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.
- PhillySportsGuy

And what I'm saying is that taking 25 shot attemptss from the slot with a screen is better than allowing 50 shot attempts from the point with no screen. Would you disagree?

And what I'm saying is that taking 25 shot attemptss from the slot with a screen is better than allowing 50 shot attempts from the point with no screen. Would you disagree?
- jmatchett383

No one would disagree...but neither of those happen haha

And what I'm saying is that taking 25 shot attemptss from the slot with a screen is better than allowing 50 shot attempts from the point with no screen. Would you disagree?
- jmatchett383

Agreed. That's why people use Corsi along with other measures that help indicate the value of each shot.

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?
- YuenglingJagr

I'm not saying they can only be good at one or the other. They were 2 completely different theoretical teams that I was using. If you have players who can create chances but do not finish well, compared to players that do not outchance the other team but capitalize on their chances, I don't think either team has a clear advantage,

Without having the data in front of me, it seems like the Devils of the 90s were a team that would bleed shots against but limit dangerous scoring chances, and then would capitalize on counter attacks and win 4-2 despite being heavily outshot.

No one would disagree...but neither of those happen haha
- YuenglingJagr

I know, my point is that not all shot attempts are equal.

Again, I'm not for or against either +/- or raw SAF/SAA numbers, I juts don't think that either one is completely useless nor is either one a great measure.

Agreed. That's why people use Corsi along with other measures that help indicate the value of each shot.
- PhillySportsGuy

That's fair. I don't disagree. Although I'm not a fan of the ways that these numbers are manipulated where as there is little manipulation needed on "traditional" stats, I believe that analytical data can be used to help quantify how good a player or team is.

Personal attacks are lame and mean spirited.



+/- is far from simple. If you think it's simple that's just because you don't understand its nuances. Would you like some links to further educate yourself?



If that's what the +/- says, then yes. I cannot say you are doing well or having a good season if your +/- isn't positive. It means you're not helping the team win. Giroux for example is very often in the minus and actively hurts the team. I wish this were not so, but it is so.
- Mononoke

You are beyond hope. The players I put down there I put simply to prove my point. Hockey is a TEAM game. Seguin is on a team that gets scored on a lot because their defense and goaltending sucks, same goes for Colorado. It has nothing to do with Seguin, Duchene or Landeskog. Colorado is the worst of the two. They have 3 star players playing on lines with garbage. Mackinnon is playing with Grig and rantanen, Duchene and Landy are playing with Neito. The defense is atrocious and cant move the puck, usually turn it over and Pickard and Varlamov have been garbage. Yet you would say these 3 players suck because of that! +/- is a TEAM stat. It depends on the 6 guys on the ice.

Another Poster brought up Bergeron. He struggled but Boston did not. Therefore while he was doing little in terms of scoring his line still wasnt being scored on and his line mates were scoring. Bergeron was also still getting a lot of SOG. Just nothing to show for it. He was getting a + and but he wouldnt be involved in the goal. I play Hockey fantasy in 2 leagues every year and it is common fantasy knowledge to never build your team around +/- because it is unpredictable. Players on bad teams get minuses. Flyers are a bad team. MAson and Neurvirth have not gotten the job done consistently, the D still sucks and Flyers still could use some more fire power up front. Aside from Simmonds, Giroux, Schenn and Voracek there is no consistent scoring. I think it is time that the Flyers give up on the Couturier 2nd line experiment. He is a 3rd line Center nothing more.

I'm not saying they can only be good at one or the other. They were 2 completely different theoretical teams that I was using. If you have players who can create chances but do not finish well, compared to players that do not outchance the other team but capitalize on their chances, I don't think either team has a clear advantage,

Without having the data in front of me, it seems like the Devils of the 90s were a team that would bleed shots against but limit dangerous scoring chances, and then would capitalize on counter attacks and win 4-2 despite being heavily outshot.
- jmatchett383

I don't know man, I can't tell you. I can tell you the game isn't played the same way now. Corsi doesn't mean you have to out shoot a team in order to win. I have never evaluated the Devils from the 90s, but I would bet that not every player on the team bled shots, but capitalized on scoring chances.

You are beyond hope. The players I put down there I put simply to prove my point. Hockey is a TEAM game. Seguin is on a team that gets scored on a lot because their defense and goaltending sucks, same goes for Colorado. It has nothing to do with Seguin, Duchene or Landeskog. Colorado is the worst of the two. They have 3 star players playing on lines with garbage. Mackinnon is playing with Grig and rantanen, Duchene and Landy are playing with Neito. The defense is atrocious and cant move the puck, usually turn it over and Pickard and Varlamov have been garbage. Yet you would say these 3 players suck because of that! +/- is a TEAM stat. It depends on the 6 guys on the ice.

Another Poster brought up Bergeron. He struggled but Boston did not. Therefore while he was doing little in terms of scoring his line still wasnt being scored on and his line mates were scoring. Bergeron was also still getting a lot of SOG. Just nothing to show for it. He was getting a + and but he wouldnt be involved in the goal. I play Hockey fantasy in 2 leagues every year and it is common fantasy knowledge to never build your team around +/- because it is unpredictable. Players on bad teams get minuses. Flyers are a bad team. MAson and Neurvirth have not gotten the job done consistently, the D still sucks and Flyers still could use some more fire power up front. Aside from Simmonds, Giroux, Schenn and Voracek there is no consistent scoring. I think it is time that the Flyers give up on the Couturier 2nd line experiment. He is a 3rd line Center nothing more.
- xShoot4WarAmpsx

It was fun, but this was too long to read for no reason. If you were around here longer/more/enough you would know that he is being extremely sarcastic. Carry on

