Register | Active Topics | Active Polls | Search
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
 All Forums
 Hockey Forums
Allow Anonymous Posting forum... General Hockey Chat
 Calder winner? Allow Anonymous Users Reply to This Topic...
 New Topic  New Poll New Poll
 Reply to Topic
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  

Alex116
PickupHockey Legend



5793 Posts

Posted - 04/29/2013 :  12:41:44  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Poll Question:
Who will win the Calder Trophy for top rookie in this shortened season?

Choices:

Nail Yakupov (Edm)
Justin Shultz (Edm)
Cory Conacher (Ott)
Brendan Gallagher (Mtl)
Alex Galchenyuk (Mtl)
Brandon Saad (Chi)
Jonathan Huberdeau (Fla)
Jake Allen (StL)
Other

(Anonymous Vote)

Edited by - Alex116 on 04/29/2013 12:43:17

Alex116
PickupHockey Legend



5793 Posts

Posted - 04/29/2013 :  13:04:01  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Somewhat of a wide open race here with Yakupov being the points leader thanks to 6pts in his last 3 games (albeit, meaningless games). Schultz padded his numbers as well with 4 in the last game and being just 4 behind Yakupov's point total as a dman is pretty impressive though he's another with a poor +/-. He did play over 21 min's per game as a rookie dman, though a lot of that is due to necessity in Edm. Saad and Galchenyuk's +/- numbers look nice along with the rest of their games and Gallagher's 15 goals is pretty nice. Conacher's hot start cooled considerably, especially after the deal to Ottawa which will likely cost him votes and Huberdeau actually tied Yakupov for pts but has an abysmal +/-, yet played more mins than the other forwards. This brings us to Jake Allen who really contributed in a big way to the Blues season, especially when called on to fill in for the injuries and struggles that Halak and Elliott endured! His low GP number could affect his chances though.

This is wide open. Originally i was thinking it'd come down to the two Oilers and Allen, though looking at his all around numbers, i get the feeling that Saad or Gallagher could squeeze in there and affect the voting. I'm leaning towards Gallagher more or less due to the G's he scored being higher. His pace over 82 games would have seen him at or around 28 goals.

I read over a month ago that Huberdeau was the favorite, however i don't know how they can give it to him now over Yakupov when you look at the comparison in numbers. Yak had more goals, same points, better +/- all in less ice time!

I think Yakupov may have stolen this with a hot finish, though i wouldn't be surprised to see someone else sneak in and grab it. I just don't think Allen played enough games to swing enough votes his way.
Go to Top of Page

JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran



Canada
1878 Posts

Posted - 04/29/2013 :  13:20:43  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I had hopes Conacher would come to Ottawa, pad his stats to make a legit run for the Calder. He has similar points totals to the other candidates, but I dont think he made enough of an impact in his last month in Ottawa to justify the hype generated in Florida.

"I now realise that the Toronto Maple Leafs, Canada's finest hockey team, is better than the Ottawa Senators - and always will be. PS - LOVE that Dion Phaneuf! "
Go to Top of Page

Leafs81
PickupHockey Pro



714 Posts

Posted - 04/29/2013 :  13:25:47  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I say Huberdeau wins because he was the leader and the most leathal offensive weapon in a very weak team. But he was still really consistant and a player that was heavily relied on for a rookie.

I say Gallagher is the runner up because he was a pest out there and trying to make a difference every game, and he succeeded often.

Yakupov is the other runner up because of his explosive play and dynamic speed. He will be awesome to watch for years to come.
Go to Top of Page

sahis34
PickupHockey Pro



Canada
573 Posts

Posted - 04/29/2013 :  13:27:47  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I say yak, but you need brodin in there buddy
Go to Top of Page

@valanche
Rookie



Canada
240 Posts

Posted - 04/29/2013 :  13:49:03  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Huberdeau, brodin, yakupov in that order.
No one really stood out above the rest of the pack but a solid group of rookies nonetheless.

