sameer666 Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Not possible. As Lonny will tell you, I have been displeased with Bieksa on many occasions, but anyone who can't see that he's played pretty much the best he ever has in the NHL this season, is looking through his own little bubble-vision glasses. Doesn't hurt to try =P. He will probably selectively ignore my post as he does to any other rational responses. O well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANUCKLELION Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 What's the point you are trying to make? The point is Bxa is an under talented mouth piece that's still a Canuck only because of the injuries to Salo, Edler etc. MG loaded up on D, was ready to pull the trigger on trading Bxa, but couldn't due to injuries to the bigger, better more talented,Dmen on the team. Bxa makes a lot of smart sassed public comments that I'm sure do nothing to endear him to his teammates as a leader. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoTzuMe Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 The point is Bxa is an under talented mouth piece that's still a Canuck only because of the injuries to Salo, Edler etc. MG loaded up on D, was ready to pull the trigger on trading Bxa, but couldn't due to injuries to the bigger, better more talented,Dmen on the team. Bxa makes a lot of smart sassed public comments that I'm sure do nothing to endear him to his teammates as a leader. Yup, he was going to be the odd man out. Now, there's a debate as to whether him or Ehrhoff will be the one to go. That's how well he's played. Amazing. Thanks for telling us how far we've come, CXLion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANUCKLELION Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Yup, he was going to be the odd man out. Now, there's a debate as to whether him or Ehrhoff will be the one to go. That's how well he's played. Amazing. Thanks for telling us how far we've come, CXLion. debate? There is no debate, Ehrhoff is clearly the better Dman and isn't the one asked by the coaching staff to change his game in order to contribute to the team vs detract, Bxa was asked to change and to his credit has. IMO Bxa can be replaced much more easily than Ehrhoff. ie. if push came to shove Ehrhoff could easily play Bxa's role but Bxa can't even come close to playing Ehrhoff's role on the team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vwnuck Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 debate? There is no debate, Ehrhoff is clearly the better Dman and isn't the one asked by the coaching staff to change his game in order to contribute to the team vs detract, Bxa was asked to change and to his credit has. IMO Bxa can be replaced much more easily than Ehrhoff. ie. if push came to shove Ehrhoff could easily play Bxa's role but Bxa can't even come close to playing Ehrhoff's role on the team. Not true. He was asked to play as specific role. He was not asked to change his game. Nice play on words by the way. With no salo and a lack of good right handed d men. Bieksa was the obvious choice for shut down role. Ehrhoff was not even a choice he is terrible in his own end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANUCKLELION Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Not true. He was asked to play as specific role. He was not asked to change his game. Nice play on words by the way. With no salo and a lack of good right handed d men. Bieksa was the obvious choice for shut down role. Ehrhoff was not even a choice he is terrible in his own end. talk about not true. lol, if Ehrhoff is terrible, Bxa is atrocious in his own end. Even in this, his turn around year Bxa still leads the team in giveaways. And even with his turnaround in the +/- stats, Bxa has an NHL career +/- of +3. lol. The younger, bigger, faster, more consistent Hoff has a career +/- of , are you sitting down? +67. He is +64 ahead of Bxa. lol BXa isn't even close to being as good as the Hoff either offensively or defensively. Plus did you see him scrap the other night? He's a wildman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 The point is Bxa is an under talented mouth piece that's still a Canuck only because of the injuries to Salo, Edler etc. MG loaded up on D, was ready to pull the trigger on trading Bxa, but couldn't due to injuries to the bigger, better more talented,Dmen on the team. Bxa makes a lot of smart sassed public comments that I'm sure do nothing to endear him to his teammates as a leader. So, now he's too sassy? Honestly, you're the best troll ever! EVAR! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sameer666 Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 talk about not true. lol, if Ehrhoff is terrible, Bxa is atrocious in his own end. Even in this, his turn around year Bxa still leads the team in giveaways. And even with his turnaround in the +/- stats, Bxa has an NHL career +/- of +3. lol. The younger, bigger, faster, more consistent Hoff has a career +/- of , are you sitting down? +67. He is +64 ahead of Bxa. lol BXa isn't even close to being as good as the Hoff either offensively or defensively. Plus did you see him scrap the other night? He's a wildman. So now plus minus is more important? if you actually watched a Canucks game without only focussing on Bieksa you would notice ehrhoff is the biggest defensive liability on our blue line(other than Rome/Alberts) he is a turnover machine. Also your forgetting the part about ehrhoff played on the sharks while they were tearing up the regular seasons for a couple years, but in those four seasons he only managed a career high of +10. He was nicknamed by the fans "Error" there. It was only when he came here he had a huge season for his plus/minus going +36 (much like what Bieksa is doing this season) his overall plus/minus skyrocketed. 