100% Sure this won't be the last Eberle whine

[ruxpin]

The Oilers are what they are.  They were NEVER going to make the playoffs this year unless their entire division came down to them.

 

They're still building.    But if you're expecting a team of 19-22 year olds just kind of thrown together to play sound cohesive defense in front of an iffy goalie...good lord.   

 

And if you're seriously going to give up on a young defenseman like Nurse because of his +/- a whopping 18 games into his second season.  I'm sorry, there's no helping. 

[TropicalFruitGirl26]

@ruxpin

 

Fair assessment.

I think, if I were an Oilers fan, given what I've seen over the last several years, just playing COMPETITITVE games this season would be a win....anything else would be bonus.

 

And by competitive, I mean the team is harder to play against and standings-wise, they are at least in the mix or within striking distance of a playoff spot, even they never actually get in.

 

Sure, the team is losing now, and it is very easy to say "Oh well, they are no different than last year", but that wouldn't be entirely accurate.

The games they won earlier in the year weren't by accident. They weren't because those earlier clubs 'felt sorry' for them, or didn't come as well prepared to play.

 

I watched some of those games, and the Oilers, many times, did some GOOD things in those games.

They displayed deadly speed and urgency in their attacks, played very physical games at times, and just generally played like a team that honestly FELT like they belonged in a playoff atmosphere.

 

But being full of young players (and some now mid 20-ish types who haven't had much of a taste in winning), lapses are going to happen and the style of play I mentioned is VERY hard to maintain (even for a veteran team) throughout the course of the season, without some mental toughness, making adjustments on the fly, and experience gained via facing adversity.

 

Those things, I think will come, but in the meantime, Oiler fans are gonna see some of the "same ol", but also, some things that show, "Hey, these guys CAN do it....if they can only ______".

 

Fans like @Parture certainly have a right to feel this sense of dread when they see the team tailspin, and some of his points may even be valid regarding certain players, but this whole "winning" thing is a process.

One that Edmonton is certainly on the right track on.....but fans best be prepared for the team to still get derailed on more than one occasion.

 

This I can speak from experience being a Tampa Bay fan since I was very young and watching the team go from laughing stock in the 90's and early 2000's to the MUCH better run organization it is today.

And in between, I had to see ups n downs in terms of players, coaches, and management......heck I even boycotted a season or two due to frustration as to how the team was run.

 

But in the end, the love for the entertainment of hockey, my team, and the evolution of the team via "the process" brought me back, as I became a more mature fan, began to realize this whole thing just had to be that way before the team could ever realize itself as a real contender on a regular basis.

 

Same is true with the OIlers.

From laughable management, to misfit players, to clueless coaches previously....I think this team will continue to hurt but finally get it right, and I think the team is on the upside of that process.....just a few more kinks to work out is all.

 

My long winded 79 cents (yes, this opinion is a bit more expensive than my usual 39 or 41 cent ones!  )

[WordsOfWisdom]

15 hours ago, Parture said:

Oilers Lost 10 Road Games in a Row - No Way They Make the Playoffs

 

 

 

[TropicalFruitGirl26]

Looking further at the Oilers' chances at the post season this year, the sledding was going to be tough for them even if they played well.

 

Consider that the three Cali teams have been the class of the division for quite some time now and that there is no reason to think they won't continue to be playoff teams when all is said n done.

Granted, they have all to varying degrees started out slowly, but still, the Oilers still have a ways to go before they can be considered in the class as those three given how the teams are currently constructed.

 

So if you leave the top three guaranteed slots to the Cali teams, that leaves the Oilers fighting for a WC spot....and that means competition from the Central division.

 

Assuming Chicago, St. Louis, and Nashville make the top three there, that leaves Dallas, Minnesota, Winnipeg, and Colorado (if they can get their schtick together) as the Oilers' main competition.

 

Again, looking at how the teams in question have done over the last few seasons, and looking at how they are constructed now, can we really say the Oilers are better than either the Stars, Wild, Jets, or Avs?

