+/-

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from dc-bruins-fan. Show dc-bruins-fan's posts

    Re: +/-

    In Response to Re: +/-:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: +/- : Since you think plus minus is such a telling statistic, wouldnt that mean you think Gunnarson is a better Dman than Lidstrom, because gunnarsons PM is higher?
    Posted by TTisOverrated[/QUOTE]

    It tells me that Toronto's third-pairing is doing better against their matchups (at least since Gunnarson's been there) than Detroit's top pairing is against theirs. However, you also have to take into consideration who Lidstrom faces on a nightly basis (top lines), how much they play, their style, etc. When you do this second step, Lidstrom leaves Gunnarson behind.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Crowls2424. Show Crowls2424's posts

    Re: +/-

    In Response to Re: +/-:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: +/- : That's pathetic.
    Posted by Not-A-Shot[/QUOTE]

    So, I am guessing you disagree with the relationships that I created in the previous post?  Fair.

    Pathetic?  That's constantly banging on a 24 year-old kid that is having a season that has exceeded expectations. 

    You've been posting for a while now, how many "+/- is a Useless Stat" threads have you created?  It's only useless because McQuaid is +30, Marchand is +26 and Thornton is +7.  If these guys were playing minus hockey, you would be posting about how +/- is an appropriate correlation to their performance. 
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: +/-

    In Response to Re: +/-:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: +/- : So, I am guessing you disagree with the relationships that I created in the previous post?  Fair. Pathetic?  That's constantly banging on a 24 year-old kid that is having a season that has exceeded expectations.  You've been posting for a while now, how many "+/- is a Useless Stat" threads have you created?  It's only useless because McQuaid is +30, Marchand is +26 and Thornton is +7.  If these guys were playing minus hockey, you would be posting about how +/- is an appropriate correlation to their performance. 
    Posted by Crowls2424[/QUOTE]

    I point out how useless it is because it is useless.  I wasn't even aware of Marchand's or Thornton's +/- stats.  I know McQuaid's because people use it to point out how great he is.  He isn't great.  He's not even good.  He turns the puck over all the time. "But, NAS, he has a great +/-!"  I'd rather have McQuaid than Bartkowski or 5 out of 6 Montreal defensemen, but to pretend that he's anything more than a stay at home rookie mistake prone defenseman while using his +/- as a talking point is bunk.

    It's a bogus stat, along with giveaways, takeaways and hits.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from TTisOverrated. Show TTisOverrated's posts

    Re: +/-

    Way too many factors can have an effect on plus minus. Having a bad goalie, having a bad 3 partner, having lazy forwards who dont back check, what lines you play against, how much PP/PK time you get, how much your team scores/struggles to score, how good/bad your team is.

    Way too many things that need to be considered for this to be an indicative, telling stat/
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Crowls2424. Show Crowls2424's posts

    Re: +/-

    In Response to Re: +/-:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: +/- : I point out how useless it is because it is useless.  I wasn't even aware of Marchand's or Thornton's +/- stats.  I know McQuaid's because people use it to point out how great he is.  He isn't great.  He's not even good.  He turns the puck over all the time. "But, NAS, he has a great +/-!"  I'd rather have McQuaid than Bartkowski or 5 out of 6 Montreal defensemen, but to pretend that he's anything more than a stay at home rookie mistake prone defenseman while using his +/- as a talking point is bunk. It's a bogus stat, along with giveaways, takeaways and hits.
    Posted by Not-A-Shot[/QUOTE]

    Your perception of poster's comments on McQuaid does not box with my perception.  I think posters recognize McQuaid is young and limited, however can also recognize that the kid's +/- is really exceptional.  I have not seen any posts suggesting that McQuaid is anything beyond a 5-6 d-man at this point, have you?
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: +/-

    In Response to Re: +/-:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: +/- : Your perception of poster's comments on McQuaid does not box with my perception.  I think posters recognize McQuaid is young and limited, however can also recognize that the kid's +/- is really exceptional.  I have not seen any posts suggesting that McQuaid is anything beyond a 5-6 d-man at this point, have you?
    Posted by Crowls2424[/QUOTE]

    I don't feel like digging through posts, but my perception has been of some people thinking he's a great defenseman, which he is not.  Any time I suggest this, I get strung up in the tall tree in the backyard.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: +/-

    You spend a lot of time at that tree....

