ShareThis Page

Plus-minus: Breaking down the Penguins' Game 4 loss to Columbus

| Wednesday, April 19, 2017, 12:09 a.m.

No game sheet is complete without plus-minus, a sometimes misleading statistic that attempts to reflect a skater's two-way performance.

The Tribune-Review's version of plus-minus for the postseason also addresses two-play, albeit with more taken into account.


Columbus D Markus Nutivaara

The rookie defenseman, called into action with Zach Werenski out, did major damage to the Penguins in less than 10 minutes of ice time, as he tallied a goal and an assist while helping the Blue Jackets tilt the ice in their favor.


Columbus F William Karlsson

A goal, an assist, four shots and 12 faceoff wins in 22 draws made for a fine all-around night for the bottom-six center.


Columbus F Boone Jenner

After serving as a non-factor in Game 3, Jenner responded with two points, including the deciding goal.


Penguins F Phil Kessel

Of the team's stars, Kessel came the closest to meeting his high standards with three assists, including two primary helpers, and eight shot attempts, including four on goal.


Penguins D Justin Schultz

On the ice for 22 Penguins shot attempts and 21 Columbus attempts during five-on-five play, Schultz proved functional during a game when many of his blueline cohorts struggled.


Penguins F Sidney Crosby

Zero shot attempts and points from the league's best playmaker represented an aberration, but it stung the Penguins nonetheless.


Penguins G Marc-Andre Fleury

An excursion out of the crease led to at least one goal. Quirky bounces deserved some of the blame for other shots that slipped past Fleury.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.