66 is > than 99
Go to Top of Page

Alex116
PickupHockey Legend



5793 Posts

Posted - 04/29/2013 :  14:57:26  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by sahis34

I say yak, but you need brodin in there buddy



Sahis, i almost editted him in right after i made the poll, but i figured he could fall under "other" and "other" still won't win! I know he played a ton of mins against other teams top lines, but lets face it, he was also paired with likely Norris finalist, Ryan Suter. He played the most mins/game (from what i could see), but with just 2 goals and 11 points, i don't see enough offense from him to warrant a Calder nod. The kid's gonna be really good, however i'd be willing to bet he's not a finalist.
Go to Top of Page

Oilearl
PickupHockey Pro



Canada
266 Posts

Posted - 05/02/2013 :  22:02:55  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I have not been on here for quite a while!! Nice to scoll through.
I would love to see Justin Shultz get some serious consideration as well as Yakopov for his amazing finish, but I had to pick Huberdeau because I think he did the most to help his team as a rookie. All the players mentioned have had strong first seasons. The future is bright!
Go to Top of Page

Oilearl
PickupHockey Pro



Canada
266 Posts

Posted - 05/02/2013 :  22:04:56  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
S/B Scroll lol
Go to Top of Page

Beans15
Moderator



Canada
8174 Posts

Posted - 05/02/2013 :  22:26:11  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Try to over look the bias but Yakupov did what he did playing mostly on the 3rd and 4th line. It was only on the PP and later in the season when he got time on the big lines. Yakupov was 7th of Oilers forwards with ice time where Huberdeau was 3rd on FLA.

That said, I give it to Gallagher. 2nd in goals, third in pts, +10, in barely 13 min a game. He would be my pick, followed by Yakupov and Huberdeau. Saad should also be in the discussion but playing on the best team in the league actually hurts his chances. Brodin isn't a bad pick either but Suter makes everyone around him look better.
Go to Top of Page

Alex116
PickupHockey Legend



5793 Posts

Posted - 05/02/2013 :  22:43:10  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Beans, i too noticed that about Yakupov. When i looked into his numbers, i was surprised he didn't get more ice time than he actually did.

As far as Saad goes, it's not just being on the best team that will hurt his chances, it's playing most of his time with Jonathan Toews as well!

Gallagher's got a real good shot at it. I keep hearing his name mentioned in "hockey circles" as a very possible winner!
Go to Top of Page

Guest4377
( )

Posted - 05/02/2013 :  22:45:23  Reply with Quote
An Oilers player has never won the Calder, but I think Yakupov has a chance to do so this season.

Taylor Hall and Ryan Nugent-Hopkins would have registered a chance the past two seasons except for injuries.

And going back (way back) to Wayne Gretzky's rookie season in the NHL (for which he tied Marcel Dionne in the points scoring race), he would have won except for the NHL's stance that because he played in the WHA, he was not a rookie. Ray Bourque won the Calder that year (1979-1980), and who can begrudge Bourque for winning this trophy.

Gretzky was ruled ineligible (as an 18 year old) because he played in the WHA (for only 80 games), a league the NHL considered inferior to the top hockey league in the world.

The very next season, Peter Stastny won the Calder Trophy, as a 24-year-old, a player who played in the top league in Czechoslovakia the previous five years.

Go to Top of Page

slozo
Moderator



Canada
4593 Posts

Posted - 05/03/2013 :  07:23:38  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
My pick would be Huberdeau. In my humble opinion, he had the weakest linemates/offensive support, and he was basically asked to be "the man" / go-to-guy on that team offensively. He definitely had a prolonged slump in the middle there, but every rookie did this year.

A very close second would be Schultz for me, with Yakupov getting 3rd.

But this is the absolute tightest race I've ever seen between so many possibles, that is for sure . . .

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Go to Top of Page

Guest4328
( )

Posted - 05/05/2013 :  17:39:54  Reply with Quote
Yakupov should win, he's younger than huberpoo and played with less ice time and on worst lines. If he were playing top 6 in a full season his numbers would be far superior. Sadly the NHL doesn't like giving Edmonton any Calder awards though, even when their rookie has the most points with less ice time.
Go to Top of Page

@valanche
Rookie



Canada
240 Posts

Posted - 05/05/2013 :  19:59:18  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4328

Yakupov should win, he's younger than huberpoo and played with less ice time and on worst lines. If he were playing top 6 in a full season his numbers would be far superior. Sadly the NHL doesn't like giving Edmonton any Calder awards though, even when their rookie has the most points with less ice time.



