Horachek's impact on the team

[Rebel_1812]

That's where you just have to watch the games, and you see that there has been a complete lack of effort by the top line.

Everyone writing posts on this board watches the game. Saying stuff like that just makes you sound like a talk radio caller.

Blah blah blah...

lol. You handled that stupid remark in the best way sir ;-)

 

[pmrules]

But, you can compare player A on Toronto with player B on Toronto. For example, Kessel is -32 and Holland is -1. Same terrible team. I would argue that this tells us that Holland is performing his role much more adequately than Kessel. Same for Komarov at +3, again on the same team.

Same team, but getting very different ice time against very different calibre of competition - things that have a significant impact on how many goals you're on the ice for. Even for internal comparisons, +/- is an extremely flawed stat. It really says nothing about the individual player's abilities. You can do everything perfectly all season, but if your line mates suck, you can still end up with a significant minus. It really is just a representation of getting a lot of ice time on a bad team.

Most everything you just mentioned can be applied to CORSI as well.  A major difference is one is expressed as a percentage (which is important). 

Also, is that true that Kessel faces better competition than say a Komorov?  Isn't Komorov generally put up against the other teams top 2 lines. 

Doesn't the fact that other teams want to play their best players (i.e their top 2 lines) against the Kessel line, speak volumes to what the other teams think of the Kessels lines defensive acumen? 

 

[Bullfrog]

Most everything you just mentioned can be applied to CORSI as well.  A major difference is one is expressed as a percentage (which is important). 

Also, is that true that Kessel faces better competition than say a Komorov?  Isn't Komorov generally put up against the other teams top 2 lines. 

Doesn't the fact that other teams want to play their best players (i.e their top 2 lines) against the Kessel line, speak volumes to what the other teams think of the Kessels lines defensive acumen?

It does, but nobody here is arguing that Kessel's line is good defensively. We're just talking about the value of the +/- stat.

 

[cw]

But, you can compare player A on Toronto with player B on Toronto. For example, Kessel is -32 and Holland is -1. Same terrible team. I would argue that this tells us that Holland is performing his role much more adequately than Kessel. Same for Komarov at +3, again on the same team.

Same team, but getting very different ice time against very different calibre of competition - things that have a significant impact on how many goals you're on the ice for. Even for internal comparisons, +/- is an extremely flawed stat. It really says nothing about the individual player's abilities. You can do everything perfectly all season, but if your line mates suck, you can still end up with a significant minus. It really is just a representation of getting a lot of ice time on a bad team.

Most everything you just mentioned can be applied to CORSI as well.  A major difference is one is expressed as a percentage (which is important). 

Also, is that true that Kessel faces better competition than say a Komorov?  Isn't Komorov generally put up against the other teams top 2 lines. 

Doesn't the fact that other teams want to play their best players (i.e their top 2 lines) against the Kessel line, speak volumes to what the other teams think of the Kessels lines defensive acumen?

https://twitter.com/markhmasters/status/578747247904497665

Other teams probably feel pretty confident about their +/- when they go out against that line. Rubbing their hands together ... "We can light these guys up!!"

I don't know how to dissect or justify those numbers accurately but generally, they're not very complimentary to the players on that list. When you're at the bottom of a stat like that, it's hard to point the finger elsewhere because no one is below you.

Guilt by association? Maybe. But if these guys hadn't dogged it, I might have been inspired to defend them a little. As they basically threw up their hands and gave up, I think the stat looks good on them. They kind of "earned" it.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Previous NHL green jacket nominees in the past 10 years:

Alex Edler
Alexander Ovechkin
Brian Campbell
Jordan Staal
Erik Karlsson
Ilya Kovalchuk
Rob Brind'Amour
Brad Richards
Martin St. Louis
Patrice Bergeron
Rob Blake
Rick Nash

Again, nobody is going to claim that Kessel is even average defensively, but I'm pretty sure the world would be a 1.7% better place if we all just forgot that +/- existed.

 

[bustaheims]

Most everything you just mentioned can be applied to CORSI as well.  A major difference is one is expressed as a percentage (which is important). 

Also, is that true that Kessel faces better competition than say a Komorov?  Isn't Komorov generally put up against the other teams top 2 lines. 

Doesn't the fact that other teams want to play their best players (i.e their top 2 lines) against the Kessel line, speak volumes to what the other teams think of the Kessels lines defensive acumen?

