Ryan Suter - Norris Trophy winner?

[Big Ev]

It's gotta be Souray. Best +/- by any D.

[Pengwin7]

Here is your argument. Name a play where all 5 players are involved on a goal being scored. Positively or negatively. I do believe it is more telling for defensemen than forwards, but there are extremely few plays where all 5 on ice players are responsible for a goal being scored. Here are some examples of plays where not all 5 players are involved.

Team A is in O-Zone. Dman Shoots in to a block. Team B gets a breakaway and scores. 1 players fault/good play. 4 uninvolved players per team get a +/-

Team A is in O-zone. Execute a few rounds of a cycle and scores. Dmen on Team A are not involved, get a plus anyways. Wingers covering the points (doing their defensive job) are not involved and get a minus.

Team A is executing a breakout. Winger tries an ill-advised pass and gives puck away in the slot. Team B scores. 5 players get a minus, at most 2 were at fault.

Team A shoots the puck in from center. Goalie misplays it. 5 players get a minus

Team A has puck in O-zone. Puck goes back to the Dman. Shoots, scores. Far side winger and weak side defensman get a minus, weren't involved in the play

Here is the one play where all 5 players are at fault. Team A has sustained O-zone pressure. Multiple players fail to clear when they have the chance. Team B gets caught running around, Team A eventually scores.

Can I give you an argument for a more-telling stat of defensive accumen? I cannot. However, +/- is not all that telling for a players defensive ability. It will be high on good teams and low on bad teams. Is Bergeron a +20 player if he plays on Florida? Unlikely. Switch JT and Malkin. Is Tavares a -5 on Pittsburgh if he takes Malkin's spot and is Malkin a +3 on the Islanders if takes Tavares' spot? Unlikely, those numbers probably switch. Is Skinner a -15 if Cam Ward isn't injured? Unlikely. Is he a -15 he was on Pittsburgh instead of Carolina? You bet your *** he wouldn't be. It just isn't a very accurate stat. It is more telling of team talent and team play style than defensive ability.

You didn't really need to give me all those examples.

Like every hockey stat, there is a little bit of luck that can go into anything.
Like most events with several outcomes, there can be a little luck that dictates results.

You could say that a blackjack player is unlucky to get a 8/4 + 10 and bust.
You could say that a blackjack player is unlucky to get a 10/10 only to have the dealer go A/10.
You could say that a blackjack player is lucky to get a 8/4 and hold, only to watch the dealer go 10/2/10 & bust.
You could say that a blackjack player is lucky to get a A/10.

By a single "event" (talking statistics here), you can make any outcome appear "lucky".

But here's the thing, if you have 1000 blackjack players each play 5000 hands... the best blackjack players will win the most hands. Truth.

And here's the thing, if you have 1000 hockey players each play 40+ games and each play 30+ shifts in each of those games, there is going to be a good likelihood that the better hockey players end up with better GF/60min and better GA/60min than their less-skilled teammates. Truth.


People either understand numbers... or they do not.
And every smart hockey player / analyst of the game that I've ever chatted with understands the value that can be extracted by looking at a player's goals for & goals against on-ice per minute played.
(More simply stated, we call it +/-... but really understood, it is a study of one's relative GF vs. GA per minute compared to one's teammates).

The bigger problem with +/- is that most people don't understand it.
They hear somebody say "It's a good stat" and then they identify single unlucky events or go comparing good players on bad teams to bad players to good teams.

If somebody can understand apples-to-apples, they'll see the value of +/-. But unfortunately... many do not.

Gotta play a little hockey and understand a little math to truly get it.

[rataylor22]

Like I said, I understand the stat. I have played hockey for 15 years and I understand the probabilities and the ratios. I just don't think it is a very legitimate stat of individual defensive play. I would say it is widely respected that Stephane Yelle was a fantastic defensive player and he finished is career a +10. That's not very high for a premier defensive spe******t. Yet he wasn't ever a big points guy and always played the other teams top line. So yea hes GF-GA ratio wasn't huge because he wasn't someone who generated a lot of goals while on the ice. He was still a great player. In my opinion, it holds far too much weight of an individual players ability when it is a much better indicator of quality of team and team play style.

[SeaDawg]

Like I said, I understand the stat. I have played hockey for 15 years and I understand the probabilities and the ratios. I just don't think it is a very legitimate stat of individual defensive play. I would say it is widely respected that Stephane Yelle was a fantastic defensive player and he finished is career a +10. That's not very high for a premier defensive spe******t. Yet he wasn't ever a big points guy and always played the other teams top line. So yea hes GF-GA ratio wasn't huge because he wasn't someone who generated a lot of goals while on the ice. He was still a great player. In my opinion, it holds far too much weight of an individual players ability when it is a much better indicator of quality of team and team play style.

well said...+1 from me

[Pengwin7]

I have played hockey for 15 years and I understand the probabilities and the ratios.