Tyler Seguin... Ice cold with top 6 minutes - plays against the oppositions best defenders

66 is > than 99
Go to Top of Page

Alex116
PickupHockey Legend



5793 Posts

Posted - 05/06/2013 :  08:47:52  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by @valanche

quote:
Originally posted by Guest4328

Yakupov should win, he's younger than huberpoo and played with less ice time and on worst lines. If he were playing top 6 in a full season his numbers would be far superior. Sadly the NHL doesn't like giving Edmonton any Calder awards though, even when their rookie has the most points with less ice time.



Tyler Seguin... Ice cold with top 6 minutes - plays against the oppositions best defenders

66 is > than 99



@valanche........please do enlighten us to the significance of your comment? I don't get it?
Go to Top of Page

Alex116
PickupHockey Legend



5793 Posts

Posted - 05/06/2013 :  08:54:46  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Interesting.....

The 3 finalists have been named and they are:

1. Brendan Gallagher (Mtl)
2. Jonathan Huberdeau (Fla)
3. Brandon Saad (Chi)

I'm a little surprised that Yakupov didn't make the top 3, though Wysh makes some good points why in the article below.

http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/calder-trophy-finalists-gallagher-vs-huberdeau-vs-saad-144347192.html
Go to Top of Page

sahis34
PickupHockey Pro



Canada
573 Posts

Posted - 05/06/2013 :  09:05:40  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116

Interesting.....

The 3 finalists have been named and they are:

1. Brendan Gallagher (Mtl)
2. Jonathan Huberdeau (Fla)
3. Brandon Saad (Chi)

I'm a little surprised that Yakupov didn't make the top 3, though Wysh makes some good points why in the article below.

http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/calder-trophy-finalists-gallagher-vs-huberdeau-vs-saad-144347192.html



I'm not surprised...
Go to Top of Page

Beans15
Moderator



Canada
8174 Posts

Posted - 05/06/2013 :  09:11:14  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Yakupov also had a stretch of 26 games with only one goal. Not saying he didn't deserve a nomination but it's not surprising.

However, this is typical of the NHl award in recent memory. The nominees are heavily biased towards the eastern time zone. It's laughable that not one of Yakupov, Shultz, or Brodin were not even nominated.

We'll see how the nominees for the other awards look.
Go to Top of Page

slozo
Moderator



Canada
4593 Posts

Posted - 05/06/2013 :  11:15:03  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Yakupov I can understand them leaving out; but Schultz is a tough one. It's the old defenceman bias, and basically, no matter how good a d-man is, it has to be a very weak field for one to win, or he has to have an even more exceptional year. Beans, I think it's way more of a defence bias as opposed to eastern bias . . . but at any rate, it's two knocks against the kid.

Still, we said it was a deep field, and there could have been 7 solid nominations all worthy this year.

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Go to Top of Page

Guest4604
( )

Posted - 05/06/2013 :  11:34:43  Reply with Quote
love to see Jonathan Huberdeau he had a great yr with on a terrible team...
Go to Top of Page

Guest4822
( )

Posted - 05/06/2013 :  13:17:28  Reply with Quote
Congratulations to Brendan Saad for being in the top three. He had a solid all-around season and it's good that he got recognized for it. I don't think he'll win as I think that Huberdeau & Gallagher will receive most of the votes ( and deservedly so), but I'm happy for Saad.
Go to Top of Page

Alex116
PickupHockey Legend



5793 Posts

Posted - 05/06/2013 :  21:59:28  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Beans.....keep in mind, these aren't nominees, they're finalists. At least that's what i've come to understand? As far as an eastern bias, do you think this is intentional, or is it the old standard "eastern voters don't see enough of the kids out west"? I tend to think they see, read and hear enough about these guys to know how good they are (out west). Take Brodin for example, honestly, how do you know he's had as good a season as he has? I'll admit, i've not seen many Wild games, but i've heard a lot of talk and read a lot of articles about how good he's been. I then look at his numbers, most importantly his ice time, and realize he's played a ton of minutes, especially for a rookie dman. What i'm getting at, is that i didn't see him play a ton, but i still know he's had a great year. These voters are members of the Professional Hockey Writers Association, and i'd like to think that even those who see more eastern games, are familiar with all the top rookies and not only see all of the guys play, they know the business well enough to make a fair judgement of who's deserving. This is part of their job is it not???

