I think ppl are forgetting that these are just the top three in votes. For all we know, yak and schultz could be just behind at 4,5. I do think yakupov should be in the top three and brodin as well but who do you take out? Saad probably.
Schultz however seemed in a little over his head (understandably so) playing top line minutes and has a lot of work to do defensively and picking his spots.
I live in the East so i only got to see 1 oilers game a week along with all their game highlights so not pretending to be an expert here, just from what i saw schultz has a ways to go.

Why?
- rollpards19

Pascal Dupuis- +31
Pavel Datsyuk- +21

Jakub Kindl- +15
Ryan Suter- +2

When looked at incorrectly or out of context (like it often is), it's a useless stat.

When looked at incorrectly or out of context (like it often is), it's a useless stat.
- MaximumBone

Which unfortunately seems like more often than not. It seems to confuse people.

You can look at the career stats of many Selke winners, and you'll see some scary +/- numbers some years. Likely because they've spent some time on a basement team drawing number 1 lines night in night out.

I cant stand +/-. I wish the NHL would do away with the stat entirely.
- Dirte

The stat I hate is how the team is doing when leading after the first or second period. The commentator "this team is 100% this year when up by 5 going into the third" or even this team is more than 50% when they score first.

Of course they are. They scored first. That is how you win... getting more goals. So the odds of a team coming back are almost always going to be less that 50%. I want to punch them every time they say that and when they say it with more than one goal I think they should get one in the junk as well.

The stat I hate is how the team is doing when leading after the first or second period. The commentator "this team is 100% this year when up by 5 going into the third" or even this team is more than 50% when they score first.

Of course they are. They scored first. That is how you win... getting more goals. So the odds of a team coming back are almost always going to be less that 50%. I want to punch they every time they say that and when they say it with more than one goal I think they should get one in the junk as well.
- bsteinley

yeah. or "15-0-1 when leading after 2 periods". Although, when you start to compare it to the rest of the league, it can tell you how good a team is at choking off the offense of the other team and shutting the game down.

Pascal Dupuis- +31
Pavel Datsyuk- +21

Jakub Kindl- +15
Ryan Suter- +2

When looked at incorrectly or out of context (like it often is), it's a useless stat.
- MaximumBone

Nazem Kadri: 44 pts
Patrice Bergeron: 32 pts

When looked at incorrectly or out of context, its a useless stat. You can say that about every stat IMO

Nazem Kadri: 44 pts
Patrice Bergeron: 32 pts

When looked at incorrectly or out of context, its a useless stat. You can say that about every stat IMO
- rollpards19

But points rarely are looked at out of context because there aren't many ways for such a stat to be looked at incorrectly. If you're looking at +/-, chances are most people are looking at it to determine one's ability defensively. In contrast, when looking at one's points most people (if not everyone) is looking at it to determine a players effectiveness on offense. In this case, Kadri WAS the more effective player on offense.

I can see your point, but +/- leaves a lot more possibility for misunderstanding than most other stats.

Nazem Kadri: 44 pts
Patrice Bergeron: 32 pts

When looked at incorrectly or out of context, its a useless stat. You can say that about every stat IMO
- rollpards19

Except, points being a measure of offense, and I'd say Kadri definitely provided more offense than Bergeron did this year. Quite easily in fact. So... I'm not so sure you're proving your point very well.

Except, points being a measure of offense, and I'd say Kadri definitely provided more offense than Bergeron did this year. Quite easily in fact. So... I'm not so sure you're proving your point very well.
- Dirte

But all +- says is that you were on the ice for more ES/SH goals than you were for ES/PP goals against, and thats the point of the game. The argument against +- is often sample size, but goals are the only thing that counts for points as well. I'm not arguing that +- is more important than points, I'm just saying I don't think the NHL should get rid of it

But points rarely are looked at out of context because there aren't many ways for such a stat to be looked at incorrectly. If you're looking at +/-, chances are most people are looking at it to determine one's ability defensively. In contrast, when looking at one's points most people (if not everyone) is looking at it to determine a players effectiveness on offense. In this case, Kadri WAS the more effective player on offense.