Corsi has some issues as well, but, because it measures so many more events, it helps cover up some of them. I don't love it when it comes to measuring individual players, but, it is significantly more valuable than +/-, if for no other reason than it takes the quality of the goaltending at either end of the rink out of the equation.

And, while Komarov may get some time against the other team's top lines, the Kessel line have 3 of the 4 highest QoC ratings on the team among forwards (the 4th being Kadri).

 

[pmrules]

Most everything you just mentioned can be applied to CORSI as well.  A major difference is one is expressed as a percentage (which is important). 

Also, is that true that Kessel faces better competition than say a Komorov?  Isn't Komorov generally put up against the other teams top 2 lines. 

Doesn't the fact that other teams want to play their best players (i.e their top 2 lines) against the Kessel line, speak volumes to what the other teams think of the Kessels lines defensive acumen?

It does, but nobody here is arguing that Kessel's line is good defensively. We're just talking about the value of the +/- stat.

Why isn't there value?  The number one concern of +/- for Advanced stats folks is that there aren't enough instances to make a valid conclusion (which is true).  There are also subjective factors there in that a player can do everything right and still be charged a negative, but that is offset by the fact that a player can do nothing and still be awared a positive.  I get that it isn't a perfect stat - but by that case, no stat is perfect.

But, I think there is room for +/- as a valid stat, along with CORSI/Fenwick.  They are both factors, in varying degrees, in determining the overall quality of a player and of a team from both an offensive and a defensive perspective, as long as there is additional context.

The Kessel/Bozak/JVR Line is horrible defensively and is the worst defensive line on this team.  My eyes see that.  Their respective +/- confirms it for me.

 

[bustaheims]

Previous NHL green jacket nominees in the past 10 years:

Alex Edler
Alexander Ovechkin
Brian Campbell
Jordan Staal
Erik Karlsson
Ilya Kovalchuk
Rob Brind'Amour
Brad Richards
Martin St. Louis
Patrice Bergeron
Rob Blake
Rick Nash

Again, nobody is going to claim that Kessel is even average defensively, but I'm pretty sure the world would be a 1.7% better place if we all just forgot that +/- existed.

And, what do all these players have in common? Being among the TOI leaders on bad teams - which, as I've said before, is really the only thing +/- actually represents.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

And, what do all these players have in common? Being among the TOI leaders on bad teams - which, as I've said before, is really the only thing +/- actually represents.

A lot of them are also actually pretty good defensive players too.

 

[Joe S.]

I'd like to throw out an idea - something that I haven't really seen discussed here - but has anyone thought of this the other way around?

Meaning that, Kessel, when engaged and playing well, elevated a terrible team to mediocre/borderline playoff status, and when playing poorly, the team then sinks back to it's natural talent level?

If you ask me, this is more of an indication of how much he was carrying this team on his shoulders (inadvertently or otherwise), and is more indicative of what he brings to the team.

Do I subscribe to this theory? Maybe, I don't know. It's hard for me to have a true opinion right now because I've honestly stopped watching. I haven't seen a full game since before christmas... but I think it's a point of view worth discussing.

 

[Frank E]

I'd like to throw out an idea - something that I haven't really seen discussed here - but has anyone thought of this the other way around?

Meaning that, Kessel, when engaged and playing well, elevated a terrible team to mediocre/borderline playoff status, and when playing poorly, the team then sinks back to it's natural talent level?

If you ask me, this is more of an indication of how much he was carrying this team on his shoulders (inadvertently or otherwise), and is more indicative of what he brings to the team.

Do I subscribe to this theory? Maybe, I don't know. It's hard for me to have a true opinion right now because I've honestly stopped watching. I haven't seen a full game since before christmas... but I think it's a point of view worth discussing.

WHAT!!??

Alright everyone, BURN HIM.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I'd like to throw out an idea - something that I haven't really seen discussed here - but has anyone thought of this the other way around?

Meaning that, Kessel, when engaged and playing well, elevated a terrible team to mediocre/borderline playoff status, and when playing poorly, the team then sinks back to it's natural talent level?

If you ask me, this is more of an indication of how much he was carrying this team on his shoulders (inadvertently or otherwise), and is more indicative of what he brings to the team.