Slozo, i dont think there's a bias towards Dmen in regards to Calder voting whatsoever. Let's face it, it's well documented that defence is a tougher position to crack and become a regular in the NHL. What often happens with these youngsters, is they play a defensive game as they're not ready to take many offensive chances. That's not to say that a defensive dman shouldn't be considered for any award, including the Hart, but lets face it, it just doesn't happen too often. Even a guy like Pronger had to have some offense to his game to win a couple of big individual awards!

I'm not the least bit surprised that Justin Shultz wasn't a finalist. His defense was ok, but that's it, just ok. Sure he put up some nice offensive numbers, but keep in mind, 55% of his points came on the power play. I know, a point's a point, but just saying.....
Lastly, i'm surprised anyone would be more shocked at Shultz not making the final three over Yakupov. Reason being, i'd be interested to know the last time a rookie won the rookie scoring title and was not final 3?
Go to Top of Page

slozo
Moderator



Canada
4593 Posts

Posted - 05/07/2013 :  06:34:14  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116

Slozo, i dont think there's a bias towards Dmen in regards to Calder voting whatsoever. Let's face it, it's well documented that defence is a tougher position to crack and become a regular in the NHL. What often happens with these youngsters, is they play a defensive game as they're not ready to take many offensive chances. That's not to say that a defensive dman shouldn't be considered for any award, including the Hart, but lets face it, it just doesn't happen too often. Even a guy like Pronger had to have some offense to his game to win a couple of big individual awards!

I'm not the least bit surprised that Justin Shultz wasn't a finalist. His defense was ok, but that's it, just ok. Sure he put up some nice offensive numbers, but keep in mind, 55% of his points came on the power play. I know, a point's a point, but just saying.....
Lastly, i'm surprised anyone would be more shocked at Shultz not making the final three over Yakupov. Reason being, i'd be interested to know the last time a rookie won the rookie scoring title and was not final 3?



From what I gather Alex, you think it's not surprising that Schultz was left out, because he wasn't in the top three point-getters among rookies, even though he's a d-man?

Here's my answer why I think that is entirely incorrect thinking, and why I think that puts you in the same boat as the voters for this award . . . it's basing Schultz's value on what we judge forwards on.

Here's the breakdown of the rookie scoring race:

1 Nail Yakupov, RW EDM 48 17g 14a 31pts -4
Jonathan Huberdeau, C FLA 48 14g 17a 31pts -15
3 Cory Conacher, LW OTT/TB 47 11g 18a 29pts +3
4 Brendan Gallagher, RW MTL 44 15g 13a 28pts +10
5 Brandon Saad, LW CHI 46 10g 17a 27pts +17
Alex Galchenyuk, C MTL 48 9g 18a 27pts +14
Justin Schultz, D EDM 48 8g 19a 27pts -17
8 Mika Zibanejad, C OTT 42 7g 13a 20pts +9
9 Jakob Silfverberg, LW OTT 48 10g 9a 19pts +9
Vladimir Tarasenko, RW STL 38 8g 11a 19pts +1

Huberdeau and Yakupov at 31 points both fall into a tie for 72nd place among forwards for points. Top third of the NHL, decent.

Justin Schultz at 27 points falls into a tie for 12th place amongst d-men. He was also tied for 8th in goals amongst defencemen (3 of them game winners).
He also quarterbacked, as a rookie, the league's 7th best power play unit - which, if you only count Western teams (which we should in this case, there was no inter-conference play) it was the 2nd best Wester Conference power play. And obviously, because of his maximised time on the power play, and because he played for a team that finished out of the playoffs and with a -9 goal differential . . . his plus/minus looks bad here. But being great on the power play and running one of the best pp units in your conference should be a PLUS on your resume, no?

