Babs on last night's D: "...best we've had all year."

[Nev 1,085]

Its an interesting D-corps we have now, and certainly one that is developing an identity - an identity I haven't seen in 20 years of watching the Wings. They block shots, they punish forwards along the boards, and most of all - they make the opponents pay a price in front of our net. For 20 years I've been watching opponents give our goalies a snow shower every time they freeze the puck whilst our D-Men stand around and do nothing. Not now, every opportunity, they are knocking guys on their ass, and I love it. Even Kindl is using his size!

The downside of this, is that this is by far the worst puck moving D-corps I have seen in Detroit. Its brutally painfull watching us trying to break out of our zone at times as the forwards find the puck in their skates, or it gets turned over at the blue-line. We've also gotten a lot worse at keeping the puck in at the opponents blue-line, but then again Lidstrom was maybe the best ever at doing that.

[brett 1,029]

i dont understand why we cant have both offense and defense.

its either a 6-5 game or a 2-1 game

[beachwing 426]

Thought Brunner really stepped up his physical play and defense today as well. As Babs likes to say...he really competed every shift

[Richdg 267]

So because Kindl has played half as much as Ericsson and has half the points and the same +/-, they are essentially the same player? Give me a break, that is the most ridiculous thing I've heard

I was talking that they are the same overall. Just 3 years and thus the difference in totals to date. Go back and look at Ericsson at 26. Kindl is better than that. 3 years from now he will be equal or greater than Ericsson. Now maybe I didn't make that clear all in one post, but if you would read things, that was what I was saying.

Over the last 5 games we have given up 0, 3, 2, 1, and 1 goals. The D and Jimmy are playing great! Now if we could score some more we would be all set. But that is going to take some changes. We just don't have enough scorers on the team or in the system at higher levels. But that is another topic.

[dat's sick 1,002]

Defense was really great tonight. All we lacked was any kind of sustained offensive pressure. We were constantly pushed back, too tired to attack, made it a constant barrage against our D, which survived in a great way.

Howard was really good, but imo this was just as much the defense making him look good. He had some questionable rebounds that we cleared, we managed to get sticks on Hawks players that would have had almost open nets, we didn't screen or let anyone else screen Howard, etc.

[Richdg 267]

Defense was really great tonight. All we lacked was any kind of sustained offensive pressure. We were constantly pushed back, too tired to attack, made it a constant barrage against our D, which survived in a great way.

Howard was really good, but imo this was just as much the defense making him look good. He had some questionable rebounds that we cleared, we managed to get sticks on Hawks players that would have had almost open nets, we didn't screen or let anyone else screen Howard, etc.

This is directed at you, but it is funny that we give up a bunch of goals, it is Howards fault. When we play well on D, it is because of the guys in front of him.

[dat's sick 1,002]

This is directed at you, but it is funny that we give up a bunch of goals, it is Howards fault. When we play well on D, it is because of the guys in front of him.

I know that logic happens around here, but that was certainly not what I meant. He played a great game, just like he's done most of the time this season, it's just that this game, unlike many others earlier in the season, the defense was constantly in the right place and helping out, keeping Howard from being forced to make 5+ breakaway saves or a bunch of desperation stops.

Looking at the difference in defense between the first 5-10 games and the last couple of games is night and day. There is no surprise our goaltending has been putting up better numbers as well. No goalie will have a .93 sv% if they're facing the kind of chances we were giving up earlier in the season.

[Guest mjtm77]

What facts exactly?

Plus-minus is a mostly useless statistic because there's too many random variables involved for it to demonstrated anything meaningful.

In 2011 Nick Lidstrom finished the season as a -2. Rafalski was the highest among D men with +11. So what does that mean? Rafi > Lidstrom?

Oh, that's also the year Lids won the Norris.

as a minus 2.

not a useless stat. All of you who say that are retarted. sure it does not define someone but its not useless

[Guest The Axe]

Defense was really great tonight. All we lacked was any kind of sustained offensive pressure. We were constantly pushed back, too tired to attack, made it a constant barrage against our D, which survived in a great way.

Howard was really good, but imo this was just as much the defense making him look good. He had some questionable rebounds that we cleared, we managed to get sticks on Hawks players that would have had almost open nets, we didn't screen or let anyone else screen Howard, etc.

We held our own against the best team. Thats what matters. Back 6 looks like they will be the best back 6 in the league for years to come. Throw Sproul and Ouelette in there and holy crap. 8 solid Dmen. Ages 34 to 22. Cant beat that.