 

Not saying the Oilers CAN'T beat out any of those teams (let's take Colorado out for now, as I truly believe they are the weakest link here), but teams like Dal, Min, or Wpg can conceivably bump one of the "top" Central teams down themselves...meaning, I think they are ahead of Edmonton as far as contending development is concerned.

 

Which brings us back to Edmonton being at least competitive and in the mix for the bulk of the season.

And while I certainly don't expect the players to be satisfied with just that (as a fan you would hope not), but the fanbase can look at something like that and go, "you know, we made good strides this year...let's go get a post season spot next year".

 

Of course, if Edmonton can right their ship and some things don't go so well down the stretch for either the Cali teams or any of the WC Central teams, the Oilers STILL have a shot to get in this year.

 

But no matter how you slice it, it is going to be an uphill battle for them every step of the way as things stand right now.

[Parture]

What the Oilers need to do to make the playoffs. You can see why Oilers give up goals because of the mistakes predominantly by Eberle, Klefbom and Nurse. Trade any player with a -6 or worse.

 

It all started with Buffalo in that game, Klefbom didn't clear the puck 4 times and Nurse 2 times when we lost 2 to 6.

 

1. Get rid of Eberle -6 (that was a thing of beauty last night seeing Eberle on the power play pass it to LA for a 2 on 1 against the Oilers which Eberle could have rectified if he back checked, but he is above doing that).

2. Get rid of Klefbom (he single handedly lost 5 games for the Oilers).

3. Get rid of Nurse -7.

4. Get rid of Draisaitl -7.

5. Get rid of Letestu (-21 last season) and Lander (since they are doing that anyway).

 

Lucic-McD-Pulju

Poul-RNH-Kass

Maroon-Drais-New Guy

Benson-Cagg-Pitlick

 

New Guy-Larsson

Russell-Sekera

Davidson-Gryba

 

Lander has a +4 and they are placing him on waivers? Lander finally figured out how to play hockey and they get rid of him.

 

 

 

 

[TropicalFruitGirl26]

@Parture

 

Well, in all fairness, Lander has always been, and looks to project, as nothing more than a fourth liner/spare part.

And if we want to talk about +/-, he may be a +4 as we speak, but he has been a minus player his entire existence as an Oiler.

 

I will admit, I don't know who Edm can get to take his spot should he get claimed (unlikely) or get sent down, but given what Lander has given them the last few years, it CAN'T be that hard to replace him.

 

Again, it was going to be hard for Edmonton to make the post season regardless, and yes, they still have holes in their lineup, but worrying about where Lander will end up is far from something I'd worry about as a fan.

[Parture]

Lucic doesn't play well unless he is with McD. So Lucic-McD-Pulju

 

Never change Poul-RNH-Kass.

 

Maroon-Drais-Eberle (trade Eberle)

 

Benson-Cagg-Pitlick (Letestu was -21 last season)

 

New Guy-Larsson (Klefbom is a nightmare)

Russell-Sekera

Davidson-Gryba

 

So simple why can't McLellan understand this?

 

 

 

 

[MadDevil]

The Chosen One Connor McDavid is a -8 in his last 10 games. Trade him before he regresses.

[Parture]

3 hours ago, MadDevil said:

The Chosen One Connor McDavid is a -8 in his last 10 games. Trade him before he regresses.

Why did you leave out the other games?

[MadDevil]

28 minutes ago, Parture said:

Why did you leave out the other games?

Why did you leave out the first 14 games of the season where Nurse had an even rating?

[Parture]

8 hours ago, MadDevil said:

Why did you leave out the first 14 games of the season where Nurse had an even rating?

You're confused. The -7 for Nurse includes all his games.

 

 

[off_the_post]

1 hour ago, Parture said:

You're confused. The -7 for Nurse includes all his games.

 

I hate stupid people.

