I’d guess this (and probably the MVP table) could use some context.  There seem to be some nice defensive players on here that play some awfully tough assignments.  Their poor rates may be more about context and less about ability, and even less about “value”.

Pahlsson may not be outscoring anyone, but in taking the toughest assignments available, I have to think he’s boosting Getzlaf’s numbers some (by virtue of Getzlaf’s easier assignments).  There’s definitely some value in that, but you probably can’t isolate it in just Pahlsson’s numbers alone.

Posted by Earl Sleek from Anaheim, CA on 11/21/08 at 04:22 PM ET

Behind the Net does offer a Quality of Competition measurement that you can reference (some of those column headings are links to the appropriate listing), and the ones I looked up (such as Chara) didn’t have values there that were particularly out of line with the rest of their team.  I didn’t include Qualcomp here because the table is already cluttered enough for this space.

That does raise an interesting question, though; if a guy is taking the tough matchups, where does one set the bar to determine whether they’re doing a good job?  With Pahlsson in 5-on-5, when he’s on the ice the Ducks are getting outscored basically 3-2, and when he’s on the bench that ratio is reversed in Anaheim’s favor.  That’s a pretty significant swing…

Personally, I liken it to my own observation of what we have here in Nashville in a defenseman like Greg Zanon.  He’s a salt-of-the-earth guy that everybody likes; he’ll go down to block shots and does the tough work to defend the net.  But to me, it begs the question of whether, if the guy contributed a bit more offensively, he wouldn’t be stuck in his own zone so much having to do all that stuff.  I don’t care how good you are defensively, if you spend too much time in your own end, something bad’s gonna happen.  Is that the case with other renowned defensive specialists?  I think it’s an interesting question.

I knew that Pahlsson’s appearance on here would get a comment out of you, Earl!

Posted by Forechecker from Nolensville, TN on 11/21/08 at 04:37 PM ET

Yeah, and don’t get me wrong—Pahlsson could definitely have a better year thus far this season.  I really don’t mind that he’s put there right now.

But him, Moen, Madden, Axelsson, Draper—there’s a few names that do get associated with the word “shutdown” and sometimes even with the word “Selke”.

I think there’s got to be some way to account for their responsibilities, because clearly their coaches aren’t insane-- they get played in tough minutes for a reason, and in doing so, they do help their teams’ scorers escape the tough assignments. 

Perhaps my main issue is the use of the word “value”—there is tremendous value in guys like Selanne and Getzlaf never really having to play against a Joe Thornton or a Jason Spezza or a Sid Crosby.  Pahlsson takes a numbers hit for taking that assignment, sure, but I think the team is generally better off for it.

Posted by Earl Sleek from Anaheim, CA on 11/21/08 at 04:47 PM ET

One thing to remember is that these Rates are all relative to the rest of each player’s team.  So, for example, if the Ducks played a bunch of teams that had one dangerous scoring line and a bunch of scrubs, and the Pahlsson line drew that tough assignment, it would make sense for them to have some horrid results here.

What I’m trying to get at here is a counting stat that includes offensive, defensive, and penalty-related performance rolled into one measurement.  After yesterday’s roasting of traditional Plus/Minus, I think it’s worth kicking some ideas around.

Posted by Forechecker from Nolensville, TN on 11/21/08 at 04:57 PM ET

Interesting....but Earl, I’ve got to say that I would never have expected to see Moen in the same sentence as Selke, but that’s just me

Posted by Sheldon from Winnipeg, MB on 11/21/08 at 05:04 PM ET

After yesterday’s roasting of traditional Plus/Minus, I think it’s worth kicking some ideas around.

Totally, and I don’t want to knock what you’ve got here too badly—it’s still telling us who’s getting relatively outscored in many situations, which is useful information.  It’s just not always clear on “why”—maybe they’re terrible, or maybe they’re valuable in a tough spot.

It’s not like I have much concrete to fix it with, either.  But I will remain convinced of one concept, no matter what the table says: some of Ryan Getzlaf’s +32 last year has to be attributable to Sammy Pahlsson.  There’s no way that Getzlaf gets those numbers if he plays in a greater share of Pahlsson minutes, that’s for sure.

Posted by Earl Sleek from Anaheim, CA on 11/21/08 at 05:04 PM ET

but Earl, I’ve got to say that I would never have expected to see Moen in the same sentence as Selke, but that’s just me

Fair enough.  I was referring more to a role assignment than an actual trophy winner. 

I assumed that everyone already knew that nobody on the west coast will ever win a Selke Trophy.

Posted by Earl Sleek from Anaheim, CA on 11/21/08 at 05:06 PM ET

I gotta tell you it doesn’t pass the WTF test.  Stats in general should have intuitive results.  you should look at the majority of the answers and feel like it makes sense.  In this case I go down both lists and think WTF a few too many times.  There are just too many non-intuitive results to be happy with the overall result.  It’s more than I’ve done so I shouldn’t critique the attempt but...WTF

Posted by mogen_david from Great Basin on 11/21/08 at 05:33 PM ET

This list runs into more problems than the other one.  It’s still useful, but not for determining the worst players.  Quality of competition is a huge player here.

But there are other issues specific to the PP/PK ratings.  Ask yourself which player contributes more: the worst penalty killer on a team who still gets regular minutes, or the guy who never touches ice while shorthanded.  The first player will have a negative rating (and how negative that rating is depends on how good the rest of his teams PK’ers is), while the second guy has a rating of 0.

Posted by Ryan from Toronto on 11/21/08 at 06:15 PM ET

I think a part of your reaction is due to the nature of goal-scoring; at this point in the season bounce or two one way or the other can have a significant effect (but not overwhelming).

That said, I’d expect there to be some surprising results here; since we never (outside of traditional Plus/Minus) see defense even attempt to be measured in skaters’ performance, when in reality it’s as much a part of the game as offense, we should expect that when it is included, it throws off our usual listings like crazy.

Posted by Forechecker from Nolensville, TN on 11/21/08 at 06:17 PM ET

Given that it’s a bit early and a bounce here and a bounce there could thow the numbers off have you run the numbers on last years full season.  It might give you a good check.  Compare them to Ryders PC and a few other “whole” player comparisons.

I think you overrate the system when it contradicts expectations this often.  Yes, offence is overrated and defence is hard to measure (When is a non event an event and not just nothing happening?) but the overall results should make you nod your head knowingly not scratch it.  The exceptions should make you say, yeah I hadn’t considered that aspect before.  For now, I’m still skeptical

Besides, I’m not a fan of trying to sum a player up into one number anyway.  I’d rather see the bits.  How well does he kill a penalty, shoot the puck. prevent quality shots, etc.  Trying to wad it all up into one value always bothers me.  You always lose information.  Hockey analyst seem to always be chasing this grail.  I think the plus/minus stat and the quest for a better one has trapped many a stat head better than cheese or a cat ever could.

Posted by Mogen_David from Great Basin on 11/21/08 at 06:37 PM ET

Salvador has actually been very good for the Devils. 

Kalinin = total garbage.

Posted by Mr. Sinister on 12/18/08 at 03:56 PM ET