Can you include a QOC (Quality of Competition) multiplier? I have problems with Bodie being "better than" Kadri/Raymond/Holland/Lupul/Kulemin. Bottom 6 forwards play "sheltered minutes" versus top 6 forwards. Ditto for top/bottom defense pairings.
Mess
Global Moderator
How is +/- a flawed stat?.
Is that because the Leafs give up more goals against in a season then they score and therefor many of their players have negative +/- ratings ?
85% of a game is played at even strength and +/- essentially counts the goals for while the player is on the ice and deducts the goals against at ES (+SH goals against).
Advanced stats have evolved to dig deeper beyond just the basic stats like +/- and evaluate the quality of competition, ice time, zone starts etc etc to try and help explain the +/- more in-depth to provide greater understanding.
MapleLeaf4ever
Registered User
I feel this stat has some legs too it. This coming from someone who for the most part thinks advanced stats are useless based on they already tell me what I can see, and the fact that it says asshats like Grabovski who don't pass, are superstar players.
The GP flaw is the only real glaring one. If you were to track this throughout the season, maybe get people for each team and keep a tack of GFT and GAT during games each player plays then you may get a good reading on how effective guys actually are. I find this one to be a way better analysis of players than Corsi as mentioned Grabovski would be shown as the Inconsistant plug he is.
The GP flaw is the only real glaring one. If you were to track this throughout the season, maybe get people for each team and keep a tack of GFT and GAT during games each player plays then you may get a good reading on how effective guys actually are. I find this one to be a way better analysis of players than Corsi as mentioned Grabovski would be shown as the Inconsistant plug he is.
MapleLeaf4ever
Registered User
The Winter Soldier
Registered User
- Apr 4, 2011
- 70,859
- 21,142
Said it before, Hockey is far behind on how they track advanced stats. You are only as accurate as the data collected.
Basketball uses Sportview to track their analytics. You will not need formulas once the NHL adopts this. Computers and cameras will put to rest the debate.
As for the Leafs, I have said, we have the resources to take the next step to gain an edge. Maybe Dubas will start hiring our own cameras and statisticians to compile data that we can use for our own selected advanced stats.
Good for Dubas to at least recognize some advanced stats are good, some are not.
Basketball uses Sportview to track their analytics. You will not need formulas once the NHL adopts this. Computers and cameras will put to rest the debate.
As for the Leafs, I have said, we have the resources to take the next step to gain an edge. Maybe Dubas will start hiring our own cameras and statisticians to compile data that we can use for our own selected advanced stats.
Good for Dubas to at least recognize some advanced stats are good, some are not.
Sure. I used QOC TOI% (ES) although I was looking for just QOC at ES if anyone has a link to that and I'll re-adjust in case it makes any difference.
When I took the QOC TOI% and multiplied it by the previous totals the results were:
Forwards:
Bozak
Kessel
JVR
Bodie
Lupul
Kadri
Raymond
Holland
Kulemin
Clarkson
Bolland
Ashton
McClement
D'Amigo
Orr
Smithson
Defense:
Phaneuf
Gunnarsson
Gardiner
Ranger
Franson
Rielly
So there was a bit of movement with that change. Bodie is still up their.
I did it again except instead of multiplying the two I divided it and got which is almost identical to the first list. So it made no difference.
Last edited by a moderator:
Super Mega
Registered User
- Jun 29, 2013
- 2,710
- 401
how is it it not?
it takes in no outside factors like QoC, PK/PP etc. +/- like most stats are essentially useless unless added in conjunction with other stats.
Super Mega
Registered User
- Jun 29, 2013
- 2,710
- 401
If your going to make a new statistical evaluation why not create something that is more of a composite? No offense, but it seems you are really just screwing data with a crappy version of G/60
I took relative corsi and adjusted based on qoc and qot
Kessel is no where near the top.
The only thing he exceeds at is scoring pts and because the majority come during 5v5 it makes. His +/- that much worse
BayStBullies
Burn the Boats!
It has been shown countless times how it is flawed. Doesn't take into account QOC or QOT.
Here is an example;
Kadri 50 points GA 62 +/- -12
Bazak 49 points GA 63 +/- 2
So you can score more, have less goals against and still have a lower +/-. With +/- you are rewarded/penalized by your linemates. Hell Mark Frazer was amongst the top of the league in +/- last year. Fraser a #1 defenseman? +/- should be taken with a grain of salt
ULF_55
Moderator
Actually, the stat is not flawed, the application of the stat is the issue.
A measure isn't the end of the evaluation, only a part.
Kessel has the highest QoT score on the team, he also has the highest QoC but its actually lower than the QoT, taking that in to account his CF% is 41.4%, which is 7th best ....on the Leafs
as for +/- , Kessel also scores the majority of his points (a higher % than majority of top players) and is still a -5 emphasizes how much he needs to improve that part of his game. he almost epitomizes what's wrong with how the leafs have been trying to win. outscore your shortcomings
Last edited:
Agree with BaystBullies.. you just created a formula with non-advanced stats.
When I clicked this, I was hoping to see QoC, Corsi numbers, PDO, Type of Shots, Distance of Shots from Net, etc.
Would've been nice with a fancy graph too.
When I clicked this, I was hoping to see QoC, Corsi numbers, PDO, Type of Shots, Distance of Shots from Net, etc.
Would've been nice with a fancy graph too.
the problem with what you posted is you assumed that Kadri and Bozak only helped scored goals for that they received points on, most of the time it takes a team effort in today's NHL to score, and therefore even if Bozak doesn't get a point, he probably still did something to help the leafs score the goal weather that's causing a turnover, screening the goalie, being a decoy, or other 100 things he could have done, but just not got a point for, and had he not done it the goal probably doesn't get scored.
Heres three teams completed and it does include more than it did with the OP post. I did acknowledge that it should be consider an advanced stat I just didn't know what to call it. 
Why did we ever get rid of Mark Fraser. Clearly he was a beast, just look at his +/-. +/- leaves so many factors out. Clearly it is flawed when you can have less points, have more goals against and still have a lower +/-. Not fair to be faulted for playing with weaker linemates. It can be used with other stats to show things, but by itself doesn't mean much.
Also, you've just stepped on the ice on a terrible change and the puck goes in the net. Instant -ve for something that you're not responsible for. And for those stats geeks that say that this type of things even out over a season, how many times has a goal been scored for in the middle of a line change?
Last edited:
