SalarySwishSalarySwish
Forums/Armchair-GM

Stamkos worst plus minus on team again

Created by: BOLTLOVER1
Team: 2019-20 Tampa Bay Lightning
Initial Creation Date: Nov. 19, 2019
Published: Nov. 19, 2019
Salary Cap Mode: Basic
Description
For someone supposedly having "his best 2 way season" .. I just don't see it. What is weird is he has NHL leading FO% .. to me he gets caught up ice/out of D zone positioning way too much .. which allows other teams better scoring chances and odd man rushes .. Stamkos bad plus minus has been for long time and not just this year .. thoughts?
Trades
TBL
  1. Hall, Taylor
  2. Vatanen, Sami
Additional Details:
Top 6 and Top 4 .. Cup move .. 1 gets resigned
NJD
  1. Gourde, Yanni
  2. Joseph, Mathieu
  3. Sergachev, Mikhail
Additional Details:
NJ should be all over this for future
Buyouts
Buried
DraftRound 1Round 2Round 3Round 4Round 5Round 6Round 7
2020
Logo of the TBL
Logo of the VAN
Logo of the TBL
Logo of the TBL
Logo of the TBL
Logo of the DET
Logo of the TBL
Logo of the OTT
Logo of the TBL
2021
Logo of the TBL
Logo of the TBL
Logo of the TBL
Logo of the TBL
Logo of the TBL
Logo of the TBL
Logo of the TBL
Logo of the NSH
2022
Logo of the TBL
Logo of the TBL
Logo of the TBL
Logo of the TBL
Logo of the TBL
Logo of the TBL
Logo of the TBL
ROSTER SIZESALARY CAPCAP HITOVERAGES TooltipBONUSESCAP SPACE
22$81,500,000$78,346,666$0$330,000$3,153,334
Left WingCentreRight Wing
Logo of the Tampa Bay Lightning
$5,000,000$5,000,000
RW, C, LW
NTC
UFA - 5
Logo of the Tampa Bay Lightning
$8,500,000$8,500,000
LW, C
NMC
UFA - 5
Logo of the Tampa Bay Lightning
$9,500,000$9,500,000
RW
UFA - 8
Logo of the Tampa Bay Lightning
$4,450,000$4,450,000
RW, LW
NTC
UFA - 4
Logo of the Tampa Bay Lightning
$6,750,000$6,750,000
C, RW
UFA - 3
Logo of the Tampa Bay Lightning
$5,300,000$5,300,000
LW, RW
NTC
UFA - 3
Logo of the Tampa Bay Lightning
$900,000$900,000
LW, RW
UFA - 1
Logo of the Tampa Bay Lightning
$1,650,000$1,650,000
C, LW, RW
UFA - 2
Logo of the Tampa Bay Lightning
$728,333$728,333 (Performance Bonus$182,500$182K)
C, LW
UFA - 1
Logo of the Tampa Bay Lightning
$700,000$700,000
LW
UFA - 1
Logo of the Tampa Bay Lightning
$700,000$700,000
LW
UFA - 1
Logo of the New Jersey Devils
$3,000,000$3,000,000
LW
UFA - 1
Left DefenseRight DefenseGoaltender
Logo of the Tampa Bay Lightning
$7,875,000$7,875,000
LD
NMC
UFA - 6
Logo of the Tampa Bay Lightning
$1,750,000$1,750,000
RD
NTC
UFA - 1
Logo of the Tampa Bay Lightning
$3,500,000$3,500,000
G
UFA - 1
Logo of the Tampa Bay Lightning
$6,750,000$6,750,000
LD
NTC
UFA - 7
Logo of the Tampa Bay Lightning
$1,300,000$1,300,000
LD/RD
UFA - 1
Logo of the Tampa Bay Lightning
$1,300,000$1,300,000
G
UFA - 2
Logo of the Tampa Bay Lightning
$1,700,000$1,700,000
LD
NTC
UFA - 2
Logo of the Tampa Bay Lightning
$700,000$700,000
RD
UFA - 1
Logo of the New Jersey Devils
$2,437,500$2,437,500
LD/RD
UFA - 1
Logo of the Tampa Bay Lightning
$697,500$697,500 (Performance Bonus$147,500$148K)
RD
UFA - 1

Embed Code

  • To display this team on another website or blog, add this iFrame to the appropriate page
  • Customize the height attribute in the iFrame code below to fit your website appropriately. Minimum recommended: 400px.

