Son of a Wing 1,644 Report post Posted March 12, 2014 Yes +/-is flawed stat, I understand that and said so. but lets also look at it correctly. prir to becoming a "top pair" guy a typical Kronwall year was 30ish pointsand +7. Now he is a 50ish point guy with a - rating. He is getting more minutes, more PP time, and far more shifts with our top forward line. yet his D is worse overall. yes losing Stuart-who everyone agreed was a #4 Dman hurt. Kronwall is simply not a #1 guy. Even in this very thread others are talking about he needs to be paired with...... #1 Dmen don't need to be paired with others to be great. They are great and make others around them better. Kronwall doesn't. BTW, anyone who says, and I quote: "Quincey gets to much heat from fans on this forum..... wouldn't mind him back at a lower salary" has no room to talk about the quality of any Dman in hockey. 6 Finnish Wing, number9, BottleOfSmoke and 3 others reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
number9 3,297 Report post Posted March 12, 2014 Yes +/-is flawed stat, I understand that and said so. but lets also look at it correctly. prir to becoming a "top pair" guy a typical Kronwall year was 30ish pointsand +7. Now he is a 50ish point guy with a - rating. He is getting more minutes, more PP time, and far more shifts with our top forward line. yet his D is worse overall. yes losing Stuart-who everyone agreed was a #4 Dman hurt. Kronwall is simply not a #1 guy. Even in this very thread others are talking about he needs to be paired with...... #1 Dmen don't need to be paired with others to be great. They are great and make others around them better. Kronwall doesn't. BTW, anyone who says, and I quote: "Quincey gets to much heat from fans on this forum..... wouldn't mind him back at a lower salary" has no room to talk about the quality of any Dman in hockey. You say you know it's a team stat but then judge his play based on it.... Doesn't make others look good? He makes Ericsson look real good out there and E is probably a #4 guy at best. Shea Weber is every fan in the leagues defensive wet dream and he's like -14 or something right now. With the poor season we've been having everyone on the team should have lower +/- You simply cannot use that stat to judge any one player Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Richdg 267 Report post Posted March 12, 2014 No he doesn't. Even though E-is primary partner has a positive rating....... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Echolalia 2,961 Report post Posted March 12, 2014 No he doesn't. Even though E-is primary partner has a positive rating....... Sooooooo you're saying E is our number 1 defensman? 1 number9 reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dropkickshanahans 463 Report post Posted March 12, 2014 (edited) The only time I take +/- seriously is when it's consistent with the whole team, like Chicago and St. Louis having consistently positive +/- this year. But even then it shouldn't be viewed as an individual stat. It just shows that those teams play good team defense and have a good goalie. Individuals should be looked at objectively by how well (or bad) they play defense. Looking at individuals, Weber is like -14, but he's considered one of the best in the league defensively by many. Kopitar is +27 and Mike Richards is -2, but lots of people have considered Richards as one of the top two-way players in the league. Zetterberg is +19 and Datsyuk is -2 and they've been debated many times for their defensive play even though Datsyuk has 3 Selkes. And like Harold mentioned, Lidstrom was 148th in the league with a -2 when he won the Norris, but his partner Rafalski was a +11 that year. It's a flawed stat that can't be looked at correctly for individual players when there's other factors in the game that affect that stat, such as a goalie playing bad, a teammate blowing an assignment, a puck deflecting off a leg, etc. Edited March 12, 2014 by dropkickshanahans Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DickieDunn 2,571 Report post Posted March 13, 2014 Ericsson should be a #3. So should Dekeyesr for now. By the end of camp next year Dekeyser might be a #2. Smith could develop into a #4 by that time, too. That would leave Kindl and a rookie as the 3rd pair and Lashoff as the #7. People say that they want to give the kids a chance to develop and earn their spots, then that's the route the Wings should take. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brett 1,029 Report post Posted March 13, 2014 (edited) swap weber with kronwall how many more wins/pts do you think we have? just because they are a #1 Edited March 13, 2014 by brett Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Richdg 267 Report post Posted March 13, 2014 brett, first kronwall isn't able to land weber-which is part of the point. Would the current RW's team be better with Weber instead of Kronwall? yes. much better. Our D would be better and our O would be better. That is what a true #1 provides. Yes this is a pipe dream and would never happen. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brett 1,029 Report post Posted March 13, 2014 brett, first kronwall isn't able to land weber-which is part of the point. Would the current RW's team be better with Weber instead of Kronwall? yes. much better. Our D would be better and our O would be better. That is what a true #1 provides. Yes this is a pipe dream and would never happen. i didnt mean trade, just a hypothetical. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nawein 324 Report post Posted March 13, 2014 brett, first kronwall isn't able to land weber-which is part of the point. Would the current RW's team be better with Weber instead of Kronwall? yes. much better. Our D would be better and our O would be better. That is what a true #1 provides. Yes this is a pipe dream and would never happen. Rich, I think you're missing the distinction between legit #1 defenseman and elite, superstar level defensman. Weber is elite. Weber is a superstar. Weber is easily a top 5 dman in the game, probably top 3. If that's your cutoff for #1 guy then you're right, Kronner is not that. But if that's your cutoff, then there might be 5 in the world. Kronwall would not be a #1 on any team, but he would be a #1 on a lot of teams. As far as the Quincey comment, before you tell everyone else on a public hockey forum that they're not allowed to voice their opinion on players because they're not qualified, show us your qualifications. 1 Dabura reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
number9 3,297 Report post Posted March 13, 2014 Rich, I was so fond of discussing +/- with you, why do you ignore our counter points? Do you really believe E is better than Kronwall? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Richdg 267 Report post Posted March 17, 2014 Another game and another -2 for Kronwall. He was on the ice for our goal, so defensively he was -3 last night. Which is the point. He is average to below average as a defender. No it is not all on him, but we also have to be realistic. He is best served as a 2nd pair Dman. Of course that means we need a new top pair.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
number9 3,297 Report post Posted March 17, 2014 (edited) Another game and another -2 for Kronwall. He was on the ice for our goal, so defensively he was -3 last night. Which is the point. He is average to below average as a defender. No it is not all on him, but we also have to be realistic. He is best served as a 2nd pair Dman. Of course that means we need a new top pair....DeKeyser and Lashoff were even last night, guess they shoulda been our top pair eh rich?EDIT: a little light reading for you, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capitals-insider/wp/2013/11/30/in-nhl-plus-minus-rating-can-be-deceiving/ and http://blogs.edmontonjournal.com/2013/05/13/just-how-horse-s***-is-the-nhls-official-plus-minus-stat/ Edited March 17, 2014 by number9 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
haroldsnepsts 4,826 Report post Posted March 17, 2014 Another game and another -2 for Kronwall. He was on the ice for our goal, so defensively he was -3 last night. Which is the point. He is average to below average as a defender. No it is not all on him, but we also have to be realistic. He is best served as a 2nd pair Dman. Of course that means we need a new top pair.... He wasn't a -3 defensively last night. The Wings goal was on the PP, so Kronwall doesn't get a +1 for that. Furthermore if you had actually watched the game you'd know that Kronwall wasn't a factor in any of the goals against. The first one he was on the ice for, Abby got confused out at the point and covered the wrong guy, leaving Keith wide open. Then Kronner's second -1 was a result of Mule screwing up at the point on the PP, leading to a shorthanded goal. There may be an argument for Kronwall not being a number one D man, but plus minus isn't it. Especially when you're incorrect about how it works. 2 number9 and alabarrie reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Richdg 267 Report post Posted March 17, 2014 (edited) I did watch the game, he was bad. But, as I said it wasn't all his fault. Was very clear about that. The point in all of this is, while kronwall is pretty good with the puck, he can't handle other teams top scoring lines. In the end, that is what true #1 or top pair Dmen are supposed to do. As for the others mentioned, yes Dekeyser is our best defensive Dman, and he is only going to get better. As he does that he may very well become part of our top pair, which is GREAT for us. Edited March 17, 2014 by Richdg Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DickieDunn 2,571 Report post Posted March 18, 2014 Dekeyser still makes a lot of mistakes. When he continues to make the same mistakes next year, although probably not as often, people will start ragging on him because he isn't new and shiny anymore. When Ouellet and Sproul and Marchenko are called up, they will get a similar grace period before people start saying that they're terrible. It's just what fans do. The new and unknown is always better than what they've already seen. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
number9 3,297 Report post Posted March 18, 2014 I did watch the game, he was bad. But, as I said it wasn't all his fault. Was very clear about that. The point in all of this is, while kronwall is pretty good with the puck, he can't handle other teams top scoring lines. In the end, that is what true #1 or top pair Dmen are supposed to do. As for the others mentioned, yes Dekeyser is our best defensive Dman, and he is only going to get better. As he does that he may very well become part of our top pair, which is GREAT for us. And what was so bad about his game? As Harold pointed out, none of the goals were his fault, and he wasn't "minus 3" as you suggested. Kronwall IMO is particularly good at D. Rarely do you see D zone mistakes from him. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