    The value of +/- isn't absolute.  You can't look at a guy's +/- and say "oh, he's +20, what a stud."  But if you find a guy who's +20 on a team that's -30 in overall goal differential, it might mean something.  Kampfer was +10 (I think) before getting called up.  Only one other P-Bruin was even on the positive side of the ledger, and Kampfer was playing pretty serious minutes.  On the other side, Cam Fowler has great scoring stats, but his +/- is about 10 goals worse than any other Duck.  So that has to make you think.

    It's a measure.  It's not a symbol.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from CafardoSaysTradeBrady. Show CafardoSaysTradeBrady's posts

    Re: +/-

    um, the "scorer" gets credit for a goal. doesn't that mean that the goals stat is flawed too?

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from OatesCam. Show OatesCam's posts

    Re: +/-

    It's all about context.  It's not an all-encompassing stat that some people think it is.  If you were to compare Chara and Lidstrom, players that have similar roles on similarly good teams, the +/- would indicate that Chara has done a better job shutting down players.  It doesn't mean that he has, but it does imply it.  Especially if you factor other stats like the amount of scoring Lidstrom has done and Chara has not.  If you look only at Lidstrom, you could say his declining +/- indicates his play is declining or his team is declining.  I would call it a little of both.  For McQuaid it says that while he may turn over the puck, it's not leading to a great number of goals against.  Maybe that's just the skill of the team, or maybe he doesn't turn it over as much as is perceived.  Of course it's really a product of CJ deploying him in safe situations, often with the Krejci line on, but at least you can use it to say he's not holding the team back when he's on.  I would use it the same with Kessel.  When he was a Bruin he had a good +/-.  Was he good defensively?  No, but the +/- indicates that he wasn't so bad that it was hurting the team a great deal.  So if you put it in context, Kessel, with good teamates, in the right role, will score 36 goals and the team will score more goals for than against when he is on.  I feel that's what Kessel was when he was here and the +/- helps to capture that statistically.  It is what it is.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chappy28. Show Chappy28's posts

    Re: +/-

    The stat should never be used to compare people on different teams, but it is relevant when looking at people on the same team.  Whether you are on the ice for more goals for vs. goals against is directly related to your value to the team.  But it is important to consider your role....i.e. somebody like Bergeron who plays against the other teams top line every night and lacks offensive wings is going to have a harder time than somebody like Kreji who plays on the big offensive line that the coach tries to match up against the other teams 2nd or 3rd line.

    Good stat, just not to be taken out of context or looked at in terms of "league leaders" or anything like that.  But if your +/- is far below the majority of your own team, you are one of the lesser players in terms of your contribution to winning games
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from DrCC. Show DrCC's posts

    Re: +/-

    This is why I usually go straight to goals-for/goals-against per 60 minutes ice time.  It's not perfect either, but over the course of a season it shows who's getting things done, and who isn't.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from jmwalters. Show jmwalters's posts

    Re: +/-

    In Response to Re: +/-:
    [QUOTE]The way I see it, +/- helps identify trouble spots or surprises within a lineup. For example, it might be noteworthy if a player is a minus on a team full of plusses (Ryder, -5) and vice versa.
    Posted by dc-bruins-fan[/QUOTE]

    This is the correct way to use a statistic. By comparing Ryder's -5, his icetime, and points collected  to the rest of the team regulars, most of which are in the positive, we can infer that Ryder is weaker defensively than most of his teammates....
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from rolerhoky19. Show rolerhoky19's posts

    Re: +/-

    BB, good post, I was going to add plus minus tends to reflect the overall play of a team, good teams, have good plus minus, bad teams... well the other route..