That's fair. I don't disagree. Although I'm not a fan of the ways that these numbers are manipulated where as there is little manipulation needed on "traditional" stats, I believe that analytical data can be used to help quantify how good a player or team is.
- jmatchett383

FWIW, Simmonds' numbers at even strength aren't very good no matter what measure you use. He plays a lot with Schenn and they just hemorrhage chances

I don't know man, I can't tell you. I can tell you the game isn't played the same way, now. Corsi doesn't mean you have to out shoot a team in order to win. I have never evaluated the Devils from the 90s, but I would bet that not every player on the team bled shots, but capitalized on scoring chances.
- YuenglingJagr

My whole point is that outshooting the other team, even over a long period, does not guarantee that you will be a successful team in terms of W/L. In general it will, and I agree it is usually better to take more shots than you allow. Similarly, having a higher team +/-does not mean you will win more than you lose either. But I do think that both can be useful to an extent to indicate how you are playing at ES.

FWIW, Simmonds' numbers at even strength aren't very good no matter what measure you use. He plays a lot with Schenn and they just hemorrhage chances
- PhillySportsGuy

And surprisingly, his +/- indicates that this is the case as well.

Also, I'd say that Simmonds' line's numbers are not every good, as the other players on the ice have to account for these chances (and for his +/-, as well).

I know, my point is that not all shot attempts are equal.

Again, I'm not for or against either +/- or raw SAF/SAA numbers, I juts don't think that either one is completely useless nor is either one a great measure.
- jmatchett383

I am not sure if anyone has ever said (besides Tanner) that all shot attempts are equal. Neither are +/- events. Which is the point I made when saying it is funny how some people are for traditional +/- but against corsi. A "+/- event" happens, if we are lucky, 10 times a game. A "corsi event" happens over 100 (unless we are terribly unlucky). So all of the what if scenarios you want to bring up get smoothed out much easier.

Using all of the information I have available, +/- to me, is useless.

edit:in the case of luck, we refers to us as fans

I am not sure if anyone has ever said (besides Tanner) that all shot attempts are equal. Neither are +/- events. Which is the point I made when saying it is funny how some people are for traditional +/- but against corsi. A "+/- event" happens, if we are lucky, 10 times a game. A "corsi event" happens over 100 (unless we are terribly unlucky). So all of the what if scenarios you want to bring up get smoothed out much easier.

Using all of the information I have available, +/- to me, is useless.

edit:in the case of luck, we refers to us as fans
- YuenglingJagr

Didn't we cover that there is no such thing as luck last week

+ / - 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

5 on 5 GF% is a better measure, but not without its flaws.

http://stats.hockeyanalys...p=1&sort=PCT&sortdir=DESC

As a team the Flyers went from having the best 5 on 5 SV% last season, to the 27th best this season so the fact they are in a playoff spot at the AS break is quite incredible.

http://stats.hockeyanalys...5&sort=SVPCT&sortdir=DESC

St Louis are 29th after being 4th last year, and their top 6 defense core of Bouwmeester, Pietrangelo, Parayko, Shattenkirk, Edmundsson and Gunarsson is one of the best in the league.

Serious question for the deep stats guys:

Do you actually enjoy watching games from a hockey perspective? Iow, can you just watch the games and enjoy the excitement and skill and rooting for your team?

So they get back to work tomorrow night. I wonder if Weise will be back in the lineup. I know hard with team winning 3 straight but I wonder if they try to get something out of him or just keep going with the same lineup.

I actually wouldn't mind seeing him in for Raffl. Raffl hasn't really been doing much on that top line.

And surprisingly, his +/- indicates that this is the case as well.

Also, I'd say that Simmonds' line's numbers are not every good, as the other players on the ice have to account for these chances (and for his +/-, as well).
- jmatchett383

The five worst +/- on the team are Ghost, Simmonds, Schenn, Giroux and Voracek. The best two are Bellemare and Lyubimov. Should we play the prior 5 guys less and play Bellemare and Lyubimov more? Would that suddenly turn the team around?

Serious question for the deep stats guys:

Do you actually enjoy watching games from a hockey perspective?
- Scoob

I actually enjoy viewing them more now. I end up focusing on minor details I never thought about before.

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
- YuenglingJagr

It may not be useful to you, but it is useful.

I've never stated that anyone who values corsi stats only uses corsi to evaluate players. So you have no point there.

Making it about me, isn't going to change the flaws that a stat like corsi has. If that's all you've got, well that's all you got.

The five worst +/- on the team are Ghost, Simmonds, Schenn, Giroux and Voracek. The best two are Bellemare and Lyubimov. Should we play the prior 5 guys less and play Bellemare and Lyubimov more? Would that suddenly turn the team around?
- PhillySportsGuy

Possibly at 5 vs 5...Hak has done that with PEB at times. During the 10 game win streak PEB was getting heavy 5 vs 5 usage in Couts absence. Just sayin

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.
- jmatchett383

I'm not going to say you're wrong in valuing goals more than shot attempts because I agree with that. However, I do feel that a team that carries play and shot attempts generally will have an advantage, and is an indicator of strong play.

Rudstov looking good.
Will he make Laughton expendable?

yet the sample sizes are completely different
- YuenglingJagr

Yes they are, but were dealing with events of different importance. Goals should not be discounted in analysis simply because they don't happen a lot.

The five worst +/- on the team are Ghost, Simmonds, Schenn, Giroux and Voracek. The best two are Bellemare and Lyubimov. Should we play the prior 5 guys less and play Bellemare and Lyubimov more? Would that suddenly turn the team around?
- PhillySportsGuy

I don't think I've ever implied or stated that would be wise. I also think I've stated that, while +/- is not "useless" as some have stated, it's not any more than a general reference and should be treated as such.