5 on 5 points Christian Ehrhoff 11 points and +12 Kevin Bieksa 15 points and +23 Since we are going off of +/- now according to you, and according to these stats, KB is the better defensive player and the one you would rather have on the ice in any 5 on 5 situation since he is more effective offensively and defensively. Now stop being a chickensh*t and respond to a post thats proving you wrong for once instead of just responding to ones that are arguable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Champions of Nothing Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 I am so confused of whether +/- is a completely telling stat on defensive prowess or just a matter of luck, timing, and circumstance. CANUCKLELION can you please clean this up for me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCammer Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 talk about not true. lol, if Ehrhoff is terrible, Bxa is atrocious in his own end. Even in this, his turn around year Bxa still leads the team in giveaways. And even with his turnaround in the +/- stats, Bxa has an NHL career +/- of +3. lol. The younger, bigger, faster, more consistent Hoff has a career +/- of , are you sitting down? +67. He is +64 ahead of Bxa. lol BXa isn't even close to being as good as the Hoff either offensively or defensively. Plus did you see him scrap the other night? He's a wildman. Blah, blah. blah.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joesakiciscool Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 I am so confused of whether +/- is a completely telling stat on defensive prowess or just a matter of luck, timing, and circumstance. CANUCKLELION can you please clean this up for me? Well I don't understand either isn't it just luck when your on or off the ice ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marinated.pea Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 First was Bieksa's defense ability Then it was Bieksa's offense ability Then it was Bieksa's fighting ability Now's it's Bieksa's height and weight I believe Canucklelion's next complaint about Bieksa will be either his haircut or beard, but he could well be saying Bieksa is the worse dressed Canuck. He is really running out of stuff to complaint about Bieksa. Ooh, close but no dice, Whoopsy! He actually went the "sassy" route: The point is Bxa is an under talented mouth piece that's still a Canuck only because of the injuries to Salo, Edler etc. MG loaded up on D, was ready to pull the trigger on trading Bxa, but couldn't due to injuries to the bigger, better more talented,Dmen on the team. Bxa makes a lot of smart sassed public comments that I'm sure do nothing to endear him to his teammates as a leader. Thanks for playing though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Well I don't understand either isn't it just luck when your on or off the ice ?? Luck is certainly part of it, however, logic dictates that when a player spends a large portion of his playing time against the opponents' top offensive players, (as Bieksa does) he is likely to accrue more than his share of minuses. Conversely, a player who spends the bulk of his icetime playing with his team's top forwards (as Ehrhoff does) will probably benefit with some extra pluses. Considering these two points, it's actually even more impressive (not less, as some of the haters would suggest) that Bieksa leads the team in +/-. This is almost certainly the reason that CANUCKELION puts zero stock in the stat as it pertains to Juice, except of course for past seasons when his +/- was poor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Luck is certainly part of it, however, logic dictates that when a player spends a large portion of his playing time against the opponents' top offensive players, (as Bieksa does) he is likely to accrue more than his share of minuses. Conversely, a player who spends the bulk of his icetime playing with his team's top forwards (as Ehrhoff does) will probably benefit with some extra pluses. Considering these two points, it's actually even more impressive (not less, as some of the haters would suggest) that Bieksa leads the team in +/-. This is almost certainly the reason that CANUCKELION puts zero stock in the stat as it pertains to Juice, except of course for past seasons when his +/- was poor. As most people know, I have always said that +/- is one of the most unreliable stats to gauge individual defensive performance because the nature of how it is calculated relies on many other factors. How does your team scoring more than the other team make you better defensively anyway? Hence the inherent flaw with +/- as a defensive benchmark. Having said that, you seem to be ignoring that Bieksa also gets a ton of 5 on 5 time with the Sedin and Kesler lines as well. You are making it sound like he gets only the hard minutes on one side and not the easy ones on the other. That is simply not true. It is no coincidence that Bieksa and Hamhuis +/- spiked when the Sedins and Kesler turned red hot. Bieksa and Hamhuis have been playing with them a ton and have benefited with many extra pluses as well. +/- is a team stat more than an individual one. Think of it this way......most of the Bieksa supporters suggest that Ehrhoff is way worse defensively than Bieksa, right? Well, how do you explain their +/- last year then? In that case, it will probably be explained away because he played with the Sedins and Kesler a lot......well, the same applies to Bieksa and Hamhuis this year. +/- has a lot to do with who you play with. If Bieksa and Hamhuis played with the 4th line constantly, do you think their +/- would be as good? I highly doubt it. The other players on the ice have a huge impact on any individual players +/-. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marinated.pea Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 As most people know, I have always said that +/- is one of the most unreliable stats to gauge individual defensive performance because the nature of how it is calculated relies on many other factors. How does your team scoring more than the other team make you better defensively anyway? Hence the inherent flaw with +/- as a defensive benchmark. Having said that, you seem to be ignoring that Bieksa also gets a ton of 5 on 5 time with the Sedin and Kesler lines as well. You are making it sound like he gets only the hard minutes on one side and not the easy ones on the other. That is simply not true. It is no coincidence that Bieksa and Hamhuis +/- spiked when the Sedins and Kesler turned red hot. Bieksa and Hamhuis have been playing with them a ton and have benefited with many extra pluses as well. +/- is a team stat more than an individual one. Think of it this way......most of the Bieksa supporters suggest that Ehrhoff is way worse defensively than Bieksa, right? Well, how do you explain their +/- last year then? In that case, it will probably be explained away because he played with the Sedins and Kesler a lot......well, the same applies to Bieksa and Hamhuis this year. +/- has a lot to do with who you play with. If Bieksa and Hamhuis played with the 4th line constantly, do you think their +/- would be as good? I highly doubt it. The other players on the ice have a huge