+/- anomalies

[Prophecy35]

I know the stat is extremely subjective, and not the most reliable, but I was wondering how many cases of something like this have happened?

Player X is with a team and is -10 or below
The very next season he is +10 or above
Followed by a season where he is again -10 or below

Keep in mind, that this individual must be on the same team during these three years. Also, it could work the other way as well (+10, -10, +10).

The idea came to me because (somehow) I ended up on Joe Cirella's hockey-reference page, and he had this "odd" three season span all with the Devils:

1986-87: -20
1987-88: +15
1988-89: -14

Modano also had a similar span, though opposite:

2002-03: +34
2003-04: -21
2005-06: +23

This has no real significance at all, I'm just curious about how often this occurs, and possibly why.

Click to read more...

 

[HabsIslesFan]

I know the stat is extremely subjective, and not the most reliable, but I was wondering how many cases of something like this have happened?

Player X is with a team and is -10 or below
The very next season he is +10 or above
Followed by a season where he is again -10 or below

Keep in mind, that this individual must be on the same team during these three years. Also, it could work the other way as well (+10, -10, +10).

The idea came to me because (somehow) I ended up on Joe Cirella's hockey-reference page, and he had this "odd" three season span all with the Devils:

1986-87: -20
1987-88: +15
1988-89: -14

Modano also had a similar span, though opposite:

2002-03: +34
2003-04: -21
2005-06: +23

This has no real significance at all, I'm just curious about how often this occurs, and possibly why.

Saku Koivu had it happen twice haha
2005-06 : +1
2006-07 : -21
2007-08 : -4

Weird thing here is that his -21 season was his best points season with 75 compared to 52 and 56 points in 2006 and 2008. Not sure why the plus minus dropped so much but I do know Montreal's power play was amazing the year he had 75 points and most of his points came on PP where you don't get a plus.

His three season in Anaheim go like this :
2009-10 : +14
2010-11 : -8
2011-12 : +16
Which is also odd since Anaheim's best season in the past three years was 2010-11.

I would guess that in most cases the one season in the middle is just a one time terrible or great year for the player but Koivu's case is very odd as his "bad" plus minus years coincide with either personal or team success. This doesn't really answer a question as to why it would happen but I have always followed Koivu closely and thought I would point his case out

 

[Prophecy35]

Saku Koivu had it happen twice haha
2005-06 : +1
2006-07 : -21
2007-08 : -4
Weird thing here is that his -21 season was his best points season with 75 compared to52 and 56 in 06 and 08. Not sure why the plus minus dropped so much but I do know Montreal's power play was amazing the year he had 75 points and most of his points came on PP where you don't get a plus.
His three season in Anaheim go like this :
2009-10 : +14
2010-11 : -8
2011-12 : +16
Which is also odd since Anaheim's best season in the past three years was 2010-11.

I would guess that in most cases the one season in the middle is just a one time terrible or great year for the player but Koivu's case is very odd as his "bad" plus minus years coincide with either personal or team success

Thanks for the input, but it doesn't quite fit the criteria. Has to be at least + or - 10 in those seasons. Like -10,10,-10 or 10, -10, 10. By doing that, I'm limiting the possible players. Found a few more by the way:

Verbeek (Devils 86-89): -23, 29, -18
Oates (Bruins 93-96): 10, -11, 16
Dionne (Kings 80-83): 55, -10, 10
Daneyko (Devils 88-91): -22, 15, -10
Hull (Stars 98-01): 19, -21, 10

 

[tarheelhockey]

I have to think that linemates and team defense are going to be the main factors.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I have to think that linemates and team defense are going to be the main factors.

Or perhaps injuries on a team wide basis.

Or a big year from a goalie (or a bad one).

 

[Ogopogo*]

Easy explanation. +/- is NOT a measure of an individual's performance. Far too many envionrmental factors around the player contribute to this number to give it any reliability at all as an individual stat.

