Thread: +/- Kessel
View Single Post
Old
01-21-2013, 01:51 PM
  #59
Spazmatic Dan
The Leafs Are Good
 
Spazmatic Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Chatham, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,825
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bomber0104 View Post
Usually is a combination of failed attempts to maintain and regain puck possession and can be traced to a lot more than a few players sometimes even all 5. I have no idea what base you have for this claim.



All 5 usually have had a hand in maintaining or regaining puck possession and zone-entry. They should be rewarded.



Which is why it is useful to compare players +/- on the same team knowing they have the same environment.

Clarke Macarthur +2
Phil Kessel -10 (scored way more too!)



Sometimes yes, sometimes no.



Very large holes in this dismissal of +/- which of course are easily pointed out. There's lots +/- can tell you. There's things +/- can't tell you.

I'd be a fool to completely neglect the stat.

But then again, I don't really need a stat to tell me Bozak/Kessel/Lupul are very poor defensively, especially compared to the other lines.



Incorrect, because I can put some context behind a +/- .

Kessel's line was the worst defensive top line in the NHL and that's just an indisputable fact.

Most casual hockey fans note that Kessel is the worst defensive player on that line.

Therefore, Kessel is the worst defensive forward in the league.

Simple logic.

Simple flawed logic my friend.

Even if we assume your assumption is correct (Lupul-Bozak-Kessel being the worst top line in the league defensively) and we assume that "most casual hockey fans" are correct that Kessel is the worst on the line, that does not necessarily mean he is the worst forward in the league defensively.

There could easily be a worse player defensively on another top line that has defensive stalwarts covering for him that Kessel does not have and that's not even considering lines 2 through 4 throughout the league.

Spazmatic Dan is offline   Reply With Quote