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.
- YuenglingJagr[shrug]

Are you "one of those Corsi people?"

I don't think it's 100% completely useless, only when compared to the rest of the team or in extreme cases (as was said, the 85/86 years for Howe and McCrimmon versus the rest of the Flyers, or Orr's +124 season). But, at best, it's a general indicator of play.

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


- Pyzik

yeah I was pretty disappointed about that and was unable to look past it

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

As has been brought up before, looking at the Flyers +/- stat and seeing that every player on the team is a - player is a pretty good indication that the Flyers are not a great team at ES.

I have a legit charge for the analytics crowd.

Prove to me that Eddie Shore and Gordie Howe, statistically, were good or bad players.

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


- Pyzik

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.
- YuenglingJagr[shrug]

+/- has it flaws like any other stat does, in fact it has the same flaws as Corsi. In my opinion, correctly using the stat is using it for exactly what it says. If a player is -15, all it tells you is that player has been on the ice for 15 more goals against that fit into the parameters, than for over the season. Why or who to blame for that, then requires further analysis. Just like a stat like corsi, it helps to show what happens on the ice. The moment you start using it to say this player is a good player or a bad player, or a good or bad defensive player, is when you start to go wrong.

+/- has it flaws like any other stat does, in fact it has the same flaws as Corsi. In my opinion, correctly using the stat is using it for exactly what it says. If a player is -15, all it tells you is that player has been on the ice for 15 more goals against that fit into the parameters, than for over the season. Why or who to blame for that, then requires further analysis. Just like a stat like corsi, it helps to show what happens on the ice. The moment you start using it to say this player is a good player or a bad player, or a good or bad defensive player, is when you start to go wrong.
- MJL

No no no.
5v5 goals that happen when the player is on the ice is useless.
5v5 shot attempts that happen when the player is on the ice is what's important.

We need games again... all this numbers chat is making my head spin.

But I'll just leave this here

No no no.
5v5 goals that happen when the player is on the ice is useless.
5v5 shot attempts that happen when the player is on the ice is what's important.
- jmatchett383

You're right, trust the process!

Regarding the +/- debate, one thing to keep in mind is that, for this season anyway, most of the Flyers' wins have been close games... whereas during their recent downturn, they were losing by multiple goals... so a team which has more lopsided losses than lopsided wins will probably have the majority of its players with not-so-good stat lines, even though the team's record is no worse than mediocre.

No no no.
5v5 goals that happen when the player is on the ice is useless.
5v5 shot attempts that happen when the player is on the ice is what's important.
- jmatchett383

+/- isn't just 5v5 scoring...

We need games again... all this numbers chat is making my head spin.

But I'll just leave this here

- dragonoffrost

Are you "one of those Corsi people?"

I don't think it's 100% completely useless, only when compared to the rest of the team or in extreme cases (as was said, the 85/86 years for Howe and McCrimmon versus the rest of the Flyers, or Orr's +124 season). But, at best, it's a general indicator of play.
- jmatchett383

I've created a new analytics company, and I am calling it iTest....currently in the midst of a legal battle with a company that has to remain confidential over the naming rights.

For me, personally, there isn't a stat that means less.

As far as Corsi vs. +/-, you aren't even comparing the same thing. The "idea" behind corsi is that it shows which players and teams are generating play, which in some form leads to success. It shows how a team is playing, if you will, whereas +/- is a bit of a history of how many goals were scored.

The classic example is the 13-14 Colorado Avalanche. Not saying either way is black and white, but just interesting how people receive one stat vs the other

+/- isn't just 5v5 scoring...
- PhillySportsGuy

Yes, it also involves SHG. Just using the Flyers, the team with the most SHGA as a measuring stick, SHGA account for 5.2% of total GA. So okay, +/- is only 95% as relevant as CF%.

+/- has it flaws like any other stat does, in fact it has the same flaws as Corsi. In my opinion, correctly using the stat is using it for exactly what it says. If a player is -15, all it tells you is that player has been on the ice for 15 more goals against that fit into the parameters, than for over the season. Why or who to blame for that, then requires further analysis. Just like a stat like corsi, it helps to show what happens on the ice. The moment you start using it to say this player is a good player or a bad player, or a good or bad defensive player, is when you start to go wrong.
- MJL

that literally means nothing. A player that has been on the ice for 15 more goals against under the parameters of +/- is a -15. That is mind blowing poop right there. That is as useful as a weather report from Karen Smith.