You don't understand the probabilities.
If you understood them, you wouldn't have cited singular events in your previous post.

As for Yelle, he's irrelevant to this conversation - which is about Norris trophy candidates.
The Norris is given out to the NHL's "top defense player who demonstrates throughout the season the greatest all-round ability in the position".

It's difficult to have a good +/- if you don't contribute offensively.
If memory serves, the Norris trophy is commonly awarded to a defenseman with some offensive game.
Do you want to challenge that?

[rataylor22]

No, I provided common examples of hockey plays, probably the 6 most common ways even strength goals are scored. I didn't provide examples of freak one in a million goals, and it was simply to state that +/- is a better indicator of quality of team and team play style than individual defensive acumen, an argument you've had no ability to counter. If you would further like to question my math abilities, I am a mechanical engineer so that kinda throws that argument out of the window.

The Yelle argument is relevant to your argument of players who are better defensively tend to end up with a better GF-GA ratio than worse players.

I never argued that the Norris isn't awarded to players who contribute offensively. I've merely stated that +/- is a highly overrated stat, provided a solid argument as to why it is a highly overrated stat, and provided an example of what it is a better metric at measuring, which you have then chosen to blindly ignore in a failed attempt at insulting my intelligence.

[robmyatt]

This thread has somewhat gone off topic but still has generated some good discussion.
And, yes, +/- is a team stat. Not an individual stat. And plenty of smart hockey people feel the same way.
Try finding an article that backs up the value of +/-

http://www.hockeyprospectus.com/arti...p?articleid=64
http://www.russianmachineneverbreaks...cing-ice-tilt/

[The Comish]

But here's the thing, if you have 1000 blackjack players each play 5000 hands... the best blackjack players will win the most hands. Truth.[/B])

Yeah, but the problem is the guy sitting the next seat over doesn't win a hand when the guy beside him does! You do if you count plus/minus the way the NHL does. Worst individual stat in hockey.

You want to see who the coach considers the best defensive player/defenseman on the team? Just WATCH the games when the team is defending a one goal lead in the final minute. Simple. Fact.

[rataylor22]

This thread has somewhat gone off topic but still has generated some good discussion.
This is worth a read http://www.hockeyprospectus.com/arti...p?articleid=64

Great post, much more accurate of a stat then standard +/-

[Dakkster]

It's one thing when a player runs away with offensive numbers the way Karlsson did. Subban hasn't separated himself from the pack. Then you add the fact that Suter whips PK's ass up and down and sideways defensively and PK doesn't stand a chance. There is an obvious eastern bias in many of the comments in this thread. This one is, at this point where Letang has lost so much time, Suter's in the bag. He plays all the most important minutes and does it looking like a boss. PK gets easy minutes. Not close.

[bigbabybuda]

Suter
Subban
Letang



H.M
Beau, Doughty, Chara, Voynov (criminally under rated)

[rataylor22]

Suter
Subban
Letang



H.M
Beau, Doughty, Chara, Voynov (criminally under rated)

As a player yes, but for the Norris? Hell no.

[bigbabybuda]

As a player yes, but for the Norris? Hell no.

I don't think he is top 5 but top 10 yes and I promise you this time next year there will be no argument. He'll be up to 26+ min a game top 5 in pts. As I said criminally under rated imo

[STONE.]

I don't think he is top 5 but top 10 yes and I promise you this time next year there will be no argument. He'll be up to 26+ min a game top 5 in pts. As I said criminally under rated imo

I wouldn't count on it. Look back at first or second year breakout Ds over the last bunch of years -- how many fall back the following year? It often takes a fall back to earth (and then they bounce back a season or two later).

Examples from the past handful of years: Fowler, Myers, Coburn, Enstrom, Carle, Phaneuf, MDZ, Gardiner, Hamhuis -- there are lots of examples of early breakouts that fell back to earth. These guys looked like they'd be perennial top 10 point-getters after breakout years early, then they hit some harder times -- some bounced back, some didn't.

I'm not saying Voynov will definitely do this, but it seems to happen often enough. Can't count on continued improvement. Guys will have ups, then downs.

[SeaDawg]

I wouldn't count on it. Look back at first or second year breakout Ds over the last bunch of years -- how many fall back the following year? It often takes a fall back to earth (and then they bounce back a season or two later).

Examples from the past handful of years: Fowler, Myers, Coburn, Enstrom, Carle, Phaneuf, MDZ, Gardiner, Hamhuis -- there are lots of examples of early breakouts that fell back to earth. These guys looked like they'd be perennial top 10 point-getters after breakout years early, then they hit some harder times -- some bounced back, some didn't.

I'm not saying Voynov will definitely do this, but it seems to happen often enough. Can't count on continued improvement. Guys will have ups, then downs.

excellent post

btw, who is Beau?

Beau, Doughty, Chara, Voynov (criminally under rated)