I can see your point, but +/- leaves a lot more possibility for misunderstanding than most other stats.
- MaximumBone

Did Kessel go from one of the top defensive (or two way) forwards in the game in his last year with the Bruins, to the worst with the Leafs, and now back again?

Or, was he playing in front of Tim Thomas and Zdeno Chara one year, then Toskala, Kaberle, and Gustavsson the next?

But points rarely are looked at out of context because there aren't many ways for such a stat to be looked at incorrectly. If you're looking at +/-, chances are most people are looking at it to determine one's ability defensively. In contrast, when looking at one's points most people (if not everyone) is looking at it to determine a players effectiveness on offense. In this case, Kadri WAS the more effective player on offense.

I can see your point, but +/- leaves a lot more possibility for misunderstanding than most other stats.
- MaximumBone

Kadri's insane on ice shooting percentage to start the year was just as misleading as any +- stat IMO. I just don't think its fair to discard +- while not pointing out that flaws exist in other statistics as well. Thanks to both you guys for civil discussion

Well, at least we know your opinion. On a degree of hardness, it's about a minus 2.2.

The only thing correct in your argument is concerning Bodin. He was a better rookie than both the Yakker and Schultz. Mind you, I suspect both our guys will be better players through their careers than any of them, but that's not what the Calder is about.

Eastern bias my ass. Truth was it was a sad rookie crop.

It took all season for Yakupov to learn the ropes, and Schultz fizzled from overload and was anything but a good player in the last half of the schedule. Which is all OK. But this summer he will lift a few weights and at least have a clue about how to handle an 82-game schedule. Trophies be damned; they win you zilch down the line.

Remember that Howie Meeker won the Calder for the Leafs. A lot of good it did either.
Maroussi

Stats are the bottom line. Landeskog was trash til the last 25 games last year then he lit it up and won it.
- TheNugeIsHuge

25 games is well over 25% of the season, plus Colorado didn't finish as poorly as Edmonton, nice try.

Edit: And I fully believe the Nuge should have won the Calder. I think he was robbed. GP should have been a factor in that debacle.

But all +- says is that you were on the ice for more ES/SH goals than you were for ES/PP goals against, and thats the point of the game. The argument against +- is often sample size, but goals are the only thing that counts for points as well. I'm not arguing that +- is more important than points, I'm just saying I don't think the NHL should get rid of it
- rollpards19

as I said earlier, the reason I say so is because it's so misused and abused. You get people making stupid comments like "but _____ has a +/- of -10 and ______ has +20." Great. One guy plays defensive minutes against other team's first lines, the other plays for a top team ON their first line.

Look at a guy like Rod Brind'amour. One of the top defensive forwards of the past decade (or a little before). Look at his career stats. When he was on stacked teams, he ended up with huge points, and +/- numbers that were out of control. He shut the play down, passed it off, and collected points and jacked his stats. He was the same player on those bad teams, but he routinely drew the first line, had no one to pass to, and no matter what he did, the puck ended up at the back of his own net. You'll see similar wild swings in other similar Selke type players. That's why Jordan Staal's numbers took such a beating this year. It's the duties he's drawing, on the team he's on.

Some of the more notable defensive dmen routinely have bad +/-'s. Worse than the defensively poor guys. Especially when they draw big minutes, on bad teams. Its not the player, it's the role they're playing.

The latter half of the season Nail was one of our best players and he started the season quite well all things considered (KHL-WJC-NHL, 9-game road trip and such). Sure he had a pretty length goalless drought, but you say that like Huberdeau didn't. He had a few droughts himself. To discount what Yakupov did because he had droughts that almost every rookie suffers from is wrong especially in a year when the scoring race is so close. I include Yakupov in the voting over Gallagher, but I don't think he wins.
- MaximumBone

Huberdeau has nobody. NOBODY. The Nuge, Ebs, Hall. All of these so called superhuman untouchables. Those three are more skilled than anyone on Florida's roster.

25 games is well over 25% of the season, plus Colorado didn't finish as poorly as Edmonton, nice try.

Edit: And I fully believe the Nuge should have won the Calder. I think he was robbed. GP should have been a factor in that debacle.
- trolleytracks

I don't know. Landeskog is an absolute beast in every situation.

