+ / - means something to me. Like when the legion of doom was perennially top of the league. Go out and kick ass at 5 v 5 and our top scorers won't be -15's from being behind in games. its not the end all be all. But it's not flawed either
- Just5

Exactly, you have to take it for what it's worth. Howe and McCrimmon both finishing somewhere around +80 in 85-86 was damned impressive. However, put both of them on the 85-86 Leafs and, as good as they were, they aren't coming anywhere close to those numbers.

Patrice Bergeron. Bad year by most everyone's account. He still is a plus player. He's not out there trying to score for the bruins when the nets pulled? They're worse than us this year. We don't have great even strength players here

+ / - means something to me. Like when the legion of doom was perennially top of the league. Go out and kick ass at 5 v 5 and our top scorers won't be -15's from being behind in games. its not the end all be all. But it's not flawed either
- Just5

Exactly, use it for what it actually means, and it has some value.

spjtbatp

Dubnyk(or is that Suter?) and Atkinson Laine's forehead is great too.

They definitely captured Kane's creepiness.
- Nucker101

Those are just the original teams Atkinson isn't there since Malkin is.

Kind of funny that the team they did Kenny with won.

- Mononoke

That's disturbing

Exactly, you have to take it for what it's worth. Howe and McCrimmon both finishing somewhere around +80 in 85-86 was damned impressive. However, put both of them on the 85-86 Leafs and, as good as they were, they aren't coming anywhere close to those numbers.
- BiggE

So the +/- numbers say how good the team is?

Patrice Bergeron. Bad year by most everyone's account. He still is a plus player. He's not out there trying to score for the bruins when the nets pulled? They're worse than us this year. We don't have great even strength players here
- Just5

All stats can be deceptive to some degree. How many times have you seen a player make a fantastic play to start an offensive rush that leads to a goal, but, because 2 other player touched the puck before the goal scorer puts it in, the guy that made the great play to get the whole thing started doesn't get an assist? Another example, a defenseman makes a bad play and coughs up the puck right in front of his own net where it immediately leads to a goal. The forwards, who may have been properly positioned and done nothing wrong whatsoever, still get a minus. And, one more, the player on the point on the pp makes a weak pass that is picked off leading directly to a shorthanded breakaway and goal. The other 4 players, who again did absolutely nothing wrong, each get a minus.

Over the course of an entire season, basic and advanced stats can give you a pretty good report on any individual player, however there is a reason that teams employ actual human scouts who watch these guys play. You still need to actually watch their on ice performance to get a complete picture of any player.

So the +/- numbers say how good the team is?
- YuenglingJagr

To some degree, yes, especially at ES. I don't think you will find a team that finishes with 110+ points that has a roster of mostly minus players, nor do I think you will find a team that finishes with 75 points that has a roster of mostly plus players. See my last post though, if you want my feelings about stats and how they are used.

And, one more, the player on the point on the pp makes a weak pass that is picked off leading directly to a shorthanded breakaway and goal. The other 4 players, who again did absolutely nothing wrong, each get a minus.
- BiggE

So you are saying that a team that leads the NHL in SHG against could have star players with a bad +/-?????

Crazy Talk!

What an annoying RR main event.. They could have ended with the Cena v Styles match and it would have been great..

Last year you had the Styles debut..
Only 3 spots left and 2 of them are Goldberg and the Undertaker.

Hoping the last is Angle , Nakamura, SJ or Finn Balor..
- opeth_pa

How did the Lightning Kid fare?

So you are saying that a team that leads the NHL in SHG against could have star players with a bad +/-?????

Crazy Talk!
- dragonoffrost

It's sorcery I tell you, sorcery!!!

How did the Lightning Kid fare?
- jmatchett383

They didn't have a big enough party in the locker room for him to attend.

They didn't have a big enough party in the locker room for him to attend.
- dragonoffrost

Any rasslin event without the Lightning Kid is an event not worth having.

Any rasslin event without the Lightning Kid is an event not worth having.


- jmatchett383

looked like they both won that one

Exactly, you have to take it for what it's worth. Howe and McCrimmon both finishing somewhere around +80 in 85-86 was damned impressive. However, put both of them on the 85-86 Leafs and, as good as they were, they aren't coming anywhere close to those numbers.
- BiggE

Well, OTOH, every other Flyers defenseman that season -- full-timers, partial season guys, and callups -- were either even (Marsh) or minus (virtually everyone else) for the season. So, in that particular case, it actually was quite a useful stat. What it said was, for the 30-to-35 minutes that Howe/McCrimmon were the ice, the Flyers were the best team in the NHL. The other 25-30 minutes, they were ordinary except when they were on special teams (in which the top pair guys were also vital).

Well, OTOH, every other Flyers defenseman that season -- full-timers, partial season guys, and callups -- were either even (Marsh) or minus (virtually everyone else) for the season. So, in that particular case, it actually was quite a useful stat. What it said was, for the 30-to-35 minutes that Howe/McCrimmon were the ice, the Flyers were the best team in the NHL. The other 25-30 minutes, they were ordinary except when they were on special teams (in which the top pair guys were also vital).
- bmeltzer

No doubt. My point was just that if Howe and McCrimmon had played for Toronto that year, and the Leafs were god awful, they weren't going to be +80. They still would have had the best +/- on the team by far, but since the rest of the Leafs D who got significant ice time were all between -20 and -40, they probably would have come in around +30 or so.

edit: basically the Leafs would have been one of the worst teams in the league when they weren't on the ice and a good, but no where near great, team when they were.

Hey, Nucker. Check it. South Park made these and personal ones too for the All-Star game (click it for better look)

I think I found my avatar!

shouldn't most of them look like this....cause they're Canadians?

ttt

Players talk all the time about how much they care about their +/-, so it's definitely one of the more important stats in hockey. Disagree with me, fine. But then you're disagreeing with NHL players too. And I think they know a lot more than both of us. You're probably one of those Corsi people, but I care about goals. You win games by having a good +/-.
- Mononoke

Does this hold true for coaches and GMs, too? Asking for a friend.

- Mononoke

My dislike of Mythbusters runs deep.

Players talk all the time about how much they care about their +/-, so it's definitely one of the more important stats in hockey. Disagree with me, fine. But then you're disagreeing with NHL players too. And I think they know a lot more than both of us. You're probably one of those Corsi people, but I care about goals. You win games by having a good +/-.
- Mononoke

I know no one here will agree and everyone's gonna gang up on me, but....

Edit: You win games by scoring more goals than the other team, not by having a better individual or team-combined +/- rating.

I know no one here will agree and everyone's gonna gang up on me, but....
- jmatchett383

lol

To some degree, yes, especially at ES. I don't think you will find a team that finishes with 110+ points that has a roster of mostly minus players, nor do I think you will find a team that finishes with 75 points that has a roster of mostly plus players. See my last post though, if you want my feelings about stats and how they are used.
- BiggE

I understand. I am just asking the question though, because it still doesn't all add up to me. What exactly is "used correctly" when it comes to +/-? That is my point. It tells you a line that has been dominant is good? Or a team that is near the top of the league is good? You needed to look at +/- to see that? I don't get it.

The way I evaluate things, it is completely useless to me. It is clearly the most flawed statistic out there. I just bring up the silliness of it, because it seems like most of the people that advocate for it being useful are against or don't understand more advanced statistics and try to poke holes in how they are derived. [shrug]