[Richdg 267]

I know that logic happens around here, but that was certainly not what I meant. He played a great game, just like he's done most of the time this season, it's just that this game, unlike many others earlier in the season, the defense was constantly in the right place and helping out, keeping Howard from being forced to make 5+ breakaway saves or a bunch of desperation stops.

Looking at the difference in defense between the first 5-10 games and the last couple of games is night and day. There is no surprise our goaltending has been putting up better numbers as well. No goalie will have a .93 sv% if they're facing the kind of chances we were giving up earlier in the season.

I understand. yes it is easier when the D plays well. Which they are. But far to many go off on the Howard stinks rant.

[Carman 387]

not a useless stat. All of you who say that are retarted. sure it does not define someone but its not useless

Had to bold that just for the laugh.

+/- may not be useless, but the conclusions made from it are. Too many variables for +/- to be meaningful. If +/- were given out when you gave the puck away, made a good breakout pass, took the right man out of the corner, won a puck battle behind the net, blocked a shot, missed the net on a shot, took a penalty, had a solid body check etc. then it would be much more reliable as those are plays that helped prevent or score a goal. But right now Quincey can get a + from Datsyuk dangling 5 people on the other team, even though Quincey was a complete non factor on the play, or Datsyuk gets a - because Quincey decided to pinch in as the last guy back and give up a breakaway, and Datsyuk had no factor in that goal happening.

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

not a useless stat. All of you who say that are retarted. sure it does not define someone but its not useless

First, if you're going to call someone retarded, it carries more weight when you spell it correctly.

Second, it's best not to call anyone that here, especially not a moderator. Here's the forum rules for reference. I'd focus on the personal attack and respecting moderators stuff.

http://www.letsgowings.com/forums/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules

Third, it is a mostly useless stat.

[Guest The Axe]

First, if you're going to call someone retarded, it carries more weight when you spell it correctly.

Second, it's best not to call anyone that here, especially not a moderator. Here's the forum rules for reference. I'd focus on the personal attack and respecting moderators stuff.

http://www.letsgowings.com/forums/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules

Third, it is a mostly useless stat.

Relax, Snepts!

+/- is a meaningful stat to rate a player at his position. You cant say Quincey is better than Kronwall because of the +/- gap. What you can say is that it appears Quincey is shutting down the 2nd and 3rd lines of the other teams, while it appears Kronwall is just breaking even about against the other teams' top line. What is more valuable? Kronwall breaking even against the top lines of other teams, in my opinion. Id love to see Kronwall a +2 with 31 points this year and Quincey a +19 with 11 points. That would mean our defense is holding its own across the top 3 lines of other teams. Especially with our piss poor offense this season.

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

Relax, Snepts!

+/- is a meaningful stat to rate a player at his position. You cant say Quincey is better than Kronwall because of the +/- gap. What you can say is that it appears Quincey is shutting down the 2nd and 3rd lines of the other teams, while it appears Kronwall is just breaking even about against the other teams' top line. What is more valuable? Kronwall breaking even against the top lines of other teams, in my opinion. Id love to see Kronwall a +2 with 31 points this year and Quincey a +19 with 11 points. That would mean our defense is holding its own across the top 3 lines of other teams. Especially with our piss poor offense this season.

The more you explain what Quincey's plus-minus shows, the more you make my case about it being mostly useless and widely misinterpreted.

You're using the stat to demonstrate something it's absolutely not built for. Here's a decent explanation of the weaknesses and common misuses of the stat.

http://www.puckprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=20

[kipwinger 8,807]

When it comes to plus minus I always see the argument that bad players can have good plus/minus because they indirectly benefit from being on the ice when guys like Datsyuk, Malkin, Stamkos, etc. score. It's always used to denigrate the play of guys that aren't considered stars. But I never see the argument that good players will have bad plus/minus because of screwups by bad players. And considering blown coverages, turnovers, bad line changes, etc. happen far more frequently than goals, you'd expect that the effect of bad play would skew that stat downward for star players far more than it would inflate the number for bad players right?

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

When it comes to plus minus I always see the argument that bad players can have good plus/minus because they indirectly benefit from being on the ice when guys like Datsyuk, Malkin, Stamkos, etc. score. It's always used to denigrate the play of guys that aren't considered stars. But I never see the argument that good players will have bad plus/minus because of screwups by bad players. And considering blown coverages, turnovers, bad line changes, etc. happen far more frequently than goals, you'd expect that the effect of bad play would skew that stat downward for star players far more than it would inflate the number for bad players right?

