Lidstrom a +1 for the Season

[egroen 384]

I figured things would normalize down the stretch, but it is nice to finally see him get there. Funny how his +/- improves once Stuart and his 'offensive experiment' is gone.

I have a hard time seeing anyone give Lidstrom a legitimate challenge for the Norris at this point, especially now that the paper tigers have cooled off offensively.

A possible 7th Norris ties him with Harvey and one behind Orr. He is already the oldest Norris winner at the age of 38.

Here's hoping he keeps it up!

[Opie 308]

He has been very stout on the back line, the plus minus was glaring to me because it seemed like he wasn't playing like a even or minus player.

I think he has had a very good season, great if you consider his age, but in my biased opinion he is the Norris winner so far.

[Original-Six 254]

Probably something to do with the team finally not letting in 3-4 goals a game. Hopefully they keep it that way.

[Konnan511 1,736]

It's not surprising. He can't join the rush as much as he use to be able to even strength, so the pluses are becoming harder for him to come by for him. Less chances for pluses combined with shakey all around team defense and goaltending will have that adverse effect on your plus minus.

[GMRwings1983 8,794]

Thank you Boston.

[Finnish Wing 110]

It's not surprising. He can't join the rush as much as he use to be able to even strength, so the pluses are becoming harder for him to come by for him. Less chances for pluses combined with shakey all around team defense and goaltending will have that adverse effect on your plus minus.

Well, Lydman and Meszaros aren't really joining the rush that much.

[sleepwalker 512]

I agree, great to see Nik at a plus.

But, c'mon... Lets not dis Stuart now.

If anything, everyone should now realize what a vital role Stuart played for our team... since he has been out, our defense has pretty much totally ******* sucked...

[Doc Holliday 1,888]

And there was much rejoicing.

yaaaaaaaaaaaaaayy.......

[lookalive07 251]

Thank you Boston.

This. Now I can go back to liking them again.

Edited February 13, 2011 by lookalive07

[Andy Pred 48 337]

yep, every year so far Lids has been a + player. 93-94 was his best season ending with a +43. his lowest for the reg season so far is the year before that when he was a +7 for the season.

Vladdy in the season 95-96 was a massive +60!!

[Buppy 1,720]

I figured things would normalize down the stretch, but it is nice to finally see him get there. Funny how his +/- improves once Stuart and his 'offensive experiment' is gone.

I have a hard time seeing anyone give Lidstrom a legitimate challenge for the Norris at this point, especially now that the paper tigers have cooled off offensively.

A possible 7th Norris ties him with Harvey and one behind Orr. He is already the oldest Norris winner at the age of 38.

Here's hoping he keeps it up!

Nick was +3 when Stuart got hurt.

In the first 13 games after Stuart got hurt, Nick was a -7. He's +5 in the last two games, but still -2 without Stuart.

Edited February 13, 2011 by Buppy

[Theophany 110]

And he'll now get 10 more votes for the Norris, just because he's a + player.

[egroen 384]

Nick was +3 when Stuart got hurt.

In the first 13 games after Stuart got hurt, Nick was a -7. He's +5 in the last two games, but still -2 without Stuart.

Ericsson was a worse culprit than Stuart, but Lidstrom's +/- took a toll this year from both of them taking a lot of risks - and would have been much worse if he had not single-handedly broken up a bunch of 2 on 1s he was left to deal with this year.

I'm looking forward to Stuart returning, but hope he gives up on pinching so often.

And he'll now get 10 more votes for the Norris, just because he's a + player.

I do believe there are a fair amount of voters who look for any excuse to not vote for a 'soft euro' whom has already won it a bunch of times before.

[Buppy 1,720]

Ericsson was a worse culprit than Stuart, but Lidstrom's +/- took a toll this year from both of them taking a lot of risks - and would have been much worse if he had not single-handedly broken up a bunch of 2 on 1s he was left to deal with this year.

I'm looking forward to Stuart returning, but hope he gives up on pinching so often.

...

You mean Kronwall. Nick has barely played with Ericsson this year.

Nick's +/- is as much a result of goaltending, poor team effort, the forwards, and his own mistakes as it is Stuart or any of his other partners.

[brett 1,029]

+/- stat is stupid

look at the players leading this team in +/-

rafalski, abs, ericsson. does this mean theyre outplaying lids? NO

i also noticed the last 2 games rafalski playing with lids again

[CrimsonFlame 424]

+/- isn't a stupid stat. It does mean something. However like every other stat, you can't measure people based on one stat alone, but rather the combination of them all.

[Konnan511 1,736]

+/- stat is stupid

look at the players leading this team in +/-

rafalski, abs, ericsson. does this mean theyre outplaying lids? NO

i also noticed the last 2 games rafalski playing with lids again

I'm really curious how you went from A to B on this one.