Valuing corsi statistics doesn't mean someone only uses corsi to evaluate players. You having a problem with it doesn't make it wrong

Yes, it also involves SHG. Just using the Flyers, the team with the most SHGA as a measuring stick, SHGA account for 5.2% of total GA. So okay, +/- is only 95% as relevant as CF%.
- jmatchett383

As well as empty net goals

We need games again... all this numbers chat is making my head spin.

But I'll just leave this here

- dragonoffrost

I convert all video to binary so I can absorb the information faster, so the games themselves are irrelevant

I've created a new analytics company, and I am calling it iTest....currently in the midst of a legal battle with a company that has to remain confidential over the naming rights.

For me, personally, there isn't a stat that means less.

As far as Corsi vs. +/-, you aren't even comparing the same thing. The "idea" behind corsi is that it shows which players and teams are generating play, which in some form leads to success. It shows how a team is playing, if you will, whereas +/- is a bit of a history of how many goals were scored.

The classic example is the 13-14 Colorado Avalanche. Not saying either way is black and white, but just interesting how people receive one stat vs the other
- YuenglingJagr

Let me just ask you which team you'd prefer the Flyers to be:

A - A team generates a lot of "possession" and "drives play" but does not traditionally have a lot of good shooters so they get outscored more often than not.
B - A team that is not good at "possession" but is good at limiting chances and capitalizes on the few chances it gets and outscores the other team more often than not.

I don't think that either +/- or traditional CF% is a great indicator of individual or team success (key word is success). Yes, everything equal, more shots for than against leads to more goals for than against. Likewise, a higher +/-, all things equal, indicates that your score more than you allow. However, even over a long period (say, 05/06 years), things are not equal.

As well as empty net goals
- PhillySportsGuy

Aren't they 5v5 goals? Technically all 5v5 data is really 6v6 data.

I've created a new analytics company, and I am calling it iTest....currently in the midst of a legal battle with a company that has to remain confidential over the naming rights.

For me, personally, there isn't a stat that means less.

As far as Corsi vs. +/-, you aren't even comparing the same thing. The "idea" behind corsi is that it shows which players and teams are generating play, which in some form leads to success. It shows how a team is playing, if you will, whereas +/- is a bit of a history of how many goals were scored.

The classic example is the 13-14 Colorado Avalanche. Not saying either way is black and white, but just interesting how people receive one stat vs the other
- YuenglingJagr

+/- also to a certain extent shows how a team is playing, just like corsi does.

Aren't they 5v5 goals? Technically all 5v5 data is really 6v6 data.
- jmatchett383

+/- also to a certain extent shows how a team is playing, just like corsi does.
- MJL

I'm gonna slightly append that and say that +/- shows how well a team does at converting its chances into goals regardless of chances, whereas corsi shows how well a team does at creating shots (or attempts) regardless of goals. I don't think either is a strong indicator any team success, but I don't think either is completely useless, either.

At the end of the day, I'll take the team that scores more goals than they allow regardless of their "posession" play, but will concede that a better "possession" team will generally score more goals than they allow. Generally.

Let me just ask you which team you'd prefer the Flyers to be:

A - A team generates a lot of "possession" and "drives play" but does not traditionally have a lot of good shooters so they get outscored more often than not.
B - A team that is not good at "possession" but is good at limiting chances and capitalizes on the few chances it gets and outscores the other team more often than not.

I don't think that either +/- or traditional CF% is a great indicator of individual or team success (key word is success). Yes, everything equal, more shots for than against leads to more goals for than against. Likewise, a higher +/-, all things equal, indicates that your score more than you allow. However, even over a long period (say, 05/06 years), things are not equal.
- jmatchett383

that is my favorite period of time. not sure why the flyers can only be good at one or the other. why would a team that doesn't have good shooters suddenly capitalize on opportunities if they become fewer?

Aren't they 5v5 goals? Technically all 5v5 data is really 6v6 data.
- jmatchett383

What I'm saying is that there is a ton of noise in +/-. It's a stupid statistic to use when you can easily find a site that renders out much of the noise.

+/- also to a certain extent shows how a team is playing, just like corsi does.
- MJL

yet the sample sizes are completely different