    If you have 1-2 guys whose plus minus is out of whack with the team, that can say something.. Orr went plus 124? one season, was it flawed then??

    Kessel was a plus +22 his last season with the bruins, is true, but for a guy who scored 36 goals, and played on the bruins best offensive line, when you see better plus minus numbers on the krejci wheeler line (who scored less) theres meaning to that as well.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from legolaspinkerton. Show legolaspinkerton's posts

    Re: +/-

    Not to be too nerdy here, but I see two big problems with the +/- stat. The first is just that there's a lot of luck involved. The poker anecdote was a great example. Over time (the course of a season, or several seasons) the luck involved will even out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers This can be a problem with a lot of sports stats. Imagine in baseball, trying to elect an MVP after the month of April. It would be total craps-shoot. There's a ton of luck involved in baseball. That's part of why they play so many games.

    An even bigger problem with +/- is that line combinations and teams aren't random. If the NHL held a big scrimmage with all its players, with 30 different teams, and each team played 82 rounds of games, with the teams randomly selected for each round... then I would say +/- would not only be a great stat, it would be the DEFINITION of what it means to be a good player. The problem is that you have Kessel playing for Tornoto without a center, and McQuaid playing in front of a great goalie, and St. Louis playing in front of not-so-great goalies. It's really hard to seperate out who's deserving of their +/- rating and who's not.

    That said, you can still use the old eyeball test. Kessel sucks at defense and is great at offense (-22). Eric Staal is good at offense and defense, but plays for a bad team (-10). Adam McQuaid plays on a good team (+28). Rick Nash is a great player who plays on a bad team (+2)......
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bruins-Unite. Show Bruins-Unite's posts

    Re: +/-

    In Response to Re: +/-:
    [QUOTE]this stat is like poker. if you sit down and play for an hour, its probably 90% luck, if you play frequently over the course of a year, its probably 90% skill. same can be said of the plus minus stat
    Posted by thedauber1[/QUOTE]


    Voice of reason. Unless this is just a by-product of his long stick :)
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from pauly1. Show pauly1's posts

    Re: +/-

    +/- is a great stat for a hockey fan. You can twist it any way you want. In my world Chara could be a plus 70 if playing against the oppositions worst. 
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: +/-

    In Response to Re: +/-:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: +/- : I point out how useless it is because it is useless.  I wasn't even aware of Marchand's or Thornton's +/- stats.  I know McQuaid's because people use it to point out how great he is.  He isn't great.  He's not even good.  He turns the puck over all the time. "But, NAS, he has a great +/-!"  I'd rather have McQuaid than Bartkowski or 5 out of 6 Montreal defensemen, but to pretend that he's anything more than a stay at home rookie mistake prone defenseman while using his +/- as a talking point is bunk. It's a bogus stat, along with giveaways, takeaways and hits.
    Posted by Not-A-Shot[/QUOTE]
    So is there nothing to the fact that Bergeron has 48 takeaways and the next closest on Boston only has 35?That tells me that my eyes haven't deceived me......Bergeron is far better than anyone on the team when it comes to forcing turnovers(Recchi has 15 and Campbell 11 btw).
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: +/-

    In Response to Re: +/-:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: +/- : So is there nothing to the fact that Bergeron has 48 takeaways and the next closest on Boston only has 35?That tells me that my eyes haven't deceived me......Bergeron is far better than anyone on the team when it comes to forcing turnovers(Recchi has 15 and Campbell 11 btw).
    Posted by dezaruchi[/QUOTE]

    It's subjective.  Plenty are given, plenty are missed. 
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chowdahkid-. Show Chowdahkid-'s posts

    Re: +/-

    So I ask what is a good stat to go by when trying to determine whether a defensive defenseman is having a good year ? ( This is the main one ).