Take is easy please.  I understand your frustration about your team.  Essentially calling somebody stupid on this board is not appreciated.

 

So I took the liberty to look up Nurses' stats.  According to NHL.com Nurse is -7 in his last 4 games played.  LA -1, Ana, -3, NYR - 2, Dal -1. He has played 18 games to date where he is -7 on a cumulative basis.  This means going into the Dal game Nurse must have been EVEN meaning in the first 14 games of the season he must have been cumulative 0 +/-.  So I believe MadDevil's point is that for the first 14 games Nurse was not the worst defensemen to ever play the game.

 

I have no opinion on Nurse.  I've not watched him at all so I am not in a position to comment on his play.  However from what I have analyzed Nurse is even +/- cumulative after the first 14 games played and -7 in his last 4 so that he is now -7.

 

For the record I hate +/- as a pure indicator of a player.  I wish there could be some kind of subjective adjustment you could use to identify how many +/- is actually directly related to a player's directly play. 

 

Either way I hope your Oilers can turn it around for the fans sake.  I couldn't imagine my fellow Flyers fans if the Flyers were in the Oilers non-playoff position year after year.

[Parture]

+/- really tells the tale after lots of games. As long as you keep it in context, it is much better than GF% and CF%. Is there somewhere where you can get +/- between 2 players or 3 players? That would be cool.

 

These players will never end up having a positive +/- career so my suggestion is cut them loose now like they should have done with Yak years ago before he got to -88 which I was calling for. Why wait years of pain before doing so when it was obvious these players suck?

 

Eberle -57

Lander -39 (good time to put Lander on waivers because he is looking good with +4 this season, outdoing himself)

RNH -35

Klefbom -34

Letestu -31

Draisaitl -26

Kassian -26

Nurse -22

Fayne -19

 

Psychologically these players are not good for the team because all they know is a losing mentality.

 

While you don't consider +/- valuable, I find it to be the real tale of the tape. The player could never find himself a matchup in the NHL, whether with players or a team to generate a positive contribution. He lacks that foresight and ability to gel with others.

 

These players are not NHL material. Their numbers are not going to get better especially on the Oilers. They will only get worse. That's reality. In fact, what is happening is because they are on the same team they compound the problem bring everyone down with them.

 

If McLellan and Chiarelli thought like I did about this Oilers would be a winning team. Even though they had a fantastic run, they are already out of the playoffs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Parture]

Career Losers
Eberle -57

Lander -39
RNH -35
Klefbom -34
Letestu -31
Draisaitl -26
Kassian -26
Nurse -22
Fayne -19

 

They have a losing mentality. The only thing they know how to do is lose.

 

The chopping block is the only solution.

[JR Ewing]

On 2016-11-17 at 9:57 PM, Parture said:

Oilers Lost 10 Road Games in a Row - No Way They Make the Playoffs

 

Losers!!!!!

 

What the hell are you talking about?

 

Nov 17 - loss in LA

Nov 15 - loss in ANA

Nov 8 - loss in PIT

Nov 6 - win DET

 

 

[MadDevil]

The problem with using +/- is that it doesn't really tell you how good an individual player is defensively.

 

Say Player A turns the puck over, leaving Player B to defend an odd man rush and a goal is scored, giving Player B a minus. Is that really Player B's fault? Or say Player C comes on during a line change and has no chance of defending and a goal is scored. Player C gets a minus for something entirely out of his control. Or say Player D is on the ice when his goaltender lets in a soft goal. Was that really Player D's problem?

 

Hockey is such a fluid and random sport that using +/- as some blanket stat is, quite frankly, idiotic.

[flyercanuck]

30 minutes ago, JR Ewing said:

 

What the hell are you talking about?

 

Nov 17 - loss in LA

Nov 15 - loss in ANA

Nov 8 - loss in PIT

Nov 6 - win DET

 

 

 

Ya, but Eberle Nurse and Draisaitl were a collective -666 in that Wings win.

