KrazyGangsta 79 Report post Posted April 7, 2009 I was looking at the stats and I realized wings had 3 defensman with 50 pts >. Pretty impressive no? Lidstrom ---> 58 pts. +33 Rafalski ---> 57 pts. +20 Kronwall ---> 50 pts. +4 Kronwall caught me by shock ... looks like his flying under the radar. If he steps up a bit more on his defensive play maybe next couple season he could become an elite defensmen and probably future 1st defensive line d-man? What you guys say it's pretty impressive no? He does have the potential. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
uk_redwing 495 Report post Posted April 7, 2009 Kronwall...only a +4 on a team thats 3rd overall...that says his season for me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dano33 41 Report post Posted April 7, 2009 Kronwall...only a +4 on a team thats 3rd overall...that says his season for me. Why? +/- does not measure defensive ability. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Reds4Life 51 Report post Posted April 7, 2009 Why? +/- does not measure defensive ability. It does if you use it in proper context. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Datsyerberger 279 Report post Posted April 7, 2009 Why? +/- does not measure defensive ability. +/- is a very unreliable tool.. it's best relevance is when comparing members of a team, and even then it can be unreliable, because then you have to examine linemates, linematching, etc. It has an abstract functionality, but can outright lie a good portion of the time. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KrazyGangsta 79 Report post Posted April 7, 2009 +/- is a very unreliable tool.. it's best relevance is when comparing members of a team, and even then it can be unreliable, because then you have to examine linemates, linematching, etc. It has an abstract functionality, but can outright lie a good portion of the time. True that, I agree. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dano33 41 Report post Posted April 7, 2009 It does if you use it in proper context. Please explain. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stormboy 47 Report post Posted April 7, 2009 +/- is a very unreliable tool.. it's best relevance is when comparing members of a team, and even then it can be unreliable, because then you have to examine linemates, linematching, etc. It has an abstract functionality, but can outright lie a good portion of the time. yeah...i mean, while rafalski hasn't exactly been dynamite defensively this season, kronwall has also been paired with stuart most of the season, who's been quite the turnover-machine himself, and sits at a -1. granted, kronner's got way more points, but a lot of them are on the powerplay and a lot of them are when he's teamed up with stu, i'd imagine. an interesting comparison, lebda and lilja are a combined +22, while stuart and kronner are a combined +3. hmmm... anyway, to the topic--yeah, i think it's sweet that we have three d-men with 50+ points. hopefully they all pick up their defensive play in the playoffs, though... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
norrisnick 1 Report post Posted April 7, 2009 Why? +/- does not measure defensive ability. In and of itself? You're right it doesn't. But, Kronwall has been a complete and total trainwreck defensively this season. Especially when paired with Stuart. He's going to finish the season leading the team in goals against. No player but Lidstrom has done that since the '94-'95 season when Paul Coffey did so. And Lidstrom has always led the Wings because he plays the most minutes against the toughest opposition. Kronwall doesn't. Part of that is visible with his home/road +/- ratings. At home when Babcock can get him out there against favorable matchups, Nik is +13. On the road when the opposition can dictate matchups, Nik is -9. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Red Crazy 201 Report post Posted April 8, 2009 Detroit is lucky to have the depth it has at defence with so many of them able to help out on the offensive side as well. Most teams would be in big trouble with guys like Raffi and Lilja out of the lineup but the Wings have guys like Ericcson and Cheli that can step in and play great. I think Kronwall and Stuart are both having seasons that they would like to forget. Kronwall is not playing the body and is turning the puck over way too much. Stuart seems to be coming on lately and looks like he will be fine for the playoffs. I think that Detroit might have a future Norris winner in Ericsson he has looked great so far and if he continues to develop he will be a top 2 dman soon. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
