Always have been bewildered about the crap and abuse that the +/- stat gets.
To me,+/- has always represented a team chemistry oriented stat the separates you and your common teammates(linemates,D pair) from likelyhood of winning or losing 5 on 5 hockey. I don't know exact % but I still say 5 v 5 averages at least 3/4 of the 60-65 min game.
Sometimes elite level, special team talents are a little low on the +/- scale and in those cases maybe a pp/sh +/- could be looked at to justify a players ability to gel with common teammates and help his team win or lose. Especially players who both regularly play PP and SH like Bergy,Chara,Dougy.
One of the biggest reasons for B's subpar season up to now is of course injury.But another very important factor being the curse of the NHL 2014 cover. Bergy will always contribute positively in many ways to this team acheiving victory and he most definitely is contributing this year. But I don't think anyone who watches hockey has nominated Bergy for any great hardware this year.
To me,+/- has always represented a team chemistry oriented stat the separates you and your common teammates(linemates,D pair) from likelyhood of winning or losing 5 on 5 hockey. I don't know exact % but I still say 5 v 5 averages at least 3/4 of the 60-65 min game.
Sometimes elite level, special team talents are a little low on the +/- scale and in those cases maybe a pp/sh +/- could be looked at to justify a players ability to gel with common teammates and help his team win or lose. Especially players who both regularly play PP and SH like Bergy,Chara,Dougy.
One of the biggest reasons for B's subpar season up to now is of course injury.But another very important factor being the curse of the NHL 2014 cover. Bergy will always contribute positively in many ways to this team acheiving victory and he most definitely is contributing this year. But I don't think anyone who watches hockey has nominated Bergy for any great hardware this year.
if i really wanted to rock the boat I wouldve added Louie to the list that regularly plays both special teams.
ODAAT
Registered User
So what about zone starts, quality of competition, and quality of teammates. What about on ice save % both for and against? There are so many variables that simple +/- doesn't take into account.
For instance, Alex Edler last year. He finished a -39. He must have been the worst guy ever. Except, the opposing goalies had a save % over 96% while he was on the ice. Just dumb luck unless you think Edler had the power to make all of his teammates suck at shooting while he was on the ice.
Or how this one, both from the same team.
Player 1 had a +39
Player 2 had a +38.
Player 1 started in the offensive zone 20% more often than Player 2.
Player 1 also gave up 400 more shots than Player 2, while getting fewer than 100 more shots than when Player 2 was on the ice.
Clearly, +/- isn't telling the whole story with these two. (Krejci is player 1, Bergeron is player 2)
Ok, one more, both defensemen.
Player 1 has an even rating.
Player 2 is a +4.
Player 1 gets 41% of their starts in the defensive zone, and less than 25% in the offensive zone.
Player 2 gets more starts in the offensive zone than in the defensive or neutral zone and is not one of the defensemen the team relies on in tough defensive situations.
The team is shooting about the same amount of shots as they are allowing when the two are on the ice.
Player 1 is the crappy playing Seidenberg from this year. Player 2 is the defenseman that is dominating your ratings.
edit: I'm hoping this comes off as helpful and not like I am being a dick. Its not intended to be dickish. I hate it when people on this board (or the internet in general) are like that.
For instance, Alex Edler last year. He finished a -39. He must have been the worst guy ever. Except, the opposing goalies had a save % over 96% while he was on the ice. Just dumb luck unless you think Edler had the power to make all of his teammates suck at shooting while he was on the ice.
Or how this one, both from the same team.
Player 1 had a +39
Player 2 had a +38.
Player 1 started in the offensive zone 20% more often than Player 2.
Player 1 also gave up 400 more shots than Player 2, while getting fewer than 100 more shots than when Player 2 was on the ice.
Clearly, +/- isn't telling the whole story with these two. (Krejci is player 1, Bergeron is player 2)
Ok, one more, both defensemen.
Player 1 has an even rating.