Text-Embed

Click to Highlight
Nov. 19, 2019 at 6:07 p.m.
#1
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jun. 2017
Posts: 7,515
Likes: 5,736
That +/- is a stupid stat
tesau315, Random2152 and Zwui21 liked this.
Nov. 19, 2019 at 6:14 p.m.
#2
Just Keep Swimming
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jun. 2018
Posts: 9,193
Likes: 5,554
The issue is that you are quoting +/- as if it means anything.
Then you go on to quote face off stats, which are somehow even less meaningful.
So I think that solves our issue right there.
Nov. 19, 2019 at 6:14 p.m.
#3
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jun. 2018
Posts: 598
Likes: 132
I'd rather have Palat than Gourde, since his term is much shorter.
Nov. 19, 2019 at 6:30 p.m.
#4
MisstheWhalers
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jan. 2019
Posts: 23,554
Likes: 12,308
If you want to feel the wrath of fancy stat people just mention +/-
Nov. 19, 2019 at 7:09 p.m.
#5
GO BOLTS
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jun. 2018
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 388
like that you have Hall playing in the fifth line when you only have a 12 man forward roster.
Nov. 19, 2019 at 7:32 p.m.
#6
Thread Starter
BOLT LOVER
Avatar of the user
Joined: Dec. 2018
Posts: 2,120
Likes: 358
AGAIN the plus minus haters are out with NEVER a quantatative reason why they do .. some advice in life .. if u cant add any value just stay quiet .. my point remains .. even worse is the moron above who says FO% doesnt count .. would someone who actually played hockey opine on plus/minus in terms of other stats .. 5V 5 expected goals Corsi etc.. as long as sample size is big enough to discard it is moronic
ZiggyPalffy liked this.
Nov. 19, 2019 at 7:38 p.m.
#7
Banned
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 3,489
Likes: 1,491
Quoting: BOLTLOVER1
AGAIN the plus minus haters are out with NEVER a quantatative reason why they do .. some advice in life .. if u cant add any value just stay quiet .. my point remains .. even worse is the moron above who says FO% doesnt count .. would someone who actually played hockey opine on plus/minus in terms of other stats .. 5V 5 expected goals Corsi etc.. as long as sample size is big enough to discard it is moronic


+/- is a useless stat. Proves nothing
Random2152 liked this.
Nov. 19, 2019 at 8:23 p.m.
#8
Thread Starter
BOLT LOVER
Avatar of the user
Joined: Dec. 2018
Posts: 2,120
Likes: 358
Quoting: hockeyfanatic05
+/- is a useless stat. Proves nothing


Another worthless loser ..
ZiggyPalffy liked this.
Nov. 19, 2019 at 8:39 p.m.
#9
Banned
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 9,721
Likes: 2,805
Quoting: Random2152
The issue is that you are quoting +/- as if it means anything.
Then you go on to quote face off stats, which are somehow even less meaningful.
So I think that solves our issue right there.


Are you stupid? When someone is a minus multiple times and by more than -10 it's not a coincidence. They are bad defensively.
Nov. 19, 2019 at 8:41 p.m.
#10
Thread Starter
BOLT LOVER
Avatar of the user
Joined: Dec. 2018
Posts: 2,120
Likes: 358
Wow .. someone that gets it .. congrats . STILL waiting for someone with greater than a 4th grade education to detail WHY plus minus is worthless ..
Nov. 19, 2019 at 8:41 p.m.
#11
Banned
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 9,721
Likes: 2,805
Quoting: Random2152
The issue is that you are quoting +/- as if it means anything.
Then you go on to quote face off stats, which are somehow even less meaningful.
So I think that solves our issue right there.


