View Single Post
03-21-2007, 04:28 PM
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 27
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Lexicon Devil View Post
I wouldn't say the method is deeply flawed. There are some problems. The first is sample size - Heatley and Schubert have just over 60 minutes on the PK, so I wouldn't put too much into their stats.

But the fact that Redden plays a regular PK shift and has only been on the ice for 7 PP goals against - that has to mean something.

The other potential problem is quality of competition. This is tracked on the site, and it shows that all the defencemen face roughly the same quality of competition, but then again so does the entire league. The problem with this measure is that if 2nd unit PK guys on every team faceoff against 2nd unit PP guys, the competitive balance will be roughly the same as the 1st unit PK guys against the 1st unit PP guys. As a result, everyone will have roughly the same +/- stats. Then it is impossible to distinguish between quality of competition based on +/-.

I don't think there's anything flawed about the 'method'. It's not really a method (it's just PK +/-) any more than regular +/- is a 'method'. It has the same problems as regular +/-.

I agree that the difference in quality of competition is numerically small, but those who play against a just slightly higher level of competition are doing something significant.

The Ottawa PK can't be split into distinct groups:

#1 Phillips, Vermette, Kelly, Volchenkov: opponent PP from +4.75 to +4.77
#2 Mcammond, Schaefer, Alfredsson, Fisher, Meszaros, Redden: PP +4.5 to +4.65
#3 Schubert, Corvo, Heatley: low icetime, Opponent PP from +4.27 to +4.39

Heatley's just not getting the tough PK assignments. You wouldn't put him on the top line any more than you'd take a guy from your 4th line and put him on the PP because he had a few good months beating up other 4th lines.

gabe is offline   Reply With Quote