Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

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


  • Please log in to reply
95 replies to this topic

#81 Richdg

Richdg

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,992 posts

Posted 03 March 2013 - 05:14 PM

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.



#82 dat's sick

dat's sick

    Fear can hold you prisoner, hope can set you free

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,352 posts
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 03 March 2013 - 05:21 PM

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. 



#83 mjtm77

mjtm77

    mjtm77

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 962 posts

Posted 03 March 2013 - 07:13 PM

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


Posted Image

#84 The Axe

The Axe

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,379 posts

Posted 03 March 2013 - 07:21 PM

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.

#85 Richdg

Richdg

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,992 posts

Posted 03 March 2013 - 07:59 PM

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.



#86 Carman

Carman

    Legend

  • HoF Booster
  • 5,114 posts
  • Location:Riverview, MI

Posted 03 March 2013 - 09:56 PM

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.



#87 haroldsnepsts

haroldsnepsts

    "Classy"

  • HoF Booster Mod
  • 17,147 posts

Posted 03 March 2013 - 10:03 PM

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.letsgowin...tion=boardrules

 

Third, it is a mostly useless stat.



#88 The Axe

The Axe

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,379 posts

Posted 04 March 2013 - 02:10 PM

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.letsgowin...tion=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.

#89 haroldsnepsts

haroldsnepsts

    "Classy"

  • HoF Booster Mod
  • 17,147 posts

Posted 04 March 2013 - 02:32 PM

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.puckprosp...hp?articleid=20



#90 kipwinger

kipwinger

    Legend

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,343 posts
  • Location:Washington, District of Columbia

Posted 04 March 2013 - 02:44 PM

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?


GMRwings:  "Well, in other civilized countries, 16 years old isn't considered underage.  For instance, I believe the age of consent is 16 in Canada.  There's some US states where it's 16 as well.  

 

Get off the high horse.  Not like she was 10."

 

"Some girls are 17 even though they look 25."

 

 


#91 haroldsnepsts

haroldsnepsts

    "Classy"

  • HoF Booster Mod
  • 17,147 posts

Posted 04 March 2013 - 03:23 PM

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. 



#92 kipwinger

kipwinger

    Legend

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,343 posts
  • Location:Washington, District of Columbia

Posted 04 March 2013 - 03:31 PM

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. 


GMRwings:  "Well, in other civilized countries, 16 years old isn't considered underage.  For instance, I believe the age of consent is 16 in Canada.  There's some US states where it's 16 as well.  

 

Get off the high horse.  Not like she was 10."

 

"Some girls are 17 even though they look 25."

 

 


#93 haroldsnepsts

haroldsnepsts

    "Classy"

  • HoF Booster Mod
  • 17,147 posts

Posted 04 March 2013 - 03:50 PM

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. 



#94 Richdg

Richdg

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,992 posts

Posted 04 March 2013 - 04:41 PM

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.



#95 Crymson

Crymson

    Ninjelephant

  • Gold Booster
  • 11,032 posts
  • Location:Denver, CO, USA

Posted 04 March 2013 - 04:45 PM

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.



#96 Detroit # 1 Fan

Detroit # 1 Fan

    Truculence.

  • HoF Booster
  • 19,079 posts
  • Location:St John's

Posted 04 March 2013 - 05:49 PM

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.


#NOMOREKINDL






Similar Topics Collapse

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users