2014-15 Top 30 NHL players

[konjo78]

If I'm going after free agents I'm going after the top+/- players in the league.... Hockey is the game where the team who has a lead wins right? Well if certain players seemingly score more goals on the ice than they give up they tend to be valuable? What's the use of scoring 5 goals if you give up 6?


And 13 minutes? I'm not on this forum 24/7. I saw the post and answered it within 30 seconds.....

[theoneandonly]

You do realize you're the only person I've ever seen that uses +/- as the be all and end all of stats? So many variables go into that stat that make it rather worthless amongst everyone that matters. If Kunitz-Crosby-Perron are on the ice with Letang and Martin.... there is a little bit of a rush and Martin blows an edge and his guy scores. Everyone gets a -. For arguments sake lets assume everyone was in perfect defensive position and did everything right except for Martin inadvertently falling... they still get a -. Makes sense to say "well they were on the ice when it was scored so it's their fault too" No it doesn't make sense... that's idiotic. Or lets say Sid hops off the bench... picks someones pocket and goes on a breakaway and scores an unassisted goal.. everyone on the ice gets a + even if they had very little, if anything, to do with it. It's reasons like this that coaches/front offices don't put much stock into +/-.

Just do me a favor... Send me one link that is pro +/-. Please do this... I just want to read someone elses opinion on why this matters.

[HockeyGenie]

What's up with all the improper and unnecessary question marks? this is what you look like: Alabama is a state? The sky sure does look blue today? There's no way in hell I am waking up by 8 to go to work today? Konjo is a lunatic that can't admit +/- is a line-based/team-based stat?

[Manfred]

I don't have a problem with that?

[Jrs237]

You do realize you're the only person I've ever seen that uses +/- as the be all and end all of stats? So many variables go into that stat that make it rather worthless amongst everyone that matters. If Kunitz-Crosby-Perron are on the ice with Letang and Martin.... there is a little bit of a rush and Martin blows an edge and his guy scores. Everyone gets a -. For arguments sake lets assume everyone was in perfect defensive position and did everything right except for Martin inadvertently falling... they still get a -. Makes sense to say "well they were on the ice when it was scored so it's their fault too" No it doesn't make sense... that's idiotic. Or lets say Sid hops off the bench... picks someones pocket and goes on a breakaway and scores an unassisted goal.. everyone on the ice gets a + even if they had very little, if anything, to do with it. It's reasons like this that coaches/front offices don't put much stock into +/-.

Just do me a favor... Send me one link that is pro +/-. Please do this... I just want to read someone elses opinion on why this matters.

This about sums it up.

Other than all this look at the top +/- players, they are either on a team with a top goalie (max Pacioretty from Montreal), all linemates (Palat, Johnson, and Kucherov of Tampa Bay) or they are on a team that's at the top of the standings (Rick Nash, Kevin Klein and Derek Stepan from NYR)

What does that crunch tell you, plus minus is a team stat. Or, IMO, a goalie stat. a goalie heavily influenced his teams plus/minus for obvious reasons.

[Jrs237]

So Konjo, are you ever going to stop dodging the question of you thinking Max Pacioretty is the best player in the league? Cause if you don't clarify it I am just going to start assuming that

[Jrs237]

Two players to keep on your radar for next year: Johnathan Huberdeau and Mark Stone. I've kinda always been up on Huberdeau, and I even drafted him to my fantasy roster this year but his slow start at the beginning of the year definitely cost him. I predict next year for him to get to at least the 70 point plateau.

As for stone, if Ekblad and Gaudreau and Forsberg didn't exist, he is my clear Calder winner. Or you could give it to goalies Mrazek or Jake Allen? But Stone makes a good case. With Karlsson, Kyle Turris, and stone they are young and on the rise. Players like Mike Hoffman and Zibanejad are also good producers. Alex Chiasson is someone who I think would win underachiever of the century if there was an award for it, he is so skilled he just never translates anything. Goaltending will be the focus going forward, because contrary to belief, I don't think Andrew Hammond is the answer in Ottawa.


I know this is kind of early but I think this draft is pretty interesting. Before this season everybody pretty much had McDavid as their clear cut #1, pretty much uncontested. Now some people are talking Jack Eichel, and after the season he had for Boston I am not so convinced this "next one" has the gap everybody said he did. Also, the pens to my knowledge don't have a pick til mid 2nd round, I believe 52, this is what the style of management over the past few years has done to their draft situation. Am I saying it's bad? No. Do I think that it will pan out well? Probably not.

[abpk2903]

I've always liked the way Huberdeau played and if he wasn't playing in the south Florida market, many more people would consider him one of the rising stars of the game. I think if he could play a few years with Jagr, he would put up some top numbers in the league. Jagr takes up space and with space Huberdeau can make plays.

[Jrs237]

Agreed, Jagr manhandled Carolina last night. I mean If you say that to yourself out loud you are probably thinking "so what it's Carolina" but Jagr is 43 years old hahaha. It's like he's timeless, I think he either tied or passed Francis for 4th all time last night and Francis played about 200 games more than him. He's a beast, through and through.

Think of the names: Huberdeau, Aleksander Barkov, Bjugstad, Ekblad; and soon enough you are realizing this florida squad won't be pushovers for much longer. Again though, although temporary, I don't think Luongo is the permanent goaltender fix for FLA

[abpk2903]

But Montoya might be. *sarcasm*