[pilldoc]

Here is a great article I keep around for when the discussions of Plus/Minus creep up.

http://www.arcticicehockey.com/2014/6/5/5602668/why-plus-minus-is-the-worst-statistic-in-hockey

 

During the 2013-14 Alexander Ovechkin, the Washington Capitals' superstar forward, led the NHL with 51 goals this season.  It wasn't even close, either.  The next guy, Corey Perry of the Anaheim Ducks, was eight goals back.

In other words, Alexander Ovechkin is pretty darn good at hockey.

 

But there's been a lot of discussion this season about plus/minus, particularly Ovechkin's.  You see, Alexander Ovechkin finished with a team-worst -35, and there were only two guys in the entire NHL worse than that: Steve Ott and Alexander Edler.  On one side of the argument, Ovechkin's critics say that he's lazy, a quitter, and his defensive deficiencies outweigh his scoring ability to make him a net-negative hockey player.  These critics frequently point to his plus/minus as evidence.  On the other side of the equation, supporters are quick to dismiss Ovechkin's plus/minus.  They instead point out that Ovechkin leads the league in goals and that his ability to create shots is second to none.

 

Winnipeg Jets fans are no stranger to this argument.  We've heard it time and again, usually in reference to Dustin Byfuglien or Evander Kane.  Critics point to Byfuglien's plus/minus as evidence that he's a bad defenseman.  They use Kane's plus/minus to argue that he doesn't score enough to outweigh the chances given up.  Supporters argue that plus/minus is so heavily dependent on things like usage, save %, and shooting % that it's pretty much meaningless.

 

As more attention has been thrust on plus/minus recently, I've had enough.  I just can't take it any more.  Plus/minus is quite possibly the worst statistic in all of hockey - perhaps even all of sports - and the purpose of this article is to demonstrate why.  So let's hop to it.

Setting the Stage

Let's suppose that there are two players.  Let's call the first one "Player A" and the second one "Player B", and let's suppose the following:

* Player A and Player B are two identical players. 
* For simplicity, let's assume that there is no such thing as a power play or penalty kill (to which +/- generally don't apply).  Every game is 60 minutes at even strength.
* For the sake of nice, round numbers, let's assume that, on average, both players take 10 shots per 60 minutes when on the ice. 
* Let's also assume that, on average, both players allow 10 shots per 60 minutes when on the ice.
* Suppose that both players have an on-ice shooting percentage of 10%, and an one-ice save percentage of 91%, both of which are well within a standard deviation of league-average.
* Suppose that, on average, both players play 20 minutes each game.

In other words, suppose that Player A and Player  B are absolutely identical in every way.  They do the same things (skate, pass, shoot, hit, etc.) identically, create the same chances, allow the same chances, play with the same teammates, and play against the same competition, all in exactly equal proportions.  They're the Sedin twins, if both Sedins were Henrik.

 

Example #1: Usage

Now suppose that Player A plays 20 minutes a night, while Player B plays 10 minutes.  How does their plus/minus compare?

 

Results #1

Over the course of a full season, Player A's plus/minus is going to be +2.733. Player B's plus/minus is going to be +1.367, or 50% of Player A's.

Conclusion #1

Player A's plus/minus is exactly double that of Player B's.  If we assume that plus/minus is an accurate representation of performance or ability, it indicates that Player A is better than Player B.  In fact, it indicates that he's twice as good of a player.

But is Player A actually better?  Not even a little bit.  He's the exact same.  He just plays more.  Clearly, our assumption that "plus/minus is an accurate representation of performance or ability" is a faulty one.

Player A's plus/minus is calculated as [10 (shots for/60) x 20/60 (minutes/game) x 10% (shooting %)] - [10 (shots allowed/60) x 20/60 (minutes/game) x (1-91%) (save %)], which is then multiplied by 82 games.  To calculate Player B's plus/minus, simply replace 20/60 (minutes/game) with 10/60.

