Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass
Glossary of Terms:
SFrac: Season Fraction. 1.00 is a full season. I prefer it to games played because it gives a 48 game season, a 74 game season, an 80 game season or an 82 game season the same weight.
$ESGF: Evenstrength goals for, normalized to a 200 ESG scoring environment and with estimated SH goals removed.
$ESGA: Evenstrength goals against, normalized to a 200 ESG scoring environment and with estimated SH goals removed.
RON: Even strength GF/GA ratio when the player is on the ice.
ROFF: Evenstrength GF/GA ratio when the player is off the ice.
XEV+/: Expected evenstrength plusminus, which is an estimate of the plusminus that an average player would post with the same teammates. The calculation is described above.
EV+/: Even –strength plusminus, which is simply plusminus with estimated shorthanded goals removed and normalized to a 200 ESG environment.
AdjEV+/: Adjusted evenstrength plusminus, which is evenstrength plusminus minus expected evenstrength plusminus. This is the final number.
The following three stats evaluate special teams play and are not related to adjusted plusminus. I’m including them in the table for a quick reference to the player’s contributions outside of evenstrength play.
PP% : The % of the team’s power play goals for that the player was on the ice for.
SH%: The % of the team’s power play goals against that the player was on the ice for.
$PPP/G: Power play points per game, normalized to a 70 PPG environment and with pre1988 PP assists estimated.
Results
Here are the top 60 in career adjusted evenstrength plusminus, as well as the players in the HOH Top 100 and several others who were strongly considered for voting.
Rk  Player  SFrac  $ESGF/G  $ESGA/G  RON  ROFF  XEV+/  EV+/  AdjEV+/  /Season  PP%  $PPP/G  SH%  1  Ray Bourque  20.30  1.17  0.85  1.37  0.96  62  524  586  29  88%  0.45  58% 

Sorry, but I'm still a bit confused.
The text says $ESGF and $ESGA are adjusted to 200 ESG scoring environment.
The $ prefix makes me think "adjusted to 200 ESG scoring environment".
The text says EV+/ is also adjusted to 200 ESG scoring environment. ?
If it had been named "$EV+/", I would have been pretty sure it's $ESGF$ESGA, because $ tells me that it's "adjusted to 200 ESG scoring environment".
My question is... Is EV+/ = $ESGF$ESGA ?
The text also says:
Quote:
To calculate the adjusted plusminus, I take the player’s onice total goals for and against as given. I calculate an expected plusminus for the player, based on his team’s office performance.

"As given", does that mean they are
not "adjusted to 200 ESG scoring environment"?
Example, using made up seasonal stats for one player and his team.
Everything is ES only.
"without" or "w" means when player was off the ice.
GD (goal difference) = GFGA.
Lge aver ESGF per team  teamGD  teamGF  teamGA  playerGD  playerGF  playerGA  withoutGD  withoutGF  withoutGA  pGF/pGA  wGF/wGA  
100  +20  60  40  +10  24  14  +10  36  26  1.714  1.385  
Lge aver ESGF per team  $teamGD  $teamGF  $teamGA  $playerGD  $playerGF  $playerGA  $withoutGD  $withoutGF  $withoutGA  pGF/pGA  wGF/wGA  
200  +40  120  80  +20  48  28  +20  72  52  1.714  1.385  
Are the $ values above true? Is that how the ""adjusted to 200 ESG scoring environment" values are calculated?
If the above is correct, then how do we use the different variables to calculate the missing columns?
ROn? ROff?
Can someone write down the formula's for calculating the values, using the variables of the tables above?
And can we write "rOn" and "rOff" instead of "ROn" and "ROff", to make it easier to understand the formulas? ("" can otherwise be interpreted as a minus sign. But we don't take R minus On, and R minus Off, right? If, I'm even more confused.)
Quote:
The expected plusminus is calculated using the office performance regressed partially to even, as a player should be expected to play somewhat better than a set of bad teammates or worse than a set of good teammates.

I understand the regression thing. But I'm confused about other things, including what exactly to regress (I guess it's "wGF/wGA"). ? Is rOff = "wGF/wGA" regressed to even?
Quote:
I then calculate an actual plusminus, which differs from official NHL plusminus in that it is normalized to a scoring environment of 200 evenstrength goal per season and does not include shorthanded goals. I subtract the “expected plusminus” from the “actual plusminus” to generate an adjusted plusminus number.

I think I need an example to understand.