    Here's my thoughts on the plus/minus stat with regards to a defensive defenseman. They are not going to be on the score sheet because of limited offensive abilities. If they take care of their own end then it allows the forwards to do what they do best, put points on the board. The better team and forwards they play with the higher the +/-. McQuaid has played good enough to achieve these good numbers because of taking care of business in his own end ( for the most part ).

    Personally being a defenseman myself I have respect for that stat. In my younger years I would rush the puck and jump into the play as often as I could because of the ability to get back on defense. Now because of age and diminished abilities I am a stay at home defenseman and work on keeping the puck out of our net. Along with the final score my +/- is a good indicator for me in how I've played.

    P.S. And it's not as if Ferrence and McQuaid are benefiting with playing with the top line all the time to pad the stats. That right is usually reserved for the top defensive pairings.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: +/-

    In Response to Re: +/-:
    [QUOTE]So I ask what is a good stat to go by when trying to determine whether a defensive defenseman is having a good year ? ( This is the main one ).
    Posted by Chowdahkid-[/QUOTE]

    I don't think there is a good stat.  I think the best way to gauge the play of a defensive defenseman is to watch him play.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chowdahkid-. Show Chowdahkid-'s posts

    Re: +/-

    In Response to Re: +/-:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: +/- : I don't think there is a good stat.  I think the best way to gauge the play of a defensive defenseman is to watch him play.
    Posted by Not-A-Shot[/QUOTE]

    There might not be a good stat but out of all of them it's the best and is an accurate indicator that when he is on the ice the puck goes in the other team's net more then his. That's the bottom line when trying to win games.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: +/-

    In Response to Re: +/-:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: +/- : There might not be a good stat but out of all of them it's the best and is an accurate indicator that when he is on the ice the puck goes in the other team's net more then his. That's the bottom line when trying to win games.
    Posted by Chowdahkid-[/QUOTE]

    I completely agree that the stat does tell that.  It doesn't speak of any involvement in the play, however, and that's where I have the problem with it.  McQuaid has been paired with Chara a lot this year.  I'd say that's a big factor.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: +/-

    In Response to Re: +/-:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: +/- : It's subjective.  Plenty are given, plenty are missed. 
    Posted by Not-A-Shot[/QUOTE]
    I agree on that for sure.Answer me this.Is there a clear correlation between turnovers and takeaways?For example,in yesterday's game ,on a play where Bergeron stepped into the passing lane and picked one off,I'm assuming there was a giveaway and takeaway given on the play.Later in the period,one of the Thrash D-men threw an errant pass that went straight to Boychuck at the point and I thought there is no way Boychuck could be credited with a takeaway.I started trying to pay extra attention yesterday when I saw that Campbell only has 11 on the season.My guess with Campbell is that he's not willing to gamble taking himself out of position in order to rush a puck carrier to force a turnover.That's the only explanation I can come up with as to why Ryder would have 3x the takeaways of Cambell or Recchi.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chowdahkid-. Show Chowdahkid-'s posts

    Re: +/-

    In Response to Re: +/-:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: +/- : I completely agree that the stat does tell that.  It doesn't speak of any involvement in the play, however, and that's where I have the problem with it.  McQuaid has been paired with Chara a lot this year.  I'd say that's a big factor.
    Posted by Not-A-Shot[/QUOTE]

    He has played with Chara because he had earned the right to play with him. His defensive zone coverage has been good. Julien wasn't spoon feeding him the minutes, he was a good option because of his play at the time.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: +/-

    In Response to Re: +/-:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: +/- : He has played with Chara because he had earned the right to play with him. His defensive zone coverage has been good. Julien wasn't spoon feeding him the minutes, he was a good option because of his play at the time.
    Posted by Chowdahkid-[/QUOTE]
    I've been impressed more by his play on the PK than anything else lately.By no means is he perfect but McQuaid has become a very serviceable player.
     

Share