, so do.
How do you spot risk? How do you avoid risk? And what makes it so risky?

#3 devils102

devils102

    Senior Devil

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 885 posts

Posted 25 March 2013 - 09:30 PM

That's only among active players I believe. I has Jagr first for goals.


  • 0
Posted Image

#4 Niaure

Niaure

    Albany Devil

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 293 posts

Posted 26 March 2013 - 03:47 AM

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
  • 0
Posted Image

#5 Marshall

Marshall

    Head Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,344 posts

Posted 26 March 2013 - 03:59 AM

Why +/- is stupid:


  • 0

Winner of the 2009-10 Slava Fetisov Award For Best International Poster
Winner of the 2011-2012 RD Avatar Award


#6 iceowl14

iceowl14

    Prospect

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 127 posts

Posted 26 March 2013 - 05:58 AM

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.


  • 0
Twitter: @IceOwl14

#7 EdgeControl

EdgeControl

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,356 posts

Posted 26 March 2013 - 06:05 AM

Why +/- is stupid:

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


Edited by EdgeControl, 26 March 2013 - 06:07 AM.

  • 0

#8 socbrian

socbrian

    Prospect

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 136 posts

Posted 26 March 2013 - 07:05 AM

Why +/- is stupid:

That is short handed so there is no +/-


  • 0

#9 SterioDesign

SterioDesign

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,912 posts

Posted 26 March 2013 - 07:48 AM

+/- 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.


  • 0

www.SterioDesign.com

 


#10 EdgeControl

EdgeControl

    All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,356 posts

Posted 26 March 2013 - 07:58 AM

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)


  • 0

#11 Crisis

Crisis

    Rookie Devil

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 421 posts

Posted 26 March 2013 - 08:33 AM

That is short handed so there is no +/-

 

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


  • 0
"People said his brain was infected by Devils."
Posted Image

#12 SterioDesign

SterioDesign

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,912 posts

Posted 26 March 2013 - 08:55 AM

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


  • 0

www.SterioDesign.com

 


#13 squishyx

squishyx

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,288 posts

Posted 26 March 2013 - 09:39 AM

On the other hand.. Elias is 4th from the top.
  • 0

#14 Colorado Rockies 1976

Colorado Rockies 1976

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,514 posts

Posted 26 March 2013 - 09:54 AM

+/- 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.   


  • 0
THE NHL MUST LOVE THE DEVILS - from who else? A RANGER fan!
[Mark Messier]: A big, bald attention whore with a stupid Easter Island-lookin face. - from who else? DaneykoIsGod!

Even when Marty comes back maybe Larry should put Clemmensen to be on the goal during the shootouts.
Can the coach do that ? Switch the goalies 5 seconds to go in overtime?
- Most priceless quote ever posted on a message board.

Martin Brodeur: THE MOST ALL-TIME WINS!, 12 straight seasons of 30+ wins, 3 Stanley Cups, 4 Vezina Trophies, and zero respect from too many so-called Devils "fans" who are either too young or too bandwagon to remember the much darker days of Sean Burke, Craig Billington, Bob Sauve, Alain Chevrier, and the talented but overwhelmed Chico Resch, among many others.

It's easy to support a great player when he's playing at his very best. It takes a true fan to support that same player during those rare moments and stretches when he's not. Babe Ruth went 0-4 some games, and sometimes Wayne Gretzky was held pointless. There may be such a thing as greatness, but no such thing as absolute perfection every single night.

#30 FOREVER!

20 out of 1,946 njdevs.com members agree: CR1976 is the Most Knowledgable Poster of 2008! Victory is mine...oh yes, victory is mine!

#15 Kicksave Brodeur!!

Kicksave Brodeur!!

    Senior Devil

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 536 posts

Posted 26 March 2013 - 10:18 AM

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


  • 0



#16 Triumph

Triumph

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 27,775 posts

Posted 26 March 2013 - 10:43 AM

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, 26 March 2013 - 10:48 AM.

  • 0

http://drivingplay.blogspot.com - The blog with three first lines
 


#17 SterioDesign

SterioDesign

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,912 posts

Posted 26 March 2013 - 11:11 AM

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.


  • 0

www.SterioDesign.com

 


#18 jagknife

jagknife

    Assistant Coach

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,480 posts

Posted 26 March 2013 - 11:15 AM

oh here we go!

 

Another Sterio-Tri bout!

 

:e-drama:


  • 0

NewKeeperSig.png of each of Toronto's 6 shots on goal in Game 6


#19 Triumph

Triumph

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 27,775 posts

Posted 26 March 2013 - 11:44 AM

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, 26 March 2013 - 11:46 AM.

  • 0

http://drivingplay.blogspot.com - The blog with three first lines
 


#20 SterioDesign

SterioDesign

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,912 posts

Posted 26 March 2013 - 11:52 AM

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

www.SterioDesign.com

 





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users