That is why I think he should have been a shoe-in to get nominated, Alex. Amongst defencemen - his peers - he was much closer tot he top than his forward compatriots. MUCH closer.

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Go to Top of Page

Alex116
PickupHockey Legend



5793 Posts

Posted - 05/07/2013 :  09:16:12  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
From what I gather Alex, you think it's not surprising that Schultz was left out, because he wasn't in the top three point-getters among rookies, even though he's a d-man?

NO, not at all. I don't even know where you came up with that thought??? The only point i made that i can see that might have made you think this is the comment about Yakupov being the leading scorer and "i'd be interested to know the last time a rookie won the rookie scoring title and was not final 3?". This is all to do withYak not being final 3 and has nothing to do with Schultz whatsoever. As i mentioned, i don't think Schultz was anything but ordinary defensively. Brodin was miles ahead of him in this regard. Shultz's numbers offensively were inflated by PP points on a potent PP unit. So, imo, considering i can't think of the last rookie scoring leader to not make the top 3, Yakupov is FAR more surprising to not make the top 3 than Shultz is. Simple as that. Not even sure how this can be argued.
BTW, just found the answer i was looking for. Oilers blogger Michael Parkatti points out: “The last time someone led the NHL in rookie scoring and was NOT top 3 in Calder voting was 1950-51: Reg Sinclair.” So, do you still find Shultz's exclusion more surprising than Yakupov's???
quote:
Originally posted by slozo

Here's my answer why I think that is entirely incorrect thinking, and why I think that puts you in the same boat as the voters for this award . . . it's basing Schultz's value on what we judge forwards on.


Uh, no, actually this is not the way i'd see it. If basing offensive stats, one would think that Shultz, being just 4 points out of the top scorer's spot as a dman, would easily be in there. This is exactly why i don't think he made final 3. He's a defenseman! He's supposed to play some defense and not just pile up PP points!!! Go back a few years to the big argument about Mike Green and the Norris snub. See any similarities???

quote:
Originally posted by slozo

Here's the breakdown of the rookie scoring race:

1 Nail Yakupov, RW EDM 48 17g 14a 31pts -4
Jonathan Huberdeau, C FLA 48 14g 17a 31pts -15
3 Cory Conacher, LW OTT/TB 47 11g 18a 29pts +3
4 Brendan Gallagher, RW MTL 44 15g 13a 28pts +10
5 Brandon Saad, LW CHI 46 10g 17a 27pts +17
Alex Galchenyuk, C MTL 48 9g 18a 27pts +14
Justin Schultz, D EDM 48 8g 19a 27pts -17
8 Mika Zibanejad, C OTT 42 7g 13a 20pts +9
9 Jakob Silfverberg, LW OTT 48 10g 9a 19pts +9
Vladimir Tarasenko, RW STL 38 8g 11a 19pts +1

Huberdeau and Yakupov at 31 points both fall into a tie for 72nd place among forwards for points. Top third of the NHL, decent.

Justin Schultz at 27 points falls into a tie for 12th place amongst d-men. He was also tied for 8th in goals amongst defencemen (3 of them game winners).
He also quarterbacked, as a rookie, the league's 7th best power play unit - which, if you only count Western teams (which we should in this case, there was no inter-conference play) it was the 2nd best Wester Conference power play. And obviously, because of his maximised time on the power play, and because he played for a team that finished out of the playoffs and with a -9 goal differential . . . his plus/minus looks bad here. But being great on the power play and running one of the best pp units in your conference should be a PLUS on your resume, no?

That is why I think he should have been a shoe-in to get nominated, Alex. Amongst defencemen - his peers - he was much closer tot he top than his forward compatriots. MUCH closer.

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug



So, this "maximized" PP time is part of the reason his +/- was so poor? How exactly is that? I assumed it was more to do with how he played defensively at even strength and how his offensive numbers are skewed due to the fact that more than HALF of his points came with the man advantage!!!

As far as his ranking amongst his peers being "MUCH" closer than Yak's, lets not forget that there are a lot more forwards than Dmen playing in the league. Also, you're basing your opinion on his offense and pretty much nothing else. He found himself in put himself on a young team and in an offensive position that allowed him to create points, but his defensive game did not shine. The fact that more people seem surprised at Brodin missing out on the final 3, tells you a bit about Shultz's game.

