• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

Habs acquire Nate Thompson from Kings

GrandWazoo said:
Every stats have flaws. Just because you're on the ice doesn't mean you have anything to do with a shot for or against either. Hell players can get assists from the bench but won't be credited with the +/- or the shot for, while the guy who just jump in gets the credit. We could also be on the ice for 15 shots from the blue line against 5 shots against but those shots were 3 2-on-1s and a breakaway, and a prime chance from the slot.
Click to expand...

Sure, all stats have flaws and limitations. Stats need proper context and need to be supported by other stats to get a better idea of the big picture. However, there are some like +/- and GAA that are pretty much useless and bring next to nothing no matter how you cut or spin it. Again, these are not good metrics to judge anything. If a player gets zero offensive zone starts, only faces off against the team's best lines and plays in front of a sieve of a goaltender, what do you think his +/- is going to be? Right, nobody gives a shit what his +/- will be, we all know it's going to be terrible. What the player will be judged on to see his worth are his zone starts, his QoC, his rel Corsi and then look at the goalie's sv %.

GrandWazoo said:
-1 or +1 in a game doesn't mean much but +/- 2 is starting to be meaningful, and +/- 3 most definitely means something.
Click to expand...

No, they all mean nothing because it shows nothing about the play. It doesn't show quality of competition, quality of shot, quality of play, whether the player was tired, whether x, whether y, whether z. All it shows is that 5 players were on the ice for the team that scored and 5 players were on the ice for the team that got scored on. That's it. Literally nothing more, literally nothing less. Where does it show who was the blame on the goal(s)? Where does it show how the goals happened? Was the forward not covering the point? Did the d-man not box out the forward in front of the net, allowing the goalie to be screened? Was it just a fluke goal where the puck touched a skate and went in? Where does it show that the goals were caused by a defensive turnover when the forwards were too far away to get back in time? One forward/defenseman screwed up, maybe even just stupid luck, and 5 players get a minus. Bad line change, new player is on the ice for 3 total seconds he got scored on. He's a minus. Why? He couldn't have had an impact on the play even if he wanted to.

GrandWazoo said:
Generally there is always parts of the play before a goal where you did or could have done something to influence it. I'm old school and I like +/- because they are based on goals, which is the only thing that matters in hockey, but you need context to make sense of it. Shots have a bigger sample rate and remove some of the bad variations which is great but generally they need to go together. If a guy has great relative Corsi but is in the minus (also relative to team and context), it raises some questions. The opposite is also true.
Click to expand...

Generally, yes, but a player could be the best defensive player in the game, but the puck is nowhere near him and they get scored on. He'll get a minus. Is that supposed to be held against him?

In 2013-2014, Bergeron won the Selke with +38 on the season. In 2014-2015, he won the Selke with a +2. There's a 36 point difference, which is about almost a goal every two games more he was scored on while he was on the ice. It doesn't have much to do with his point totals, just a 7 point difference between the two seasons.

There is zero context with +/-.

GrandWazoo said:
Corsi and sv% means more to me when quality of shots is represented. I've seen 50 shots games when the goalie didn't have to make a single difficult save and I've also seen 20 saves games where the goalie robbed at least 5 sure goals. Some goalies also generate more shots to themselves by bad rebound control and poor stick work.
Click to expand...

Sure, but by themselves, they're some of the most important stats in hockey. It's not a coincidence that the Vezina is almost always given to the goalie with the best save % in the league. It's also not a coincidence that the players with the best corsi are usually all the top players in the league. You have some aberrations, like Benoit Pouliot, who have great corsi while being garbage players.

Jeff Schultz also led the league in +/- one year. It had little to do with the fact that he had any real impact on the game and more with the fact he was on Washington's first pairing with Green, playing with Ovechkin and Backstrom to pile up the stats.
 
Obviously the word count on some posts is affecting the page total...might be the bloggers equivalent of quality minutes?

:couch
 
You guys are overthinking this. The reason +/- is still a thing is because it is easy for the masses to understand.

You don't market a sport/game/product/ by confusing the consumer. You tell them what they can easily understand, without them feeling stupid.

+/- is essentially populism.
 
corsi and plus minus are pretty much the same thing

but corsi has two benefits that plus minus does not

1. a much better sample size
2. removes the goalie from the formula

so corsi is not perfect but it has made plus minus irrelevant
 
I can't believe it's 2019 and we are actually having the plus minus discussion.

Plus minus should be tossed into the dustbin of history.
 
worm said:
corsi and plus minus are pretty much the same thing

but corsi has two benefits that plus minus does not

1. a much better sample size
2. removes the goalie from the formula

so corsi is not perfect but it has made plus minus irrelevant
Click to expand...

They do share some of the same qualities and flaws and are only truly applicable within the context of a team, and within context of . They do measure different things though. Corsi measures shot differential, which is a pretty good, if not perfect, indicator of possession. It tends to project fairly well as players who were possession drivers in the past tend to be in the future. Plus minus measures goals differential. Sample size is smaller and it's not a great indicator of possession and doesn't project as well. However as long as games are won on goals differential and not on shots differential, I don't see how that stat is irrelevant.

I think they actually work together pretty well. See, I personally don't really like removing the goalie from the formula for the context of a team in a season. With enough sample, it is a reasonable assumption that the same goalie performs about the same for all the players in front of him. I like comparing the plus minus with the corsi to measure how effective was that shot differential, because if the shot differential doesn't translate in goals differential, then further investigation is needed. for example if a player consistently improve the save% of a goalie, then maybe there is something to it.

Plus minus is really flawed stat, and corsi is an improvement over it, yet still shares most of the same flaws, but I disagree that it made the former irrelevant. Definitely less relevant though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top