I swear I really want to meet the person who taught you hockey stats.
Nov. 19, 2019 at 8:42 p.m.
#12
Banned
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 9,721
Likes: 2,805
Quoting: wojme
That +/- is a stupid stat


How so?.....
Nov. 19, 2019 at 8:49 p.m.
#13
I put math in hockey
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jun. 2018
Posts: 624
Likes: 167
Quoting: Bf3351
Are you stupid? When someone is a minus multiply times and by more than -10 it's not a coincidence. They are bad defensively.


+/- is SUPER usage dependant, for a few reasons.

1. It's essentially an on-ice stat with no controls for quality of competition (impactful for certain players), zone starts (rarely a major factor, but relevant. Not really gonna hurt Stammer though), score effects (relevant), or quality of teammates (very relevant.)
2. It's strength controls are dumb. PP goals for don't count as pluses but shorties against do, so PP time can only hurt your +/-. Similarly, PK time can only help it (shorties for count but PK goals against don't.) The big one though is that 6v5 GA (goals against with an empty net) count as normal, so players with significant 6v5 icetime get REALLY heavily hurt by it.
3. It's a count stat, not a rate or percentage. This means high icetime is required for significant swings either way. The worst players in the league are usually close to average by +/- because they don't see much icetime, while the bottom of the ladder is populated by guys like Edmonton-era Taylor Hall, star players on crap teams. The fact that such players tend to get lots of PP and EN icetime doesn't help matters.
The other big issue over a small sample is that it's a goal based metric, which makes it really vulnerable to wild swings as shooters/goalies run hot and cold. There's a reason one of the first and most prominent luck stats in hockey (PDO) is just on-ice shooting% + on-ice save%. Goals are super volatile over any sample smaller than 3-ish years for an individual player.

I'll look up some other numbers on Stammer's D this year and see how he stacks up to past years. It's entirely possible he hasn't been good, but PLEASE stop using +/-. 5v5 GF% (the percentage of goals scored that were scored by a player's team with that player on the ice at 5v5) does essentially the same job but cleans up some of the usage stuff. Regression models (like Evolving-hockey's RAPMs) are even better, with the added bonus of separating out offence and defence.

Use better stats!
Random2152 and Zwui21 liked this.
Nov. 19, 2019 at 8:55 p.m.
#14
Banned
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 3,489
Likes: 1,491
Quoting: BOLTLOVER1
Another worthless loser ..


Ouch that hurts coming from the biggest cry baby on this site.
Random2152 liked this.
Nov. 19, 2019 at 8:55 p.m.
#15
Thread Starter
BOLT LOVER
Avatar of the user
Joined: Dec. 2018
Posts: 2,120
Likes: 358
Finally a good reply Pielord .. thxs.. some valid .. some not .. assuming you are familiar with statistics and sample size and the randomness of numbers .. thing such as goalie, # games etc.. even out for everyone over time with enough inputs .. and even minutes should not matter .. one thing you mention above is PP and PK do count but in inverse way .. did not know this. So more PP time leads to potential more short handed goal which does count as minus .. interesting
Nov. 19, 2019 at 8:59 p.m.
#16
I put math in hockey
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jun. 2018
Posts: 624
Likes: 167
Stamkos's 5v5 expected goals against RAPM this season is about half a standard deviation below league average, which is an improvement from where he's typically been the last few years (about 1 SD below average). Not good, but at least close to average. Interestingly, his corsi against RAPM is holding pretty steady at about 3/4 of an SD below average, right in line with his averages over the last few years. So he's doing a better job of restricting quality of chances, while being about the same in the quantity he allows.

The poor +/- seems to be more to do with less plus than more minus. He's been below league-average in goals for, expected goals for and corsi for. Part of this is less shooting luck, Stammer's usually had elite goal generation with only decent to good chance generation, and goals are super volatile, but it's still concerning. Especially since Stamkos is about to turn 30, he's been elite his whole career, but time hasn't lost one yet.

He should be fine, but I've been saying the same thing about the Leafs all year and they seem determined to prove me wrong, so yeah. Not ideal.
Random2152 liked this.
Nov. 19, 2019 at 9:01 p.m.
#17
Banned
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 3,489
Likes: 1,491
Quoting: Bf3351
Are you stupid? When someone is a minus multiple times and by more than -10 it's not a coincidence. They are bad defensively.


Ryan O'Reilly is a career -23, but just won the Selke. So your logic is wrong
Random2152 liked this.
Nov. 19, 2019 at 9:09 p.m.
#18
Thread Starter
BOLT LOVER
Avatar of the user
Joined: Dec. 2018
Posts: 2,120
Likes: 358
Edited Nov. 19, 2019 at 9:44 p.m.
Quoting: The_Ultimate_Pielord
Stamkos's 5v5 expected goals against RAPM this season is about half a standard deviation below league average, which is an improvement from where he's typically been the last few years (about 1 SD below average). Not good, but at least close to average. Interestingly, his corsi against RAPM is holding pretty steady at about 3/4 of an SD below average, right in line with his averages over the last few years. So he's doing a better job of restricting quality of chances, while being about the same in the quantity he allows.

The poor +/- seems to be more to do with less plus than more minus. He's been below league-average in goals for, expected goals for and corsi for. Part of this is less shooting luck, Stammer's usually had elite goal generation with only decent to good chance generation, and goals are super volatile, but it's still concerning. Especially since Stamkos is about to turn 30, he's been elite his whole career, but time hasn't lost one yet.

He should be fine, but I've been saying the same thing about the Leafs all year and they seem determined to prove me wrong, so yeah. Not ideal.


Thanks!!! .. backs up my gut on Stamkos last several years and has been worse in playoffs ... amazing with #1 NHL FO% this would be case this year .. it really odd as he seems to be more a one timer PP guy as he ages ..
Nov. 19, 2019 at 9:12 p.m.
#19
I put math in hockey
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jun. 2018
Posts: 624
Likes: 167
Quoting: BOLTLOVER1
Finally a good reply Pielord .. thxs.. some valid .. some not .. assuming you are familiar with statistics and sample size and the randomness of numbers .. thing such as goalie, # games etc.. even out for everyone over time with enough inputs .. and even minutes should not matter .. one thing you mention above is PP and PK do count but in inverse way .. did not know this. So more PP time leads to potential more short handed goal which does count as minus .. interesting


Yeah I have no idea why the NHL does the special teams thing. The volatility of goals does even out over time, but it can take a while. 3-ish years of data is usually the baseline for saying a major difference between goals and expected goals is real and not just a result of luck. Minutes ends up mattering just as a result of scale, if you have a guy play 3000 minutes and his team's +1 goals per 60 over their opponents with him on the ice and another guy gets to +1.5 goals per 60 but only gets 1500 minutes, guy 1 has a +/- of +50 (3000/60*1) while guy 2 has a +/- of +37.5 (so 37 or 38) (1500*60*1.5), despite the fact that he won his minutes by more than guy one.

Quality of teammates can have a huge impact on performance. Tomas Chabot, an excellent young defenseman, is currently rocking an ugly 40.5 GF% at 5v5 this year, with a 45% CF% and 48% xGF%. He's an excellent young defenceman by both the analytics and the eye test and helps his team a lot, but the current Sens are beyond saving, especially when he's been shackled to the great boat anchor that is Nikita Zaitsev. Some guys can carry awful teammates and still achieve success (like Mark Stone), but it's not infrequent for star players to be underwater by raw on-ice metrics because their teammates are too bad to carry.
Nov. 19, 2019 at 9:16 p.m.
#20
Thread Starter
BOLT LOVER
Avatar of the user
Joined: Dec. 2018
Posts: 2,120
Likes: 358
Agree on plus minus relative to team .. players and goalies matter alot .. never compare absolutes across NHL .. but plus minus valid within team .. with asterisk for special teams I guess
Nov. 19, 2019 at 9:17 p.m.
#21
I put math in hockey
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jun. 2018
Posts: 624
Likes: 167
Quoting: BOLTLOVER1
Thanks!!! .. backs up my gut on Stamkos last several years and has been worse in playoffs ... amazing with #1 NHL FO% this would be case this year .. it really odd as he seems to be more a one timer PP guy as he ages ..