Heck, even this writer from the Edm Journal thinks the Brodin snub is worst of all.
http://blogs.edmontonjournal.com/2013/05/06/edmonton-oilers-rookie-nail-yakupov-doesnt-make-calder-finalist-cut/

In all fairness, i like Schulz and think his defensive game will improve as the team improves around him. Also, in this shortened season, there's far more of a log jam as far as points are concerned and thus i'm sure we'll see a very close vote in the end. Who knows, Brodin or Shultz may have ended up 4th and only by a handful of votes? We'll have to wait till they announce the winner and we see the actual voting numbers to be certain.
Go to Top of Page

Beans15
Moderator



Canada
8174 Posts

Posted - 05/07/2013 :  09:51:51  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Stop using +/- as a defensive stat. It's not. It's a stat relative to goals for an against. A player can be poor defensively but by on the ice for alot of points and have a better plus minus. Comparatively, a player can also be on the ice for few goals for and be punished in the +/- department.

Considering the Oilers were one of the worst teams scoring 5 on 5, I suggest the Schultz defensively is better than his +/- indicates. Considering of the top 30 highest scoring defensemen in the NHL, Schultz was on for the 4th fewest even strength goals.

When a player is on the top shutdown and top PP unit, rarely is the +/- really strong. It's a horrible stat to look at defensively.
Go to Top of Page

Guest4178
( )

Posted - 05/07/2013 :  10:04:45  Reply with Quote
Just a question for which I don't have time to research right now. When was the last time the rookie scoring leader (tied in points, and first place in goals) was not a finalist for the Calder?

I'm guessing it's happened before, but probably not that often.

By the way, I have no problem with Yakupov being off the ballot. It's such a close race this year (and not just measured by points), but with all other factors considered.

I think Alex framed the question very well to begin with. "Who will win the Calder Trophy in this shortened season?" The fact it's a shortened season is a big factor with the Calder.

Rookies blossom in the first year, usually turning it on as the season progresses (more than a Hart Candidate for example, save and except Alex Ovechkin this season), so it's too bad we didn't get a chance to see these young players over a full season.

And I believe that's one reason the race is so close. But it is what it is, and in no way am I suggesting that the Calder finalists named (or the eventual winner) should get an asterisk beside their name.

One thing about a 48-game shortened season. The games meant more this year, and while it's obvious players elevate their game in the playoffs, I actually believe that players delivered a bit more this regular season (knowing it was only 48 games) than a usual 82-game season.

Go to Top of Page

Alex116
PickupHockey Legend



5793 Posts

Posted - 05/07/2013 :  10:12:43  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4178

Just a question for which I don't have time to research right now. When was the last time the rookie scoring leader (tied in points, and first place in goals) was not a finalist for the Calder?

I'm guessing it's happened before, but probably not that often.




4178....i mentioned this above.

Oilers blogger Michael Parkatti points out: “The last time someone led the NHL in rookie scoring and was NOT top 3 in Calder voting was 1950-51: Reg Sinclair.”
Go to Top of Page

Alex116
PickupHockey Legend



5793 Posts

Posted - 05/07/2013 :  10:20:10  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15

Stop using +/- as a defensive stat. It's not. It's a stat relative to goals for an against. A player can be poor defensively but by on the ice for alot of points and have a better plus minus. Comparatively, a player can also be on the ice for few goals for and be punished in the +/- department.

Considering the Oilers were one of the worst teams scoring 5 on 5, I suggest the Schultz defensively is better than his +/- indicates. Considering of the top 30 highest scoring defensemen in the NHL, Schultz was on for the 4th fewest even strength goals.

When a player is on the top shutdown and top PP unit, rarely is the +/- really strong. It's a horrible stat to look at defensively.