 

Example #2: Save Percentage

Let's go back to the drawing board.  Player A and Player B are once again identical in every way, shape, form, ice time, and more, all in exactly the same proportions.

Now let's suppose that:

• when Player A is on the ice, his goalies' average save percentage is .930

• when Player B is on the ice, his goalies' average save percentage is .890.

There's no real rhyme or reason to it; maybe the goalies just happened to get lucky a handful more times than not for Player A as compared to Player B.  Maybe the goalie just whiffed on a handful more pucks when Player B was on the ice.  These things totally happen, as fans of this franchise well know.

 

Results #2

Over the course of a full season, Player A's plus/minus is going to be +8.2.  Player B's plus/minus is going to be -2.733.

 

Conclusion #2

Pretty massive difference, right?  The way plus/minus tells the story, Player A is a heck of a lot better than Player B, to the tune of about 11 goals per year.  But Player A and B did everything the exact same way in the exact same proportions.  Player A's not actually any better at all.

Player A's plus/minus is calculated as [10 (shots for/60) x 20/60 (minutes/game) x 10% (shooting %)] - [10 (shots allowed/60) x 20/60 (minutes/game) x (1-93%) (save %)], which is then multiplied by 82 games.  To calculate Player B's plus/minus, simply replace 93% (save%) with 89%.

 

 

 

 

Example #3: Shooting Percentage

Let's go back to the drawing board one last time.  Player A and Player B are once again identical in every way, shape, and form, and ice time, all in exactly the same proportions.

Now let's suppose that:

 

• when Player A is on the ice, his team's average shooting percentage is 13%
• when Player B is on the ice, his team's average shooting percentage is 7%. 

Again, no real rhyme or reason to it; let's just suppose the opposing goalie happened to get lucky a handful more times than not when Player B was out there and whiffed on a handful of pucks when Player A was out there, which totally happens.

 

Results #3

 

Over the course of a full season, Player A's plus/minus is going to be +10.9.  Player B's plus/minus is going to be -5.5.

That's a pretty massive difference.  About 16 goals difference.  Again, keep in mind that these players are identical.

Conclusion #3

Plus/minus again indicates a pretty significant difference in the quality of the player; Player A again appears to be a heck of a lot better than Player B.

But again, Player A and B did everything the exact same way in the exact same proportions.  Player A's not actually any better at all.  He just got "luckier" than player B.

Player A's plus/minus is calculated as [10 (shots for/60) x 20/60 (minutes/game) x 13% (shooting %)] - [10 (shots allowed/60) x 20/60 (minutes/game) x (1-91%) (save %)], which is then multiplied by 82 games.  To calculate Player B's plus/minus, simply replace 13% (shooting %) with 7%.

 

What does it all mean?

In short, plus/minus is highly variable, there are countless factors that influence it, and more of them are outside of an individual player's control than not.

Two teammates doing everything absolutely identically to one another can see huge variance - well over 100% - in their plus/minus based on factors outside of their control like ice time, their goalie's performance, and the opposing goalie's performance.  You may be wondering if players such as those in the examples above exist, and the answer is absolutely, yes.  Dustin Byfuglien's goalies posted an .888 on-ice save percentage at even strength this season, Byfuglien's on-ice shooting percentage is 7.7%, and Byfuglien was playing just under 20 minutes/60 at even strength until his position change.  These kinds of percentages are totally normal.

 

In fact, the crazy thing is, the variance can actually be much worse than this.  We only discussed three factors and I didn't even pick percentages at the extreme ends of the spectrum.  When the Wild's Erik Haula was on the ice at 5-on-5 in his 44 games this season, his goalies saved 96.8% of shots they've faced.  The same figure for Zenon Konopka, Haula's teammate?  89.2%.  That's a spread of 7.2%, or nearly double the example scenario above.  And it's not just the Wild.  In Edmonton, Ryan Jones' 5-on-5 on-ice SV% was 95.0% this past season, while Nail Yakupov's was a lowly 88.2% (spread of 6.8%).  In Pittsburgh, Chuck Kobasew's on-ice SV% was 96.1%, while Paul Martin's was 89.0% (spread of 7.1%).

