HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > By The Numbers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
By The Numbers Hockey Analytics... the Final Frontier. Explore strange new worlds, to seek out new algorithms, to boldly go where no one has gone before.

+/- anomalies

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-01-2012, 03:58 PM
  #1
Prophecy35
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 228
vCash: 500
+/- anomalies

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.

Prophecy35 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2012, 04:10 PM
  #2
HabsIslesFan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 249
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prophecy35 View Post
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

HabsIslesFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2012, 04:17 PM
  #3
Prophecy35
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 228
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HabsIslesFan View Post
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

Prophecy35 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2012, 04:22 PM
  #4
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 35,841
vCash: 500
I have to think that linemates and team defense are going to be the main factors.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2012, 05:51 PM
  #5
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 8,953
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
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).

Dennis Bonvie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2012, 05:51 PM
  #6
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,214
vCash: 500
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.

Ogopogo* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2012, 07:40 PM
  #7
Psycho Papa Joe
Porkchop Hoser
 
Psycho Papa Joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Cesspool, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Patrice Brisebois:

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


Last edited by Psycho Papa Joe: 03-01-2012 at 07:49 PM.
Psycho Papa Joe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2012, 07:43 PM
  #8
Psycho Papa Joe
Porkchop Hoser
 
Psycho Papa Joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Cesspool, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo View Post
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.

Psycho Papa Joe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2012, 10:45 PM
  #9
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,636
vCash: 500
Modano simply had a very poor season in 2004. I don't think it's ever been fully explained.

overpass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2012, 12:21 AM
  #10
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho Papa Joe View Post
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.

Ogopogo* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2012, 12:44 AM
  #11
Nalyd Psycho
Registered User
 
Nalyd Psycho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: No Bandwagon
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,288
vCash: 500
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.

__________________
Every post comes with the Nalyd Psycho Seal of Approval.
Nalyd Psycho is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2012, 02:20 AM
  #12
MadArcand
We do not sow
 
MadArcand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Pyke
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 4,721
vCash: 500
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.

MadArcand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2012, 03:31 AM
  #13
ES
Registered User
 
ES's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Finland
Country: Finland
Posts: 2,695
vCash: 500
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.

ES is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2012, 03:46 AM
  #14
maroon 6
Live and let live
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: British Columbia
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,956
vCash: 50
08-09 Ehrhoff -12
09-10 Ehrhoff +36

maroon 6 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2012, 06:15 AM
  #15
plusandminus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 980
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prophecy35 View Post
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.

plusandminus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2012, 07:27 AM
  #16
gifted88
Dante the poet
 
gifted88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Guelph, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,359
vCash: 500
1986-87 Devils points: 64
1987-88 Devils points: 82
1988-89 Devils Points: 66

I think this is your explanation for Cirella.

gifted88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-02-2012, 08:17 AM
  #17
Psycho Papa Joe
Porkchop Hoser
 
Psycho Papa Joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Cesspool, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo View Post
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.

Psycho Papa Joe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-03-2012, 02:28 AM
  #18
whatname
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 189
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
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.

whatname is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-03-2012, 07:42 AM
  #19
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 8,953
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho Papa Joe View Post
Complete garbage for somebody who doesn't know how to use it.
Exactly.

Dennis Bonvie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-03-2012, 11:03 PM
  #20
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho Papa Joe View Post
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.

Ogopogo* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-03-2012, 11:22 PM
  #21
Trebek
Mod Supervisor
 
Trebek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 24,588
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo View Post
Hahaha

That is messed up on so may levels. Good luck with that.
Please enumerate the levels. Thanks.

Trebek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2012, 01:39 AM
  #22
Master_Of_Districts
Registered User
 
Master_Of_Districts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Black Ruthenia
Country: Belarus
Posts: 1,745
vCash: 500
Randomness is the largest, but not the only, explanatory factor.

Master_Of_Districts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2012, 02:25 AM
  #23
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taco MacArthur View Post
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.


Last edited by Ogopogo*: 03-04-2012 at 02:43 AM.
Ogopogo* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2012, 04:05 AM
  #24
begbeee
Registered User
 
begbeee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Slovakia
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 4,038
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo View Post
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!

begbeee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2012, 05:59 AM
  #25
the edler
Inimitable
 
the edler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,664
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo View Post
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

the edler is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:36 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.