Really? A stat relative to GF and GA? Thanks for the info. So, is it safe to assume that being on the ice for more goals for is better than goals against?
Look, i agree it's not the be all end all of stats, but it does have a purpose. It's like lucky bounces, you get some for you, you get some against you. With +/-, you may get a minus by stepping onto the ice at an inopportune time, yet next shift you could get a plus by doing stepping on the ice at an opportunistic time! These things even out over a season and we may see a +/- 5 degree of variance at best. Therefore, in a 48 game season, to be -17 does not project well defensively. Yes, defence is a team stat in some regards, but so too is a guys offensive output.
Go to Top of Page

Beans15
Moderator



Canada
8174 Posts

Posted - 05/07/2013 :  12:01:49  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Alex, I think you are missing the point. Let me give you an example:

Brooks Orpik was +17
Justin Shultz was -17

Orpik was on the ice for 48 goals for (1 on the PP) and 51 goals against (21 on the PK).

Shultz was on the ice for 49 goals for (19 on the PP) and 54 goals agains (7 on the PK).


Do you think the +/- ratings of both players are reflective of their defensive abilities or is the stat a symptom of the teams they play on and the roles they each play?? Shultz's get no advantage to be a great PP player and Orpik gets an advantage when playing on the ice while his team on the PK.


The stat is NOT defensive. It's simply not.



Go to Top of Page

Alex116
PickupHockey Legend



5793 Posts

Posted - 05/07/2013 :  15:19:03  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Sorry, but are you implying that a guy should get a -1 for being on the ice for a PP goal against while he's on the PK???

The +/- doesn't count for special teams except i believe in the case of shorthanded goals. It's an even strength stat that measures the difference between goals for and against while an individual is on the ice (at even strength).

Here, read this (from Wikipedia):

Plus#8722;minus (+/#8722;, plus/minus) is a sports statistic used to measure a player's impact on the difference between their team's total scoring versus their opponent's. In ice hockey, it measures a player's goal differential.

Better yet, read this (from same article):

The plus#8722;minus is mainly used to examine the performance of defenders and forwards who play a defensive role, while offensive forwards are more often measured by their scoring statistics (goals and assists).

Go to Top of Page

Beans15
Moderator



Canada
8174 Posts

Posted - 05/08/2013 :  06:56:04  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
No, I am not implying they should get penalized or rewarded for playing on the PK or PP, but that is what happens.

Looking at the example again, Orpik played a lot on the PK and Shultz played a lot on the PP. So even though they played on the ice for a very similar number of goals for an against (total) they are in exact opposite ends of the spectrum in their +/- numbers.

When you break it down, Orpik is likely the better defender as he is on the ice for fewer goals against. However, the stat itself of +/- doesn't show that as he was also on the ice for 47 even strength goals. Point being, playing on one of the highest scoring even strength teams in the NHL is was what contributed to his +/- stat far more than his defensive play.

If you look at Justin Schultz and see that he was on the ice for only 30 even strength goals, that is a huge impact on his +/-, more so than his goal against. Flip Orpik and Schultz goals for and they are both virtually even +/- players. Although I still think Orpik is a better defensive player.


Here's another example. Hal Gill was on the ice for only 11 even strength goals against all season. 11! That is sick. But he was only on the ice for 8 goals for so he is a -3. Does that stat indicate how strong of a defensive player that Hal Gill is??



+/- is quite possibly the worst statistic in professional sports. It is misused, mis understood, and virtually useless in saying anything about a player.



That is my point. The stat does not tell a defensive story. It tells a goal differential story. A great +/- can be attributed to both offensive and defensive play. It's not exclusive to defensive play and possible it the worst stat to measure defensive performance.
Go to Top of Page

Guest8670
( )

Posted - 05/08/2013 :  07:47:50  Reply with Quote
It's absolutely crazy Yak won't get it, check his stats. Finished 1st or close to first in almost every important category, and with less time played than the finalists. Stupid nominations, they're still good players, but not the proper nominations (Where's Brodin too???)
Go to Top of Page

nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star



3586 Posts

Posted - 05/08/2013 :  08:38:31  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I agree with Beans here, +/- is a useful stat in some regards, and does help to evaluate ability to defend, but as an absolute measure of defensive ability it blows.

I'm on the fence about Yak nomination - I saw enough EDM games last year where he was nearly invisible, and agree that he was not consistent in any way. But I didn't see enough of the other nominees for a real comparison. I must say, what I saw of Saad this year was highly impressive - despite the fact that he played on the best team and benefited from top-line time, he held his own and looked like he belonged.