Huberdeau has nobody. NOBODY. The Nuge, Ebs, Hall. All of these so called superhuman untouchables. Those three are more skilled than anyone on Florida's roster.
- trolleytracks

It's also not just about linemates. Having a few other players throughout the team means less coverage getting focused on one or two players.

It's also not just about linemates. Having a few other players throughout the team means less coverage getting focused on one or two players.
- Dirte

So you're saying that Yakupov had more coverage during games than Huberdeau did? Who would people cover? The coach? Yak had a solid finish, but he was a ghost for most of the season. The Calder is rookie of the year, not rookie of the month.

Huberdeau has nobody. NOBODY. The Nuge, Ebs, Hall. All of these so called superhuman untouchables. Those three are more skilled than anyone on Florida's roster.
- trolleytracks

But he didn't play with any of them consistently during 5-on-5 play. Just to be clear, I agree that Huberdeau would/should win the Calder over Yakupov.

And no one with a valid opinion called them "superhuman".

I don't know. Landeskog is an absolute beast in every situation.
- Dirte

He was, I'm not trying to take away from his accomplishments, I'm just saying that had the Nuge not been injured he would have demolished Landeskog in points and ran away with the Calder. Landeskog won the Calder on the iron man stat, not on actual talent or being the better rookie.

So you're saying that Yakupov had more coverage during games than Huberdeau did? Who would people cover? The coach? Yak had a solid finish, but he was a ghost for most of the season. The Calder is rookie of the year, not rookie of the month.
- trolleytracks

oh no, I was agreeing actually. It's not like other teams can key on Yakupov. As bad as Edmonton's D is, they have the tools to put a few lines of offense out there. It's pretty damn easy to key on Huberdeau and his line. There is no one else there. What? You think Marcel Goc is gonna run roughshod all over you?

He was, I'm not trying to take away from his accomplishments, I'm just saying that had the Nuge not been injured he would have demolished Landeskog in points and ran away with the Calder. Landeskog won the Calder on the iron man stat, not on actual talent or being the better rookie.
- trolleytracks

I think had he played the whole season, he probably would have gotten the award. Personally, I'd rather Landeskog. He does everything. That's the guy I'd rather have on my team.

oh no, I was agreeing actually. It's not like other teams can key on Yakupov. As bad as Edmonton's D is, they have the tools to put a few lines of offense out there. It's pretty damn easy to key on Huberdeau and his line. There is no one else there. What? You think Marcel Goc is gonna run roughshod all over you?
- Dirte

Goc

I think had he played the whole season, he probably would have gotten the award. Personally, I'd rather Landeskog. He does everything. That's the guy I'd rather have on my team.
- Dirte

I'd rather have the Nuge, he's more skilled and has a higher hockey IQ, but only if he would go to the gym and put a few cheeseburgers down his throat. He's too small to be a superstar right now.

as I said earlier, the reason I say so is because it's so misused and abused. You get people making stupid comments like "but _____ has a +/- of -10 and ______ has +20." Great. One guy plays defensive minutes against other team's first lines, the other plays for a top team ON their first line.

Look at a guy like Rod Brind'amour. One of the top defensive forwards of the past decade (or a little before). Look at his career stats. When he was on stacked teams, he ended up with huge points, and +/- numbers that were out of control. He shut the play down, passed it off, and collected points and jacked his stats. He was the same player on those bad teams, but he routinely drew the first line, had no one to pass to, and no matter what he did, the puck ended up at the back of his own net. You'll see similar wild swings in other similar Selke type players. That's why Jordan Staal's numbers took such a beating this year. It's the duties he's drawing, on the team he's on.

Some of the more notable defensive dmen routinely have bad +/-'s. Worse than the defensively poor guys. Especially when they draw big minutes, on bad teams. Its not the player, it's the role they're playing.
- Dirte

Yeah, you're making good points. I think I wasn't grasping it because I don't look at +- like people who are making stupid comments. I know Pascal Dupuis isn't that much better than Datsyuk, but I wasn't considering some people would even think that. I still like the stat for what it is