In short: +/- is complete garbage. Don't waste your time on it.

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

Patrice Brisebois:

1999-00 -1
2000-01 -31
2001-02 +9
2002-03 -14
2003-04 +17

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

Easy explanation. +/- is NOT a measure of an individual's performance. Far too many envionrmental factors around the player contribute to this number to give it any reliability at all as an individual stat.

In short: +/- is complete garbage. Don't waste your time on it.

I disagree, but it needs to be viewed in context in order to be an effective tool in player evaluation.

 

[overpass]

Modano simply had a very poor season in 2004. I don't think it's ever been fully explained.

 

[Ogopogo*]

I disagree, but it needs to be viewed in context in order to be an effective tool in player evaluation.

Tranlsation: There are too many environmental factors outside the player's control for this to be any kind of effective individual measurement. i.e. the stat is complete garbage.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

The stat is useful to look at how effectively a player played in his role in a given year with his linemates. I like what the NBA does where it breaks down +/- into single player, pairs, threesomes, quartets and full five-man units. So you can use it to see how players work on the team.

 

[MadArcand]

Eh, that's not really anomalies, just team defense/linemates/team performance fluctuation.

Anomaly is something like Joe Murphy's 95-96 in Chicago, where it had to take almost conscious effort to be so far below everyone else.

 

[ES]

Not anomaly like asked in OP, but Paul Ysebaert led the league in 1991-92 and then was last in 1997-98. I believe he's only player to achieve that feat.

 

[maroon 6]

08-09 Ehrhoff -12
09-10 Ehrhoff +36

 

[plusandminus]

Verbeek (Devils 86-89): -23, 29, -18
Oates (Bruins 93-96): 10, -11, 16
Dionne (Kings 80-83): 55, -10, 10
Daneyko (Devils 88-91): -22, 15, -10
Hull (Stars 98-01): 19, -21, 10

Here is an article partly (the Los Angeles section) summarizing the change in performance by Los Angeles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_on_Manchester
It may bring back memories for some.
Despite a relatively poor 1981-82 season, LA would go on to knock out Edmonton in a high scoring 1st round series of the playoffs - which is what the article is mainly about.

 

[gifted88]

1986-87 Devils points: 64
1987-88 Devils points: 82
1988-89 Devils Points: 66

I think this is your explanation for Cirella.

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

Tranlsation: There are too many environmental factors outside the player's control for this to be any kind of effective individual measurement. i.e. the stat is complete garbage.

Complete garbage for somebody who doesn't know how to use it.

 

[whatname]

Modano simply had a very poor season in 2004. I don't think it's ever been fully explained.

I read that Modano lost like a million in the stock market so his mind wasn't right.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Complete garbage for somebody who doesn't know how to use it.

Exactly.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Complete garbage for somebody who doesn't know how to use it.

Hahaha

That is messed up on so may levels. Good luck with that.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Hahaha

That is messed up on so may levels. Good luck with that.

Please enumerate the levels. Thanks.

 

[Master_Of_Districts]

Randomness is the largest, but not the only, explanatory factor.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Please enumerate the levels. Thanks.

I have spelled it out probably 10 times in previous threads. I don't have the energy to do it yet again.

In short, there are 12 players on the ice when a goal is scored. Giving out an individual statistic for the product of 12 players efforts is completely and totally inaccurate and lazy. People are looking for an easy way to measure if a player is good or not.

If a goal is scored, there are 10 non-goalies on the ice who are all credited with a + or a -. If it was simply one guy that screwed up, there is a 10% chance any given player on the ice was involved. Heck, let's assume 4 players efforts, positive or negative, led to a goal. That still means there is a 60% chance that any given player on the ice had nothing to do with it.

Conclusion: 60% of the time +/- means absolutely NOTHING in regards to an individual player. People are being credited with a stat that has nothing to do with their efforts. No wonder there are so many anomalies - most of the time the stat is complete BS. People trying to find an easy way to measure performance are simply fooling themselves into thinking +/- is somehow useful.

