Jason Lewis: Why Did Luke Schenn Not Fit?

Because he sucks.

Next question!

he was too fat to fit

tough crowd...

After the trade happened I commented about his hesitancy with the puck when making that outlet pass (much like happy feet Jim Everett, except add happy hands too) and plenty of Philly heads said to get used to it because that's what he does... I was hopeful it would work out, even after he didn't immediately re-sign, I thought he might be back at a very VERY discounted price, but it sounds like the Kings don't even want him.

He was unable to turn off the suck

Cos he's poop

But in Game 4 against the Sharks, Luke was a GOD.

Because he sucks.

Next question!
- AdamFrench

He was unable to turn off the suck
- TheGame316

for my part i was thinking that he was playing very good for them in playoffs, i was like What that guy can play better then i tought.... 2 points + 1 in 5 games with 4 lost ... still in the + .... i'll take a chance with him anytime on a 3rd pair at low cost..

for my part i was thinking that he was playing very good for them in playoffs, i was like What that guy can play better then i tought.... 2 points + 1 in 5 games with 4 lost ... still in the + .... i'll take a chance with him anytime on a 3rd pair at low cost..
- Zo0by

+/- is not a good way to evaluate players.

LA made Philly a favor by trading for L.Schenn. He's a number 5 Max. He sucks.

Because he sucks.

Next question!
- AdamFrench

Freeeeeennnnnncccchhhhhhyyyyyyy!!!!

Because he sucks.

Next question!
- AdamFrench

Nailed it Buuba. You are the real..

Surprised to see such hate here, He's no Pronger but is still a stand up guy, Stood up for teammates, some of the best hits in a game were usually from Luke, With the right partner and not trying to overplay he was a sufficient d-man and a class act. Last I checked he wasn't' arrested this week.

Many ask the same with the Simpson glove thing...Deep

Surprised to see such hate here, He's no Pronger but is still a stand up guy, Stood up for teammates, some of the best hits in a game were usually from Luke, With the right partner and not trying to overplay he was a sufficient d-man and a class act. Last I checked he wasn't' arrested this week.
- GPerogie

Yeah, no hate intended in the blog. Wish him the best. Hope he finds a team real soon and can stick around. Only 26.

+/- is not a good way to evaluate players.
- Jason Lewis

It's as perfectly as good of a stat as any if you use it properly. You can measure Corsi/chances all day, but they don't tell you how many pucks actually end up in the net, and pucks going into the net is really the only thing that matters in this game. Ultimately, the result matters more than how you got there. You can be a possession monster, but if more pucks are going into your net while you're on the ice than are going into the opponent's net (as is the case with Corsi "beasts" Brown and Shore, who were -5 and -10, respectively), it's all for nothing.

It's as perfectly as good of a stat as any if you use it properly. You can measure Corsi/chances all day, but they don't tell you how many pucks actually end up in the net, and pucks going into the net is really the only thing that matters in this game. Ultimately, the result matters more than how you got there. You can be a possession monster, but if more pucks are going into your net while you're on the ice than are going into the opponent's net (as is the case with Corsi "beasts" Brown and Shore, who were -5 and -10, respectively), it's all for nothing.
- Osprey

Wayne Gretzky was -25 in 81 games for the 93/94 Kings. Mike Donnelly was +2 in 81 games that same year for the Kings. What is to be taken form this comparison? That Donnelly was 27 goals better than Gretzky? Of course not. There are a number of things that are at play: zone starts, usage, line mates, defensive pairings, etc. But all +/- tells me is that Mike Donnelly was 27 goals better than Gretzky which I know isn't a very good measure of either player's value.

Wayne Gretzky was -25 in 81 games for the 93/94 Kings. Mike Donnelly was +2 in 81 games that same year for the Kings. What is to be taken form this comparison? That Donnelly was 27 goals better than Gretzky? Of course not. There are a number of things that are at play: zone starts, usage, line mates, defensive pairings, etc. But all +/- tells me is that Mike Donnelly was 27 goals better than Gretzky which I know isn't a very good measure of either player's value.
- Only_A_Ladd

That's why, like any stat, you shouldn't take it by itself. You explained, yourself, that there are all kinds of factors in play. That's the case for all stats. There isn't any stat that gives you a good measure of a player all by itself. That doesn't mean that all stats are worthless. Stats are not good or bad. They're simply facts that can be used or misused.

just seeing him paired with scuderi in those gifs make my eyes bleed...wtf was sutter even thinking?

Wayne Gretzky was -25 in 81 games for the 93/94 Kings. Mike Donnelly was +2 in 81 games that same year for the Kings. What is to be taken form this comparison? That Donnelly was 27 goals better than Gretzky? Of course not. There are a number of things that are at play: zone starts, usage, line mates, defensive pairings, etc. But all +/- tells me is that Mike Donnelly was 27 goals better than Gretzky which I know isn't a very good measure of either player's value.
- Only_A_Ladd

Well put.

Just a comment on the plus minus stat. Are you guys that are not taking the plus minus stat as a serious stat, supporting Corsi?

If so, how is Corsi calculated? How is plus minus calculated?

Jason Lewis: Why Did Luke Schenn Not Fit?
- Jason_Lewis

Poor footspeed.