 

Combining only the factors in the examples above, we could easily be talking upwards of 30 goals/season just due to usage and plain old dumb luck, and a single season's worth of games isn't close to a large enough sample size for the law of averages to even things out.  And that's just the beginning.  Matters only get cloudier when adding in other factors.  For example, an excellent power play player like Ovechkin or Byfgulien gets no credit for offense created on the PP. The Washington Capitals scored 62 power play goals with Ovechkin on the ice this past season, and allowed nine against; despite going +53 on the scoreboard, that adds up to a -9 for Ovechkin in the plus/minus column. (Byfuglien, in case you're curious, accumulated a -4 on the power play this season).  And we haven't even begun to talk about things like quality of competition, quality of teammates, zone starts, face-off wins, or about a hundred other factors outside of an individual player's control.

 

Was Erik Haula (+12) 17 goals-worth better than Zenon Konopka (-5) this past season?  Granted, Konopka is a pretty terrible hockey player, but I doubt it.  Has Ryan Jones (even), who has only scored six points all season, been 33 goals better than Nail Yakupov (-33)?  I sincerely doubt it.  Has Steven Oleksy (+7) been 41 goals-worth better than Alex Ovechkin (-34)?  Fat chance.

 

The take-away, friends, is that plus/minus is completely unreliable.  It's meaningless.  It's even worse than meaningless, because belief in plus/minus actively damages attempts at meaningful analysis.  So please, let's stop using it.

[ruxpin]

@pilldoc

 

I think I've seen you post this before.   Great article.

 

 

[pilldoc]

@ruxpin

 

I try not to make a habit of re-posting past posts.  However, every now and then there are articles that we all collectively find that are worth repeating every now and then.  This is one of those instances.  It was a great article then and it is still a great article now.

[WordsOfWisdom]

1 hour ago, pilldoc said:

Conclusion #1

Player A's plus/minus is exactly double that of Player B's.  If we assume that plus/minus is an accurate representation of performance or ability, it indicates that Player A is better than Player B.  In fact, it indicates that he's twice as good of a player.

But is Player A actually better?  Not even a little bit.  He's the exact same.  He just plays more.

 

Boo.  Everyone knows that you can't look at a stat in isolation. Your example applies to goals, assists, pim, and everything else too. You have to take the individual stat and divide it by TTOI if you want to figure out the rate at which a player is accumulating events in that statistic.

 

A player that scores 25 goals with half as much ice time as a player that scores 50 is just as good too. 

 

1 hour ago, pilldoc said:

Example #3: Shooting Percentage

Let's go back to the drawing board one last time.  Player A and Player B are once again identical in every way, shape, and form, and ice time, all in exactly the same proportions.

Now let's suppose that:

 

• when Player A is on the ice, his team's average shooting percentage is 13%
• when Player B is on the ice, his team's average shooting percentage is 7%. 

Again, no real rhyme or reason to it; let's just suppose the opposing goalie happened to get lucky a handful more times than not when Player B was out there and whiffed on a handful of pucks when Player A was out there, which totally happens.

 

The law of averages takes care of this, but a team can be elevated or dragged down as a whole in +/- by the quality of their goaltender yes. That's why I created the defensive errors stat. On bad goals, the goalie gets punished, not the skaters. All of the issues you mention are solved by DE. 

 

In any event, +/- comparisons within a specific team are relevant.

 

+/- is not a measure of defence, it's a measure of the overall value of a player. It's like "WAR" for hockey.  

 

[JR Ewing]

32 minutes ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

 

The law of averages takes care of this, but a team can be elevated or dragged down as a whole in +/- by the quality of their goaltender yes. That's why I created the defensive errors stat. On bad goals, the goalie gets punished, not the skaters. All of the issues you mention are solved by DE. 

