Puck Prose
Fansided

Chicago Blackhawks D Brent Seabrook: Project Helium – Regulated Plus/Minus

By Brian Draus

Feb 13, 2016; Chicago, IL, USA; Chicago Blackhawks defenseman Brent Seabrook (7) with the puck during the third period against the Anaheim Ducks at the United Center. Anaheim won 3-2 in overtime. Mandatory Credit: Dennis Wierzbicki-USA TODAY Sports
Feb 13, 2016; Chicago, IL, USA; Chicago Blackhawks defenseman Brent Seabrook (7) with the puck during the third period against the Anaheim Ducks at the United Center. Anaheim won 3-2 in overtime. Mandatory Credit: Dennis Wierzbicki-USA TODAY Sports /
facebooktwitterreddit

Chicago Blackhawks D Brent Seabrook: Project Helium – Exploring Blueliners With Regulated Plus/Minus

Finally, after four articles about RPM that analyzed forwards, it is on to defenseman. It will a bit different analyzing blueliners, due to the fact that they don’t score as many goals. Also, after the results from the Taylor Hall article showed a huge difference between his NHL plus/minus and RPM, I thought I would choose Chicago Blackhawks D Brent Seabrook to research.

I realize some may be asking themselves why I would do this? Seabrook is on one of the best teams in the NHL, so why use him as a comparison? Wouldn’t his plus/minus be great? See the next paragraph for his actual 2014-15 plus/minus and you will see why I chose him as my next study.

Looking at Seabrook’s actual plus/minus that season, he was a -3 which is not good by NHL standards. Especially when you think of the fact that Seabrook is a very good defenseman, it is surprising that he doesn’t have a better plus/minus. Obviously, Seabrook is facing another team’s best every night, so it is going to hurt him if a teammate makes a mistake in the defensive zone.

Now, if I were to evaluate Chicago Blackhawks D Brent Seabrook on his individual play, it would more than likely be better. As I was talking about before, these are Seabrook’s official stats for 2014-15:

8 G, 23 A, 0 SHG, -3 (82 games played)

The offensive numbers are not bad for a defenseman, therefore it should help him when calculating his RPM. The whole key to Seabrook’s RPM is going to be goals I credit him with giving up. I understand it is artificial, but Seabrook is a good defenseman, and he isn’t likely solely responsible for many goals that end up in his net while he is on the ice.

These are going to be the statistics that I award Seabrook in order to create his RPM. Click on the link in order to see what each variable represents.

A-4*

B-4*

C-4

D-2*

E-0

F-0*

(asterisk indicates artificial statistic) 

This won’t be a whole lot different from the Taylor Hall article considering the fact that the only variables I need to explain are “C” and “D”. Since variables “A” and “B” are no different from the NHL’s version (equal to one), I will give you the variables needed to explain the formula:

C- “ca”, “cb”, “ce”, “cf” (3.231)

D- “db”, “de” (1.757) (1.474)

(Click on the link to see what each variable represents)

More from Puck Prose

Just as in the Taylor Hall article, I did not credit Seabrook with any value for both variables “E” or “F”. Also, I found it a bit interesting just how low the total was for Seabrook altogether. After totaling the entire formula up, Seabrook scored + 1.474, which means his RPM score is better than his actual NHL plus/minus.

Given the statistics are artificial, keep in mind I am awarding his statistics based on what I think he would be responsible for. The NHL version would credit/punish Seabrook not just for his play, but for others on the ice as well.

All in all, it is looking more and more as though the first two variables in the formula (“A” and “B”) are the key.

As I stated above, Chicago Blackhawks D Brent Seabrook scored better than Taylor Hall in RPM but not by anywhere near as much. Seabrook’s NHL version/RPM swing was only 4.474, while Hall’s was 27.448. Given Hall scored many more goals, but regardless a large difference.

Next: Prospect Jimmy Vesey Will Test Free Agency

One area I am going to take a look at is potentially adjusting variable “F” due to the fact that I am not sure if I should be punishing a player as much as I am for missing an empty net. Not to say I wouldn’t still take a bit off, but maybe not as much. Stay tuned, as there will be more RPM articles to come.

Source: www.espn.com

Home/Editorials