Edited by - nuxfan on 05/08/2013 08:43:10
Go to Top of Page

JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran



Canada
1878 Posts

Posted - 05/08/2013 :  08:51:48  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Beans, this lack of 5 on 5 scoring keeps getting brought up and used as a reason why an Oiler does or doesn't deserve credit or discredit. Both of these players contributed to the Oiler's lack of 5 on 5 scoring, as both were used primarily on 5 on 5 and pp. Its part of it, but not the whole reason. The reason Shultz and Yakopov both didn't receive a Calder nomination was because both had good years, but both players had watered down chances by playing on the same team, in the western conference and stealing votes from one another. Now if either had crazy amazing stats that shouldn't have been ignored and didn't receive a nomination then I understand why one would be upset. I bet both probably received a fair amount of votes, but the other candidates were very deserving of nominations.

"I now realise that the Toronto Maple Leafs, Canada's finest hockey team, is better than the Ottawa Senators - and always will be. PS - LOVE that Dion Phaneuf! "
Go to Top of Page

Beans15
Moderator



Canada
8174 Posts

Posted - 05/08/2013 :  09:34:32  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Joshua, I never said that either Yakupov or Schultz should have been nominated. Yakupov lead rookies in goals but also went more than 1/2 of the season scoring only once. Schutlz did have a great year and Slozo made a very valid argument about why he should have been nominated. However, I also think he played immaturely at times and often jumped into the play offensively almost to the point of being a defensive liability at times. Hence, his lack of a nomination.

The argument I was eluding to when discussing 5 on 5 scoring was in the +/- stat in that Schultz's -17 rating is not indicative as much about him defensively as it was a stat telling of the Oilers poor 5 on 5 scoring ability.

Two completely different points that I think you merged together.
Go to Top of Page

JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran



Canada
1878 Posts

Posted - 05/08/2013 :  10:31:10  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Yah I dont put much stock into the +/- stat unless you use it against the teams +/- average and look at when a player is use in game. Both had good seasons, but I like the nominee's. Montreal's rookies really have impressed me, I have to remind myself all the time that these guys are only rookies. Florida has a great player in Huberdeau, which really overshadowed Conacher when he was there. I haven't watched much of Saad, but I will make a point of it in the future.

"I now realise that the Toronto Maple Leafs, Canada's finest hockey team, is better than the Ottawa Senators - and always will be. PS - LOVE that Dion Phaneuf! "
Go to Top of Page

Alex116
PickupHockey Legend



5793 Posts

Posted - 05/08/2013 :  11:19:46  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Beans, it's ironic this debate started over me and Slozo disagreeing on which was the bigger snub, Yakupov or Shultz, but either way, we'll just have to agree to disagree i guess. Like i already stated, i don't think the +/- is the greatest stat to measure a player by, and not totally defensively either, but it's not useless either. I will also reiterate how its the kind of stat that, like lucky bounces, evens out over greater periods of time and does give us some information such as what i quoted from wikipedia ("+/- is a sports statistic used to measure a player's impact on the difference between their team's total scoring versus their opponent's.").

Is it not fair to say that Brooks Orpik contributed to the offensive production of his team, regardless of his G's and A's by assisting his team in keeping the puck out of his teams goal? As in, if he's doing his job defensively, ie. keeping the other team from scoring, is that not allowing his forwards to make plays in the offensive zone resulting in goals for?

The whole "Oilers were terrible 5 on 5" bit is true. BUT, Justin Shultz was part of that problem. Maybe had he played better defensively, his forwards could have had some better, or even MORE, chances at the other end of the ice. You imply that the Oilers simply had a bad ratio of "finishing their chances". Do we even know if they had as many chances as they could have with a better defense playing with them?

Anyway, i'd prefer not to continue with an argument about +/-, especially in this Calder thread. Like i said, this all started with Slozo and i disagreeing on who the bigger snub was and by just mentioning Shultz's +/-, we ended up here. I'm done.....
Go to Top of Page
  Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
 New Topic  New Poll New Poll
 Reply to Topic
Jump To:
Snitz Forums 2000 Go To Top Of Page