 

In any event, +/- comparisons within a specific team are relevant.

 

+/- is not a measure of defence, it's a measure of the overall value of a player. It's like "WAR" for hockey.  

 

 

/constructive criticism.

 

David Staples has been doing this for about 8 years now for the Edmonton Journal. My issue with your approach remains the same as my issue with his system:

 

-Errors are only charged if the player's team surrenders a goal, meaning that when a player makes even a bone-headed mistakes on a player where the goalie bails him out, the mistake isn't tracked at all.

-Defensive Errors would punish players who play for a team with bad goaltending and would favour those whose goalies are better, which has nothing to do with the defensive player.

-The stat can unduly punish a team's better defensive players, since they will play the most minutes against the toughest offensive players, and will usually get the lion's share of defensive zone faceoffs.

 

 

 

[ruxpin]

See that ya did, @Parture? 

 

You got the nerds with their slide rules out arguing over who has the biggest d...data.

[WordsOfWisdom]

1 hour ago, JR Ewing said:

David Staples has been doing this for about 8 years now for the Edmonton Journal.

 

 

1 hour ago, JR Ewing said:

-Errors are only charged if the player's team surrenders a goal, meaning that when a player makes even a bone-headed mistakes on a player where the goalie bails him out, the mistake isn't tracked at all.

 

If one were willing to accept higher error totals, those could be tracked as well. The law of averages evens things out however. because the goalie will only bail out a certain percentage of those mistakes.

 

1 hour ago, JR Ewing said:

-Defensive Errors would punish players who play for a team with bad goaltending and would favour those whose goalies are better, which has nothing to do with the defensive player.

 

Not so much. If the goalie is responsible for giving up a bad goal, only the goalie is charged with an error. The mandate for my defensive error stat is "the player(s) most responsible for the goal being allowed". Goalies don't have a +/-, but they do get charged with errors.

 

1 hour ago, JR Ewing said:

-The stat can unduly punish a team's better defensive players, since they will play the most minutes against the toughest offensive players, and will usually get the lion's share of defensive zone faceoffs.

 

This is something I've known about for quite some time, and there's no easy answer to this one. This affects every hockey statistic. The best I can suggest is to use Defensive % and TTOI as a measure of how good a player is. The best players will always have the most ice time.

 

I always appreciate constructive criticism.

 

 

[JR Ewing]

58 minutes ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

 

 

 

If one were willing to accept higher error totals, those could be tracked as well. The law of averages evens things out however. because the goalie will only bail out a certain percentage of those mistakes.

 

My concern is that the tracking of stats like Hits and Shots varies greatly from arena to arena, and that's with stats for which there is general agreement. Can you imagine teams of people tracking defensive errors across the league? I think we can agree that there would be a wider range of opinion on what constitutes a mistake.

 

 

58 minutes ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

 

Not so much. If the goalie is responsible for giving up a bad goal, only the goalie is charged with an error. The mandate for my defensive error stat is "the player(s) most responsible for the goal being allowed". Goalies don't have a +/-, but they do get charged with errors.

 

It seems to me that both defensive player AND goalie can (and do) make mistakes on soft goals. Errors can happen because the defenseman gave up the blueline too easily, for example. If the puck carrier steps over the blue line and fires a Ryan Smyth softy by the goalie, there were still two mistakes, bad goaltending notwithstanding.

 

 

58 minutes ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

 

This is something I've known about for quite some time, and there's no easy answer to this one. This affects every hockey statistic. The best I can suggest is to use Defensive % and TTOI as a measure of how good a player is. The best players will always have the most ice time.

 

 

58 minutes ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

I always appreciate constructive criticism.

 

 

 

The numbers you want pretty much already exist: Scoring Chances Against and High Danger Scoring Chances Against. There's also Expect GF and their cousins as well. This removes bias, subjectivity and low sample size.

 

By all means, continue to track this sort of thing. It can be fun to do, and has a person really looking at the players on his team.