YoungGuns1340 1 Report post Posted April 8, 2009 Kronwall has been brutal defensively this season. The games where hes played well defensively have been well in the minority. Hes going to need a Gonchar-like defensive revelation to be considered an elite Dman. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheOwl 77 Report post Posted April 8, 2009 (edited) +/- is a somewhat hard to interpret stat. But the minus by itself is very telling. If a player is -40 on the season, and a +60, giving an overall +20, he looks like a pretty good D-man. Not so. A perfect D-man really should be - 0. No pucks go in the net when your on the ice. That's the whole story. If you broke down the +/-, it would be a lot easier to tell who's good defensively, making the Selke and Norris much easier to hand out. Such as Mike Green, great +/-, but what does that mean? Does it mean whenever he's on the ice, a lot of goals are scored to make up for a lot of goals against? It should really be broken down into + and -. It tells you the entire story. Edited April 8, 2009 by TheOwl Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
syntax 359 Report post Posted April 8, 2009 Why? +/- does not measure defensive ability. Please explain. So all of you are saying that the most successful team in hockey history, the Montreal Canadiens, initiated tracking a 'worthless' stat in 1962? And then the NHL adopted this worthless statistic? (It became a tracked stat during the 67-68 season.) Plus-minus is a measure of dominance, not defense. +/- is obviously dependant on how your team is performing. While I agree that +/- isn't exactly a fair individual statistic, it SURELY tells you how a player is playing. In a nutshell, that's what +/- is. Winning and losing. If you are a +, YOU and your team are scoring more than your opponent and you're a WINNER. If you're a minus, YOU and your team are getting scored on more than you're scoring and you're a LOSER. There's a reason +/- is starting to be tracked in basketball, and is used by law firms to judge teams of litigators. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
norrisnick 1 Report post Posted April 8, 2009 +/- is a somewhat hard to interpret stat. But the minus by itself is very telling. If a player is -40 on the season, and a +60, giving an overall +20, he looks like a pretty good D-man. Not so. A perfect D-man really should be - 0. No pucks go in the net when your on the ice. That's the whole story. If you broke down the +/-, it would be a lot easier to tell who's good defensively, making the Selke and Norris much easier to hand out. Such as Mike Green, great +/-, but what does that mean? Does it mean whenever he's on the ice, a lot of goals are scored to make up for a lot of goals against? It should really be broken down into + and -. It tells you the entire story. Raw totals are tracked. Lidstrom has been on the ice for 135 goals for and 85 goals against. Take PP goals out of the equation and it's 82 goals for and 49 goals against. Nick's raw numbers for his 6 Norris seasons. +147/-106 in '01 +129/-94 in '02 +161/-100 in '03 +161/-93 in '06 +143/-85 in '07 +140/-75 in '08 The elite D of the league are always out for a lot of goals for and a lot of goals against. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Drake_Marcus 890 Report post Posted April 8, 2009 +/- is a very unreliable tool.. it's best relevance is when comparing members of a team, and even then it can be unreliable, because then you have to examine linemates, linematching, etc. It has an abstract functionality, but can outright lie a good portion of the time. For example- with Mike Green. People would think his decent +/- would indicate he's a capable defensive player, yet he plays almost zero PK time and is second of all defensemen in give aways, with the 4th most give aways in the entire league. His time on ice is pretty deceptive too (I've dropped players in these stats that have played less than 25 games since there are a few 1 or 2 game players that skew the stats): --105th for 'defensemen' in short handed time on ice per game(2:27) , --28th for 'defensemen' in even strength time on ice per game (17:57), --2nd for 'defensemen' in powerplay time on ice per game (5:23), --6th for 'defensemen' in total time on ice per game (25:48), Separating his time on ice out into just Washington 'defensemen' yeilds even more surprising results: --6th in short handed time on ice per game! (ie. the last d-man on the roster that his coach would put out!) --1st in power play time on ice by an amazing margin- the next highest pp time/game d-man on his team is only out for 1:26 per game! Compare that to Green's 5:23 per game! That means he gets 376% more PP time than any other d-man on his team. --1st in total time on ice per game by 5 minutes. Just throwing that out there Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