Then, of course, they come out with the classic line, in their most arrogant tone "You have to use it in context". They can cling to that myth and continue to fool themselves. The stat is so skewed and so random that it means nothing. And, if you need to spend time trying to figure out the "context" for every single player then, the stat is worthless in itself. Why not just do the research, watch the guy play then figure out if he is good or not? The number tells you nothing - unless you spend the time to figure out if it tells you something or not. That is moronic.

Imagine if a thermometer worked that way. Sometimes when you see the temperature sitting at 20 degrees celsius, it is a very comfortable day outside. But, sometimes 20 celsius means it is snowing. Other times, it says 20 but it is actually 40 and people are falling over with heat stroke. A thermometer like that would pretty quickly be tossed out as a piece of garbage because every single time you need to figure out the "context" to know if that temperature actually means what you think it might mean.

+/- is completely and utterly garbage. When people act so condescending, telling me I don't understand how to use the stat, I just have to laugh at their ignorance.

Look at that, you got me to spell it out one more time.

 

[begbeee]

I have spelled it out probably 10 times in previous threads. I don't have the energy to do it yet again.

In short, there are 12 players on the ice when a goal is scored. Giving out an individual statistic for the product of 12 players efforts is completely and totally inaccurate and lazy. People are looking for an easy way to measure if a player is good or not.

If a goal is scored, there are 10 non-goalies on the ice who are all credited with a + or a -. If it was simply one guy that screwed up, there is a 10% chance any given player on the ice was involved. Heck, let's assume 4 players efforts, positive or negative, led to a goal. That still means there is a 60% chance that any given player on the ice had nothing to do with it.

Conclusion: 60% of the time +/- means absolutely NOTHING in regards to an individual player. People are being credited with a stat that has nothing to do with their efforts. No wonder there are so many anomalies - most of the time the stat is complete BS. People trying to find an easy way to measure performance are simply fooling themselves into thinking +/- is somehow useful.

Then, of course, they come out with the classic line, in their most arrogant tone "You have to use it in context". They can cling to that myth and continue to fool themselves. The stat is so skewed and so random that it means nothing. And, if you need to spend time trying to figure out the "context" for every single player then, the stat is worthless in itself. Why not just do the research, watch the guy play then figure out if he is good or not? The number tells you nothing - unless you spend the time to figure out if it tells you something or not. That is moronic.

Imagine if a thermometer worked that way. Sometimes when you see the temperature sitting at 20 degrees celsius, it is a very comfortable day outside. But, sometimes 20 celsius means it is snowing. Other times, it says 20 but it is actually 40 and people are falling over with heat stroke. A thermometer like that would pretty quickly be tossed out as a piece of garbage because every single time you need to figure out the "context" to know if that temperature actually means what you think it might mean.

+/- is completely and utterly garbage. When people act so condescending, telling me I don't understand how to use the stat, I just have to laugh at their ignorance.

Look at that, you got me to spell it out one more time.

Actually... When there is a positive effort of 4/5 players there is a negative effort of 5/5 opposite players who couldnt stop them. If we can get consensus that to get a goal you need an effort from 2-3 attacking players and there are often 1 or 2 players who had nothing to do with a mistake... Hell..wow.. You still has 50% chance that any given player on the ice had nothing to do with it!

 

[sr edler]

Imagine if a thermometer worked that way. Sometimes when you see the temperature sitting at 20 degrees celsius, it is a very comfortable day outside. But, sometimes 20 celsius means it is snowing. Other times, it says 20 but it is actually 40 and people are falling over with heat stroke. A thermometer like that would pretty quickly be tossed out as a piece of garbage because every single time you need to figure out the "context" to know if that temperature actually means what you think it might mean.

but the thermometer doesn't account for the windchill factor or humidity so it's basically the plus and minus of weather

most things in life's got some kind of context