Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
lafountain

Isn't it funny

Recommended Posts

I understand how the rule is written pertaining to the stat and I understand the point of it, but when you look at tonights Box Score of the Atlanta game you see that Atlanta won 6-3 and nobody on the team finished in the + side of the +/- rating and only 2 Panthers were on the - side. Kovalchuk with 4 points, which was more than the Panthers had, finished at a -1. Just kinda makes you laugh a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I understand how the rule is written pertaining to the stat and I understand the point of it, but when you look at tonights Box Score of the Atlanta game you see that Atlanta won 6-3 and nobody on the team finished in the + side of the +/- rating and only 2 Panthers were on the - side. Kovalchuk with 4 points, which was more than the Panthers had, finished at a -1. Just kinda makes you laugh a bit.

Isn't it that you're a minus for every goal scored against when you're on the ice and a plus for every goal scored for when you're on the ice? That's the way I've always assumed it's gone, but in that case it's impossible for Kovalchuk to be on the ice for more goals than were scored against his team and come out a minus. Even if he was on the ice for every goal scored against, he's got to be a plus one. Educate me if I'm wrong about +-, I've always been a little vague about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Isn't it that you're a minus for every goal scored against when you're on the ice and a plus for every goal scored for when you're on the ice? That's the way I've always assumed it's gone, but in that case it's impossible for Kovalchuk to be on the ice for more goals than were scored against his team and come out a minus. Even if he was on the ice for every goal scored against, he's got to be a plus one. Educate me if I'm wrong about +-, I've always been a little vague about it.

You only get a + or - for even strength or shorthanded. Kovalchuk scored all 4 of his points on the Power Play so he didn't get a + for any of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You only get a + or - for even strength or shorthanded. Kovalchuk scored all 4 of his points on the Power Play so he didn't get a + for any of them.

Hmm. I think I knew that once, actually. I didn't even think about the special teams aspect when responding. It's still something that could use some ammendment. Maybe a .5 for a PPG and a -.5 for a PPG against. Maybe also 2 for a SHG, and -2 for a SHG against. That would give a better reflection of how clutch a player is...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmm. I think I knew that once, actually. I didn't even think about the special teams aspect when responding. It's still something that could use some ammendment. Maybe a .5 for a PPG and a -.5 for a PPG against. Maybe also 2 for a SHG, and -2 for a SHG against. That would give a better reflection of how clutch a player is...

Yeah, there should be some sort of change made.

Kind of makes you wonder what Gretzky's +/- could have been the year he finished +98.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, there should be some sort of change made.

Kind of makes you wonder what Gretzky's +/- could have been the year he finished +98.

Might have been lower. Could have been higher. You'd have to look at the box scores for every game. I'm not up for it heh. :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmm. I think I knew that once, actually. I didn't even think about the special teams aspect when responding. It's still something that could use some ammendment. Maybe a .5 for a PPG and a -.5 for a PPG against. Maybe also 2 for a SHG, and -2 for a SHG against. That would give a better reflection of how clutch a player is...

That would be cool, and definitely more indicative of a player's capability on both ends of the ice. It would more accurately measure the worth of a guy like Kris Draper. Even if he doesn't score a ton of goals, his primary job is to be a defensive specialist at even strength and on the PK. If his PK unit gets scored on or if he nets a bunch of SHGs, it'd be reflected in the +/-.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That would be cool, and definitely more indicative of a player's capability on both ends of the ice. It would more accurately measure the worth of a guy like Kris Draper. Even if he doesn't score a ton of goals, his primary job is to be a defensive specialist at even strength and on the PK. If his PK unit gets scored on or if he nets a bunch of SHGs, it'd be reflected in the +/-.

Well if he gets SHG then he would get a +, he just wouldn't get a - if his team gave up a PPG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At this point, I don't see the system ever changing. It's unfortunate however, as it reflects poorly on a lot of players and isn't truly an accurate measure of a player's worth or ability. How many times do sports writers rely on +- to decide whether or not a player is a true performer? How much does it come into play when voting for the awards at the end of the year? I'm not really one to want to change the NHL, but perhaps some tinkered with the plus-minus system would be a good thing? As we've already discussed, there are some definite circumstances that are not well accounted for in the current system...

I was just thinking about it some more so I thought I'd come back and add.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...