IIRC one of the things EvolvingWild and CJ Turtoro found with their research into aging curves is that almost all of a player's lost value over time is at 5v5, special teams numbers remain pretty consistent well into a guy's 30's. So it fits that Stamkos would rely more on being a PP gunner as he ages (his PP numbers are still amazing, too).
BOLTLOVER1 liked this.
Nov. 19, 2019 at 9:23 p.m.
#22
I put math in hockey
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jun. 2018
Posts: 624
Likes: 167
Quoting: BOLTLOVER1
Agree on plus minus relative to team .. players and goalies matter alot .. never compare absolutes across NHL .. but plus minus valid within team .. with asterisk for special teams I guess


It'd be better as a rate, since guys can't control how much their coach wants to play them, and it'd be better with more context than just relative to team (teammates within the same team can change a LOT. Just look at the with/without Mark Stone numbers for the Sens last year). So we need to analyze 5v5 and special teams differently, factor in contextual factors and change it to a rate: that creates the GF RAPM (and expected goals against RAPM for defense, since the difference between expected and actual goals is the goalie's responsability).

That's the big issue with +/-, even with some controls, it's just a lesser version of other stats. There's occasionally something to be gleaned in the difference between a player's isolated impact and what results on the ice, but for the most part RAPMs are just always better.
Nov. 19, 2019 at 9:24 p.m.
#23
Banned
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 9,721
Likes: 2,805
Quoting: hockeyfanatic05
Ryan O'Reilly is a career -23, but just won the Selke. So your logic is wrong


He also won it by being a +22 ya dummie. As I stated before When someone is a -10 or a bigger minus multiple times its not a coincidence. ROR only had two years like that. While being on a horrible team back then he was either a plus or barely in the minus category. Which pretty much shows you how good he is defensively. So your logic is wrong. Players never really win the Selke or the Norris while being a minus

And he is actually a career -33. Shows how well you know what you are talking about.
BOLTLOVER1 liked this.
Nov. 19, 2019 at 9:29 p.m.
#24
Banned
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 3,489
Likes: 1,491
Quoting: Bf3351
He also won it by being a +22 ya dummie. As I stated before When someone is a -10 or a bigger minus multiple times its not a coincidence. ROR only had two years like that. While being on a horrible team back then he was either a plus or barely in the minus category. Which pretty much shows you how good he is defensively. So your logic is wrong. Players never really win the Selke or the Norris while being a minus

And he is actually a career -33. Shows how well you know what you are talking about.


You realize how dumb you look do you? "As I stated before when someone is a -10 or a bigger minus multiple years its not a coincidence" 2017-2018 season -23 and 2015-16 season -16. So by your logic, he's bad defensively because he had 2 seasons with -10+. "ROR only had two years like that. While being on a horrible team back then he was either a plus or barely in the minus category." Had a -23 and -16 years. Plus minus is a horrible stat to use. You're probably one of those fans who also use goalie wins to judge goalies lmao
Nov. 19, 2019 at 9:31 p.m.
#25
I put math in hockey
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jun. 2018
Posts: 624
Likes: 167
Quoting: hockeyfanatic05
Ryan O'Reilly is a career -23, but just won the Selke. So your logic is wrong


Don't cite trophies as evidence of anything. Kopitar won a Selke for his offence. Vasilevskiy's Vezina was almost literally a participation trophy, he got it for being the goalie for the Lightning more than his actual play. And, most relevantly, we want evidence that is relevant to every player in the league, not the tiny fraction that get these trophies.

The better evidence for +/- based logic being wrong is that +/- is a bad stat that tells us more about the situation a player is placed in than anything about the player themselves. ROR was always a very good player, but in Buffalo was forced to eat tough minutes alongside awful teammates. He's a very good 2-way centre (20th in EVD GAR since the start of the 2016-17 season), but not on the level of a guy like Mikko Koivu (whose EVD GAR is double O'Reilly's over that timeframe). For those wondering, he ranked 13th last year among skaters with over 1000 minutes, while Mark Stone ranked first.
BOLTLOVER1 and Random2152 liked this.
 
Reply
To create a post please Login or Register
Question:
Options:
Add Option
Submit Poll