impact on any individual players +/-. I'd say only recently has their icetime increased with the Twins. Before Edler's injury, it had been Edler and Ehrhoff spending the majority of the time with the Twins. Not to say playing with the Sedins hasn't benefitted either pairing, but even so, I don't think we could fully explain +/- as something concrete - in this example, as a team stat. Obviously it's a factor, but not the only factor. It doesn't explain away why Bieksa's +/- is not exactly the same as Hamhuis'. Nor does it fully credit important plays made by Bieksa (or any player for that matter) on that particular shift that may have greatly influenced the offensive rush. Like almost everyone's pointed out, +/- is a stat which is fairly difficult to explain. You could say Bieksa/Hamhuis' +/- spiked when Sedins/Kes started getting hot. I'd also say that's when the entire team started dominating. Not one answer can be "more right" than the other however. IMO it's a team stat just as it is an individual stat. Methinks if one were petty, they could go back and sort out which of the +/- was the player actually influential and which were gained via luck, but no one has that little of a life to do so Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgeparrosesmustache Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 so glad bieksa turned things around Hope Raymond pulls a bieksa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 I'd say only recently has their icetime increased with the Twins. Before Edler's injury, it had been Edler and Ehrhoff spending the majority of the time with the Twins. Not to say playing with the Sedins hasn't benefitted either pairing, but even so, I don't think we could fully explain +/- as something concrete - in this example, as a team stat. Obviously it's a factor, but not the only factor. It doesn't explain away why Bieksa's +/- is not exactly the same as Hamhuis'. Nor does it fully credit important plays made by Bieksa (or any player for that matter) on that particular shift that may have greatly influenced the offensive rush. Like almost everyone's pointed out, +/- is a stat which is fairly difficult to explain. You could say Bieksa/Hamhuis' +/- spiked when Sedins/Kes started getting hot. I'd also say that's when the entire team started dominating. Not one answer can be "more right" than the other however. IMO it's a team stat just as it is an individual stat. Methinks if one were petty, they could go back and sort out which of the +/- was the player actually influential and which were gained via luck, but no one has that little of a life to do so I am actually not sure what you are disagreeing with me about here. You are basically saying exactly what I am saying.... If you are arguing my point because you think I am somehow slighting Bieksa, dont bother. The argument was about how relatively useless +/- is as an individual benchmark of defensive play no matter who the player is and which side of +/- he is on. You are actually making my point for me, basically that +/- relies on far more than the isolated play of one player. As such, it is not a completely useful individual stat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
لني Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 I am actually not sure what you are disagreeing with me about here. You are basically saying exactly what I am saying.... If you are arguing my point because you think I am somehow slighting Bieksa, dont bother. The argument was about how relatively useless +/- is as an individual benchmark of defensive play no matter who the player is and which side of +/- he is on. You are actually making my point for me, basically that +/- relies on far more than the isolated play of one player. As such, it is not a completely useful individual stat. Out of curiosity what would be a complete individual stat for defense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marinated.pea Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 I am actually not sure what you are disagreeing with me about here. You are basically saying exactly what I am saying.... If you are arguing my point because you think I am somehow slighting Bieksa, dont bother. The argument was about how relatively useless +/- is as an individual benchmark of defensive play no matter who the player is and which side of +/- he is on. You are actually making my point for me, basically that +/- relies on far more than the isolated play of one player. As such, it is not a completely useful individual stat. I'm disagreeing with your assessment that +/- is a moreso a team stat. I'm saying there are factors outside of what the other 4 guys on the ice can influence. And no, my response was because I disagree (albeit not 100%) with your post. +/- is just as much individual as it is team because it can depend on who you're playing with just as much as who you're playing against. In Bieksa's case, for example, take the game in Washington, he kept Ovechkin off the scoresheet and still managed to chip in with an assist, and thus a +1. I would say that was an earned +. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 I'm disagreeing with your assessment that +/- is a moreso a team stat. I'm saying there are factors outside of what the other 4 guys on the ice can influence. And no, my response was because I disagree (albeit not 100%) with your post. +/- is just as much individual as it is team because it can depend on who you're playing with just as much as who you're playing against. In Bieksa's case, for example, take the game in Washington, he kept Ovechkin off the scoresheet and still managed to chip in with an assist, and thus a +1. I would say that was an earned +. The bolded part is exactly why it is not a very good individual indicator in isolation. You are also suggesting that Bieksa was solely and individually responsible for shutting down Ovechkin? I mean, no other players on the ice had anything to do with it at all? Unfortunately, hockey does not work that way. Also, there have been many games where Bieksa has been a plus player without recording a point or contributing significantly t a goal. So, how do you make the determination of when a player has earned a plus or they havent? Again, the reason it is largely a team stat. My point is that anyone who uses +/- on its own to either validate or dispute an individual players defensive ability is not being realistic. According to that logic, Mike Green was an excellent defensive player last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.