I think Lidstrom's -2 in 2011 is an example of what you're talking about.

My point about Quincey and the weakness of plus-minus is this. He's a +11 and has 1 goal this season (his only point of the season as well). So all his pluses except that one are dependent on the production of other players on the ice.

Look at one game like against St. Louis where the Wings won 5-1. The Blues one goal came on the PP, so no one gets a minus. The Wings goals however, came from guys like Kindl, Emmerton, Cleary, Brunner, and Flip.

Kronwall plays 21 minutes of Even Strength and ends up with a +1. Quincey plays 14:42 minutes of ES and ends up a +3. Neither one had a point in the game.

So Quincey had a better game and is shutting down 2nd and 3rd lines because he was standing on the ice when three of his teammates scored?

The other Blues game where they won 5-3 is another good example.

Don't get me wrong I think Q has been fairly solid and much better than his first few games of the season. But that's based on watching games. Not on misusing a statistic.

[kipwinger 8,807]

I think Lidstrom's -2 in 2011 is an example of what you're talking about.

My point about Quincey and the weakness of plus-minus is this. He's a +11 and has 1 goal this season (his only point of the season as well). So all his pluses except that one are dependent on the production of other players on the ice.

Look at one game like against St. Louis where the Wings won 5-1. The Blues one goal came on the PP, so no one gets a minus. The Wings goals however, came from guys like Kindl, Emmerton, Cleary, Brunner, and Flip.

Kronwall plays 21 minutes of Even Strength and ends up with a +1. Quincey plays 14:42 minutes of ES and ends up a +3. Neither one had a point in the game.

So Quincey had a better game and is shutting down 2nd and 3rd lines because he was standing on the ice when three of his teammates scored?

The other Blues game where they won 5-3 is another good example.

Don't get me wrong I think Q has been fairly solid and much better than his first few games of the season. But that's based on watching games. Not on misusing a statistic.

That's definitely true if you believe he was indeed "standing on the ice when three of his teammates scored". If he factored in to the play from the back end, perhaps by making a good outlet pass, keeping a puck in the offensive zone that otherwise would have been cleared, standing a guy up and causing a turnover, etc. then he may not end up on the score sheet, but was doing something far from standing around, that facilitated the eventual goal. I don't know whether he did or didn't in the games you mentioned, I'd have to go back and look. But considering Detroit's system has for years generated offense from the back end, via the transition game, I'd expect to find that he did factor into the play in a positive way.

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

That's definitely true if you believe he was indeed "standing on the ice when three of his teammates scored". If he factored in to the play from the back end, perhaps by making a good outlet pass, keeping a puck in the offensive zone that otherwise would have been cleared, standing a guy up and causing a turnover, etc. then he may not end up on the score sheet, but was doing something far from standing around, that facilitated the eventual goal. I don't know whether he did or didn't in the games you mentioned, I'd have to go back and look. But considering Detroit's system has for years generated offense from the back end, via the transition game, I'd expect to find that he did factor into the play in a positive way.

That's my whole point. You can't tell from plus-minus. But he gets a +3 and people use it to say he had a great game.

[Richdg 267]

It is but one stat and 1 stat only. It is not worth 5 pages on thread to discuss. yes it is over used. But it is also a way to help measure defense first players. If you are on a checking line, or a defensive pair, how do we know if those 5 are keeping the puck out of the net? +/- is but one means of many to do that.

[Guest Crymson]

Was it meaningless that Lidstrom was a +450 over his career? No. It would be as baseless to call +/- a nonsense statistic as it would be to call it a vital measure. In my opinion, its true value lies somewhere between the two. It's a decent but flawed indicator of performance.

[Detroit # 1 Fan 2,204]

Kindl's really impressed me the past 4 games. Since Babs challenged him to be better, he has been. Hasn't over skated any pucks like is usually the norm for him, no terrible glaring turnovers of memory and he's starting to get physical. Threw a great hit against the Hawks along the wall. After seeing Ericssons game develop so much this season, I think I'm riding Kindl this year. I've been critical of him since he joined the team full time in 09/10 and was battling Salei (RIP) for the 6th spot, but maybe he's just a late bloomer too. The current 6 D as it is, is really exciting. And it's hard to believe I'm saying that after Nick left this off-season haha.