Do I subscribe to this theory? Maybe, I don't know. It's hard for me to have a true opinion right now because I've honestly stopped watching. I haven't seen a full game since before christmas... but I think it's a point of view worth discussing.

Well I think it was Mirtle who said that the team still failed to make the playoffs with Kessel scoring at an elite level and Bernier playing well above average in net so....

And both have dropped way off since January 1st.

 

[Al14]

I'd like to throw out an idea - something that I haven't really seen discussed here - but has anyone thought of this the other way around?

Meaning that, Kessel, when engaged and playing well, elevated a terrible team to mediocre/borderline playoff status, and when playing poorly, the team then sinks back to it's natural talent level?

If you ask me, this is more of an indication of how much he was carrying this team on his shoulders (inadvertently or otherwise), and is more indicative of what he brings to the team.

Do I subscribe to this theory? Maybe, I don't know. It's hard for me to have a true opinion right now because I've honestly stopped watching. I haven't seen a full game since before christmas... but I think it's a point of view worth discussing.

WHAT!!??

Alright everyone, BURN HIM.

If Kessel was a COMPLETE 200' hockey player, I might somewhat buy into his theory!  Seeing as Kessel is not a complete hockey player, but, only a speed demon with a laser of a shot, it's complete nonsense.

BURN HIM!  LOL

 

[TML fan]

I just stubbed my toe. Pretty sure Kessel's getting blamed for this one. Him and his lousy +\-.

 

[Chris]

Thanks to all who have posted thoughtful and respectful comments on the +/- issue.

I was watching last night (don't know why, actually). Kessel was -3 but I'm pretty sure at least one of those minuses was not due to anything he did - it was a bungled change by the defensemen while SJ had the puck. So that would be an example of an undeserved -. However, events like that should be random and should average out over time (except that there will be more of them for players who play more, but there should also be more of the "accidental" +'s as well).

I realize it's also possible to be a - player and yet have a positive contribution. Since pp goals don't count, if Kessel and company were producing say 50 pp goals this season, that would offset the -35 they've accumulated at even strength.

Anyway, thanks again for the thoughts. I need to spend some time reading up on the newer stats to see what they have to offer.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I'd like to throw out an idea - something that I haven't really seen discussed here - but has anyone thought of this the other way around?

Meaning that, Kessel, when engaged and playing well, elevated a terrible team to mediocre/borderline playoff status, and when playing poorly, the team then sinks back to it's natural talent level?

If you ask me, this is more of an indication of how much he was carrying this team on his shoulders (inadvertently or otherwise), and is more indicative of what he brings to the team.

Do I subscribe to this theory? Maybe, I don't know. It's hard for me to have a true opinion right now because I've honestly stopped watching. I haven't seen a full game since before christmas... but I think it's a point of view worth discussing.

WHAT!!??

Alright everyone, BURN HIM.

If Kessel was a COMPLETE 200' hockey player, I might somewhat buy into his theory!  Seeing as Kessel is not a complete hockey player, but, only a speed demon with a laser of a shot, it's complete nonsense.

BURN HIM!  LOL

From Mirtle:

During the past 40 games, the Leafs have fallen off by about a goal a game, dropping to a Buffalo-like 1.9 goals per 60 minutes. Statistically speaking, they haven?t been shooting less or getting fewer scoring chances; they?ve simply received very little offence from their top players.

In the 113 games from the start of 2013-14 to the beginning of the collapse, Toronto?s top line of Kessel, Tyler Bozak and James van Riemsdyk scored a combined 128 goals, or 1.13 a game.

In the 40 games since, that line has only 0.62 goals a game, which means that trio has accounted for half of the Leafs lost offence despite continuing to get top unit power-play duty.

Kessel alone has fallen from a 39-goal pace to a 14-goal one, a crippling drop-off, much of which has been at even strength.

He has been on the ice for only 12 five-on-five goals in the past 40 games (0.3 a game), down from 0.8 a game.

The other dagger in the Leafs season has been their goaltending woes.

Prior to these past 40 games, Toronto had enjoyed pretty spectacular success from Bernier since acquiring him from the Kings in the summer of 2013. Between the start of his first season until the falloff, the Leafs as a team had the fifth-best even strength save percentage in the NHL, trailing only Boston, Los Angeles, Montreal and the Rangers ? four clubs with very strong starters.

By mid-December of his second year, it appeared Bernier was going to lead the Leafs to a much better record than they otherwise deserved.

