You are twisting my words buddy. Read again what I have said and that'll answer all your stupid questions.

So when Kopitar won it the season he was below ppg, did he still win it based on offense?

You said its not a coincidence when a player has multiple seasons when he's minus 10 or more, correct?

Whoops, that was even-strength minutes, not all minutes. ROR actually ranked 31st among skaters with over 1000 minutes, with Stone continuing to hold the top. Interestingly, Jesperi Kotkaniemi ranked #3 when I changed the cutoff. Weird how he didn't really get any Calder buzz.

There is a 2 to 4 year lag using a 95% regression analysis on winning the hardware .. LOL .. many trophies are reputation based rather than deserved ..

It's been proven to be one of the most flawed stats in the game. How are you gonna gauge one player and a goal against when there's 4 others out there?

PLEASE follow this thread to learn how it is relevant .. but imperfect .. as is every stat in isolation . to call it useless is mornonic .. try reading a book on probability and statistics .. they probably make one in crayon .. LOL

Compared to competitors, yeah. The league leader in EVD GAR among forwards in 2015-16 was Pavel Datsyuk (at age 37, oh my god that man), who put up 25 fewer points than Kopitar. After him was Nino Nieddereiter (31 below), Patrik Hornqvist (23 below) and Mikko Koivu (34 below). Even if you want to make the argument that the first 3 weren't used as true shutdown forwards, Koivu definitely was. Kopitar, meanwhile, ranked a majestic 56th in EVD GAR, between Nikolay Kulemin and Carl Soderberg.

His most recent Selke win the leader was Koivu, who he had 47 points on. After Koivu were Coleman (67 point difference), Danton Heinen (45 points) and Riley Nash (51 point difference). The leader among non-Koivu guys with >1500 all-sits minutes was Henrik Zetterberg (35 point difference). Kopitar ranked 51st, tied with Blake Comeau and Charles Hudon.

All of this is with a TOI cutoff of 1000 all-situations minutes unless otherwise stated.

Fun fact: both Datsyuk and Zetterberg left the NHL after their age-37 season and both of them led the league in EVD GAR among players who played as many or more minutes than them.

Christ that Red Wings core was good.

Perfect example how any stat is flawed ..

Ok, but that doesn't make the stat useless. Let's talk about Dion Phaneuf. They've been on good defensive teams in the past, yet horrible defensively and there's a big fat minus next to their name all the time. Does that make +/- irrelevant? +/- isn't always cut and dry. It takes someone with common hockey sense to fill in the blanks. Doughty for example. One of the best defensemen in the league when it comes to his defensive ability. Yet he had a horrible -34 next to his name and if you watched him he deserved most of those minuses by not playing well. I take the entire Kings team in to consideration as well as the terrible partner he had named Derek Forbort. If +/- was pointless it wouldn't be an NHL stat.

Everybody who wins a selke puts up a lot of points dude... Putting up points while being incredible in your own end makes that player even more special because it's hard to do. Kopitar could be the best defensive forward in NHL history if he dropped offense and just shut down the other team...

"The Frank J. Selke Trophy is an annual award given 'to the forward who best excels in the defensive aspects of the game.'"-NHL.com https://www.nhl.com/news/nhl-frank-j-selke-trophy-winners-complete-list/c-287904026?tid=287709666

Points are not an aspect of defense.

I will die upon this hill, possibly wearing a Mikko Koivu jersey. I blame the Younggrens.



The issue is that RAPMs do the exact same job but better. So do variants of 5v5 GF%. There's no reason to use +/- with the stats we have now.

A lot of the classic NHL boxcars are weird. Why do the first 2 passers and the goal scorer get credit on a goal, but nobody else on the ice? Why not just the first pass, like in basketball? Why factor special teams goals in only one direction? Why include empty-net stuff at all? These ideas face less scrutiny than any component of RAPMs or even GF% or CF%.

+/- is better than nothing, but it's a LOT worse than modern regression models. It'll catch some players, but it'll miss some too (Taylor Hall's always been good defensively, but his plus/minuses have typically been very bad). It's not quite in "even a broken clock is right twice a day" territory, but there's no reason to use a clock that ticks erratically when a better clock is right there.

Disagree there .. if you factor in team performance/mis performance .. plus minus is a good one but not perfect as none are .. some of the more "modern stats ones" look better on paper but not on the ice .. thxs for interesting conversation .. still perplexed on the special teams approach which makes no sense .. open net is also probably skewed against PP players as PP guys usually on ice at end ..

You can get your point across with like 300 less words. I'm sorry, what player in recent history has won the selke trophy that hasn't put up a lot of points. Your opinion does not matter. It's the way it is.

Somehow it doesn't surprise me that you put weight in +/-
Anyone that knows anything (even the most rudimentary stats and knowledge of them) knows +/- means almost nothing.

"In the long-run, shot rates ultimately converge regardless of whether the faceoff is won or lost"
"a team needs to win 164 additional power-play or penalty-kill faceoffs to get one additional win. But a team typically only takes 790 such faceoffs per season, so it would be virtually impossible to win 164 more faceoffs."



And I will just let you read this yourself on +/-.

"The weakest players are not given enough ice time to accumulate the large negative values in plus/minus. The most negative players are typically have some combination playing lots of minutes, playing for weaker teams, and carrying a low PDO. They are very rarely the worst negative players relative to ice time as well."

"What does a player with +5 rating tell you? Well that the team scored 5 more goals with them on the ice than the opposition scored (…well, not exactly, since this would be excluding power play goals for and short handed goals against as we noted earlier).

How good is that though?

Is the skater +5/-0, or +10/-5, or +15/-10, or +20/-15, or +25/-20,… +50/-45. That scale is a team controlling 100% of the goals, 66.7%, 60%, 57%, 56%,… 53%. Those are some huge differences in performance."

"even in the large samples, plus/minus fails to properly measure outscoring."



But sure, I, the informed one here is the idiot. The people saying these stats suck are always citing quantitative data.

Another thing I'd like to add is that while I did play hockey at a high level myself, you don't need to in order to know that **** stats are ****. You just need not be an obtuse idiot.

If you are going to call someone a moron and dispute their point while being a moron yourself, have the balls to @ them.

Bergeron with 53 points. You continue to look stupid.

Your logic is just plain flawed .. " .. Even with adequate sample size plus minus does not measure "out scoring"??? .. LOL .. "out scoring as opposed to in scoring"?.. LOL .. I concede special teams effects plus/minus negatively but other than that .. it is a valid measure within a team given appropriate sample size .. I hereby end this discussion .. thanks to Pielord for insight and proving the correlation between measures that Stamkos is now "an average at best" player .. the original intent of this post .. later morons.. ??

Boy. You're a special one aren't you?

You're right that points are generally a necessity to win the Selke and without a PHWA membership there's not a ton I can do.Doesn't mean I have to like it tho.

5v5 plus minus does have it's defenders but IMO there are are better options out there. GF% does the same job better in most situations since it controls for TOI and avoids over/under-rating players based on how high/low-event they are, and then it's always a good idea to control for context if you're looking for individual ability. FO% isn't completely worthless in terms of tactics, but it's not a big enough impact to be a significant part of a player's game. The 164 win marker is a little flawed, some faceoffs have more value than others (again, FO% is mostly useful for tactical choices as opposed to roster moves), but if a guy's only skill is winning faceoffs, you shouldn't go hunting for him (looking at you, Jim Benning).

Random, what are you using to get the charts to show up on CF?