[SouthernWingsFan 854]

[Mabuhay Red Wings 177]

[wings_fanatic 677]

IMO Nick's plus minus took a toll this season because Howard lets in quite a few soft goals where most goalies would have them as easy saves. On plays like that, there is nothing more Nick could do to defend, as they are routine saves for most goalies. Nick is still the best Dman in the world despite that and will win his 7th norris this year

[Mabuhay Red Wings 177]

Now a -2.

[eva unit zero 271]

+/- isn't a stupid stat. It does mean something. However like every other stat, you can't measure people based on one stat alone, but rather the combination of them all.

+/- is about as useful as GWG or SO. It means nothing.

A player could score his team's third goal of the game at the ten minute mark of the first period, and the opposition could score two in the final five to make the final score 3-2. Does that make the third goal more important than the first or second? And two goalies with identical stats except for their shutout numbers? Say one has 10 shutouts and another has none, both in 40 starts. Both have 2.10 GAA and .916 sv%, and 23-12-5 records. Who's the better goalie? The 10-shutout goalie is going to get more Vezina votes, but his non-shutout GAA is 2.8, his non-shutout sv% (assuming average shots against remains equal) is .888, and his non-shutout record is 13-12-5.

There are stats that are and aren't useful. Shooting percentage isn't even a great indicator of a player's scoring skill. Zetterberg and Ovechkin are great indicators. Firing the puck on net with the intent of creating a rebound will hurt your shooting percentage, but will increase the chance of a goal being scored.

And plus-minus may just be the most useless of them all. It's supposed to show the effectiveness of all players, but it doesn't show the difference between who players play against, it only counts certain situations, and defensive players are more likely to end up with a low score simply from playing against the opposing team's high scoring players.

[Mabuhay Red Wings 177]

Explanations and rationalizations about the usefulness of the plus/minus statistic don't really do it for me. The bottom line is that it's definitely something critics look at when they consider any defenseman's case for a Norris trophy. I want Nick to get another Norris trophy and therefore, I care to see that stat of his reach up to the sky. Or at least stay out of the red. Do I value Nick's contributions less because of that stat? Absolutely not. All I know is that I believe he deserves another Norris and if a better +/- helps his case then I'm going to hope he gets a lot more pluses.

[GMRwings1983 8,794]

Now a -2.

If he loses the Norris because of this, I'll never forgive Howard.

[fivetenandagame 11]

+/- is about as useful as GWG or SO. It means nothing.

A player could score his team's third goal of the game at the ten minute mark of the first period, and the opposition could score two in the final five to make the final score 3-2. Does that make the third goal more important than the first or second? And two goalies with identical stats except for their shutout numbers? Say one has 10 shutouts and another has none, both in 40 starts. Both have 2.10 GAA and .916 sv%, and 23-12-5 records. Who's the better goalie? The 10-shutout goalie is going to get more Vezina votes, but his non-shutout GAA is 2.8, his non-shutout sv% (assuming average shots against remains equal) is .888, and his non-shutout record is 13-12-5.

There are stats that are and aren't useful. Shooting percentage isn't even a great indicator of a player's scoring skill. Zetterberg and Ovechkin are great indicators. Firing the puck on net with the intent of creating a rebound will hurt your shooting percentage, but will increase the chance of a goal being scored.

And plus-minus may just be the most useless of them all. It's supposed to show the effectiveness of all players, but it doesn't show the difference between who players play against, it only counts certain situations, and defensive players are more likely to end up with a low score simply from playing against the opposing team's high scoring players.

That's certainly one way to look at it if it doesn't support someone's particular player they are rooting for.

The bottom line is there are a great number of games, shifts and minutes played. All the players who may be in contention for a Norris are up against the same obstacles.

There's a large enough sample population over the course of a season that makes +/- a useful indicator. Simply micromanaging it by saying it doesn't take a second to second look at who each player is playing against makes me think your assertion is Nick is playing against the best of the best all the time while the other candidates get all their ice time against hacks. All the Norris candidates, whomever they end up being, have played against tough opposition.

Any attempt to explain away Nick's poor +/- this year b/c it doesn't reflect generously on him is trying to sweep unseemly evidence under the rug. We're not playing well defensively and Nick has been a part of that. Is he the main culprit? No. But it's been endemic of the entire team this year to a level we're not quite used to.

Nick has always played against the best of the best. Hasn't seemed to hamper his +/- in the past like it is this year. So you can't just say its no longer a useful stat b/c it reflects poorly on him now. Maybe you've always felt that way, I don't know. I just happen to disagree with your contention that it's useless.