Instead, they have posted an .895 save percentage that is better than only the Edmonton Oilers ever since, the equivalent of allowing an extra two goals every three games.

Like Kessel, Bernier has struggled, taking the team down with him.

Because of the timing of the Leafs coaching change, interim coach Peter Horachek has been saddled with a lot of the blame for what?s happened in Toronto. But it?s really been the disappearance of the Leafs stars that has sunk their season.

There is not a lot of evidence that a coach can have a dramatic, sustained impact on either shooting or save percentage, meaning the collapse can?t land entirely at Horachek?s feet.

No coach could have coaxed many wins out of a Leafs team where Kessel wasn?t scoring and Bernier wasn?t making saves. That was how they were built, from Day 1.

A mediocre team with their co-MVPs from last season at the top of their game, this group was bound to be a bottom feeder when they both struggled.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/the-anatomy-of-a-collapse-why-are-the-leafs-so-bad/article23531234/

 

[Al14]

I just stubbed my toe. Pretty sure Kessel's getting blamed for this one. Him and his lousy +\-.

Kessel does have the ability to affect the + part of the +/- stat.  Since Jan. 1st, he has simply chosen not to!  LOL

 

[cw]

I'd like to throw out an idea - something that I haven't really seen discussed here - but has anyone thought of this the other way around?

Meaning that, Kessel, when engaged and playing well, elevated a terrible team to mediocre/borderline playoff status, and when playing poorly, the team then sinks back to it's natural talent level?

If you ask me, this is more of an indication of how much he was carrying this team on his shoulders (inadvertently or otherwise), and is more indicative of what he brings to the team.

Do I subscribe to this theory? Maybe, I don't know. It's hard for me to have a true opinion right now because I've honestly stopped watching. I haven't seen a full game since before christmas... but I think it's a point of view worth discussing.

There is the old saying (something like) "your best players have to be your best players to win consistently" And that has some merit.

Saw good and bad times with Keon, Sittler, Salming, Clark, Gilmour & Sundin. Can't say I saw anything from them like what we've seen with Kessel.

Bluntly, I saw down moments but I never saw any of them throw in the towel like or to the degree Kessel appears to have.

I think that is a key component in what I find most offensive in this mess.

I can accept poor results if they try. I can't accept them blatantly not trying - which is where many of them, including Kessel, seem to be right now.

The talent on this team seems better than their record. The character on this team seems to leave a lot to be desired.

 

[Deebo]

But, I think there is room for +/- as a valid stat, along with CORSI/Fenwick.  They are both factors, in varying degrees, in determining the overall quality of a player and of a team from both an offensive and a defensive perspective, as long as there is additional context.

The Kessel/Bozak/JVR Line is horrible defensively and is the worst defensive line on this team.  My eyes see that.  Their respective +/- confirms it for me.

The .463 2006-07 Bruins are my go to example for how meaningless +/- is.

Chara was the worst +/- defender on their team at -21 and Bergeron the worst +/- forward at -28.

These are regarded as two of the best defensive players in the league at their positions.

The only other minus years in Chara's career were with the .354 1999-2000 Islanders and the .317 2000-01 Islanders. Every other year, he was a + player.

Bergeron never had another minus season in his NHL career.

The common link between the 4 minus seasons these top defensive players have had?
They were all non-playoff teams.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

But, I think there is room for +/- as a valid stat, along with CORSI/Fenwick.  They are both factors, in varying degrees, in determining the overall quality of a player and of a team from both an offensive and a defensive perspective, as long as there is additional context.

The Kessel/Bozak/JVR Line is horrible defensively and is the worst defensive line on this team.  My eyes see that.  Their respective +/- confirms it for me.

The .463 2006-07 Bruins are my go to example for how meaningless +/- is.

Chara was the worst +/- defender on their team at -21 and Bergeron the worst +/- forward at -28.

These are regarded as two of the best defensive players in the league at their positions.

The only other minus years in his career were with the .354 1999-2000 Islanders and the .317 2000-01 Islanders. Every other year, he was a + player.

Bergeron never had another minus season in his NHL career.

The common link between the 4 minus seasons these top defensive players have had?
They were all non-playoff teams.

That Bruins team also had a combined .900 SV% for the season, which would definitely affect those numbers.  The very next season their team SV% was .916 and most of the teams were + players.