Player 2 is a +4.
Player 1 gets 41% of their starts in the defensive zone, and less than 25% in the offensive zone.
Player 2 gets more starts in the offensive zone than in the defensive or neutral zone and is not one of the defensemen the team relies on in tough defensive situations.
The team is shooting about the same amount of shots as they are allowing when the two are on the ice.
Player 1 is the crappy playing Seidenberg from this year. Player 2 is the defenseman that is dominating your ratings.
edit: I'm hoping this comes off as helpful and not like I am being a dick. Its not intended to be dickish. I hate it when people on this board (or the internet in general) are like that.
Last edited:
yep. let's take more stuff into account. how? where do you stop? it's far from a perfect system. if you know of a better overall stat/formula, I'm very curious, because you don't seem excited to take into account the garbage nonsense that is crammed into most of the accessible advanced stats. thanks for the appropriate response.
what weight would you give zone starts? player quality stuff would be great to add, but how do you keep that from affecting itself exponentially? I wouldn't adjust one bit for shooting percentage, that's kind of the heart of my type of statistic. did it go in when you were there? yes? good. no? not as good.
what weight would you give zone starts? player quality stuff would be great to add, but how do you keep that from affecting itself exponentially? I wouldn't adjust one bit for shooting percentage, that's kind of the heart of my type of statistic. did it go in when you were there? yes? good. no? not as good.
Last edited by a moderator:
okay, there was a moderate revamping of the formula used to create "overall" ratings for this maligned project. it has included some of these factors mentioned in the most logical way I could muster with consultations of a brain I trust in math and hockey. it's now based on relative plus/minus per sixty with other player quality and zone progression/regression factors. it also includes bonuses of +1 for averaging 21 minutes per game, +2 for 22 minutes per game, +3 for 23.... this only added to three defensemen for this team. Campbell's rating makes me suspect I do this Julien would agree with. serious outliers are likely infrequent players showing ratings exaggerated by a lack data points to show a clean enough average. the deadline acquisitions have not had their calculations yet.
left wing
86 Lucic
86 Kelly
83 Marchand
68 Paille
center
94 Campbell
83 Bergeron-Cleary
79 Soderberg
61 Spooner
right wing
87 Smith
86 Pastrnak
80 Eriksson
?? Talbot
left defenseman
82 Bartkowski
79 Chara
73 Krug
right defenseman
85 Seidenberg
78 Hamilton
70 McQuaid
goalie
94 Rask
87 Svedberg
IR
96 Miller [RD]
?? Connolly [RW]
78 Krejci [C]
forward
100+ Robbins
?? Carey
89 Lindblad
64 Griffith
64 Ferlin
0- Khokhlachev
defenseman
89 Morrow
73 Warsofky
70 Trotman
goalie
0- Subban
[updated 3/9/15]
left wing
86 Lucic
86 Kelly
83 Marchand
68 Paille
center
94 Campbell
83 Bergeron-Cleary
79 Soderberg
61 Spooner
right wing
87 Smith
86 Pastrnak
80 Eriksson
?? Talbot
left defenseman
82 Bartkowski
79 Chara
73 Krug
right defenseman
85 Seidenberg
78 Hamilton
70 McQuaid
goalie
94 Rask
87 Svedberg
IR
96 Miller [RD]
?? Connolly [RW]
78 Krejci [C]
forward
100+ Robbins
?? Carey
89 Lindblad
64 Griffith
64 Ferlin
0- Khokhlachev
defenseman
89 Morrow
73 Warsofky
70 Trotman
goalie
0- Subban
[updated 3/9/15]
Last edited by a moderator:
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Series Talk: WCSF - Vancouver Canucks vs Edmonton Oilers- Latest: SeanMoneyHands
Upcoming events
-
-
-
2024 NHL Draft Lottery Team that wins #1 pick - PICK ONLY ONE TEAMWagers: 9Staked: $11,200.00Event closes- Updated: