What I'm saying is that for most players, Condra is tougher competition because he's much better defensively and it's harder to score when he's on the ice.
I'll agree Corsi isn't that useful on it's own. It's one stat. Being good at it doesn't guarantee success. (Though gives some indication)
+/- is more useful though. It combines EVERYTHING. Defense, offense and everything in between.
Alfredsson and Spezza top the +/- category for the Sens. Coincidence? No. Turris and Michalek are in the top 5. Coincidence? No. Condra is in there too... why would that be a coincidence?
+/- is a ****ing horrible stat. It conflates three different game states (ES, PP and SH) to the detriment of players who play PP time, has remarkably little correlation year to year for individual players, and is assigned to players who may not have even been on the ice at any point during the goal scoring play other than to watch as they step off the bench.
Ice time is a really good stat. I figure coaches know more than I do about hockey. On average (players rarely have just a single coach during their career) a player's ice time is a very good indication of their value to their team.
+/- is a ****ing horrible stat. It conflates three different game states (ES, PP and SH) to the detriment of players who play PP time, has remarkably little correlation year to year for individual players, and is assigned to players who may not have even been on the ice at any point during the goal scoring play other than to watch as they step off the bench.
Ice time is a really good stat. I figure coaches know more than I do about hockey. On average (players rarely have just a single coach during their career) a player's ice time is a very good indication of their value to their team.
TBay had the most goals against while on the PP at 11 and Jersey had the most for on the PK with 13. Not sure that that played to huge a role in ruining the validity of the metric. That said, it is a lousy one. +/_ per 60 mins is a bit better, but the bigger failure in the stat is that good team have good +/-, where as bad teams have bad ones. You can be a great player on a lousy team, and your lousy line mates will drag down your +/-. I would think +/- per 60 mins relative to your team would be the best +/- based stat though I haven't done the legwork to verify. If you really think the PP and PK effect is an issue, use GF-GA at ES per 60 mins relative to team mates.
TOI has its own quirks, as some players numbers are inflated due to being someone else's line mate, or lack of depth at a position. I guess this would normalize over the span of a career, but I'm still not sold as to its value when judging players across various teams.
I long for the days when I had never heard of corsi or QoC.
Your problem isn't corsi, your problem is the one guy who won't shut the eff up about it.
It's like listening to a Vegan who won't shut the eff up about how, due to how some farms mistreat their livestock, he refuses to eat any meat whatsoever, and how you can get all your protein and nutrition from soya-based products, and you are a monster for not also being a soya-tarian.
If you listen to people like that long enough, and if they scream loud enough, you'd probably feel like refusing to eat soya ever again, despite the fact that clearly soya has some beneficial nutritional value.
I'll agree Corsi isn't that useful on it's own. It's one stat. Being good at it doesn't guarantee success. (Though gives some indication)
+/- is more useful though. It combines EVERYTHING. Defense, offense and everything in between.
Alfredsson and Spezza top the +/- category for the Sens. Coincidence? No. Turris and Michalek are in the top 5. Coincidence? No. Condra is in there too... why would that be a coincidence?
I presented +/-, Corsi (both of which I have shown correlated with wins), Takeaway/Giveaway ratio, Quality of Competition.
All these combined can paint a very accurate picture imo. If you're REALLY good at +/-, but have horrible quality of competition, I'll take it with a grain of salt. But if you're good at everything (another we could look at is % of starts in the offensive zone), then... you're awesome.
Condra is awesome.
+/- is a ****ing terrible stat for assessing a player's skills and value, no matter how many other stats you try to throw alongside it to make it seem relevant.
__________________ CanadianHockey________ __ __________Sens, Oilers, and Team Canada
Agreed at the fact that +/- might be the single most unreliable stat in hockey. It has value as an "accessory stat", and barely that.
In theory, is supposed to identify players who can achieve superior goal differential, yet on poor teams, many better skilled 2-way (or defensive) players have poor +/- (even compared to players on his own team) because they play against an elite level of competition on a team that may have other flaws (poor goaltending, or a superior defenceman playing with an awful d-partner, or no backchecking forwards creating odd-man rushes, or a good defensive forward playing in front of a sieve of a defence, or an incompetent coach, or a player adept at positional play and stick checking being forced into a physical role, or vice-versa, etc...)
It has probably the single most untrackable variables attached to it of any stat out there. It's barely useful.
Agreed at the fact that +/- might be the single most unreliable stat in hockey. It has value as an "accessory stat", and barely that.
In theory, is supposed to identify players who can achieve superior goal differential, yet on poor teams, many better skilled 2-way (or defensive) players have poor +/- (even compared to players on his own team) because they play against an elite level of competition on a team that may have other flaws (poor goaltending, or a superior defenceman playing with an awful d-partner, or no backchecking forwards creating odd-man rushes, or a good defensive forward playing in front of a sieve of a defence, or an incompetent coach, or a player adept at positional play and stick checking being forced into a physical role, or vice-versa, etc...)
It has probably the single most untrackable variables attached to it of any stat out there. It's barely useful.
This and this.
I still don't get how some people KEEP bringing it up as the be all and end all to judging a players two-way game or whatever.
__________________
Senators | 67's | Texans | Blue Jays
Twitter: @TyFi10 | Formerly: Mighty Manked, SeanMonahan | BF3 All-Star
"What if something amazing happens today?" - Jack Jablonski Blog (Click Here): Turris, The Goal. Ottawa, The Win.
+/- is a ****ing terrible stat for assessing a player's skills and value, no matter how many other stats you try to throw alongside it to make it seem relevant.
How do you explain the best players on the team (except Condra, who is apparently bad) having the top +/-?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BonkTastic
Agreed at the fact that +/- might be the single most unreliable stat in hockey. It has value as an "accessory stat", and barely that.
In theory, is supposed to identify players who can achieve superior goal differential, yet on poor teams, many better skilled 2-way (or defensive) players have poor +/- (even compared to players on his own team) because they play against an elite level of competition on a team that may have other flaws (poor goaltending, or a superior defenceman playing with an awful d-partner, or no backchecking forwards creating odd-man rushes, or a good defensive forward playing in front of a sieve of a defence, or an incompetent coach, or a player adept at positional play and stick checking being forced into a physical role, or vice-versa, etc...)
It has probably the single most untrackable variables attached to it of any stat out there. It's barely useful.
When you're on bad team, but you still play against the opponent best players all the time, and you still school everyone your team at it (cough*Landeskog*cough), then it means something.
You have to look at context (per ice time, what kind of team the player plays on, what kind of competition the player has and what kind of linemates he has). When you look at context, it's useful.
You have to look at context (per ice time, what kind of team the player plays on, what kind of competition the player has and what kind of linemates he has). When you look at context, it's useful.
No, when you look at ice time, the kind of team a player plays on, the kind of competition the player has, a players linemates... THOSE things are useful to look at.
+/- is just a mirage stat. It's far too unreliable to have much value whatsoever.
No, when you look at ice time, the kind of team a player plays on, the kind of competition the player has, a players linemates... THOSE things are useful to look at.
+/- is just a mirage stat. It's far too unreliable to have much value whatsoever.
If you just look at that, you have no idea how well he's doing. Say player X plays against easy competition... if the guy has a high +/-, maybe he's ready for a bigger role (TJ Brodie).
If player Y plays against very good competition, but has a horrible +/-, maybe it's time to take him out of that role (Shawn Horcoff).
Players who excel (high +/-) in very difficult situations are awesome (Gabriel Landeskog)
I disregarded much of anything that behindthenet had to say the moment that they tried to tell me that 17 Oilers faced `tougher`competition than all but 4 Senators (3 regular skaters)... after trying to find out why Oiler fans were stating that everyone one of their players was a `shutdown player`(like us and Turris ).
That was also around the time that they were using behindthenet to argue that Horcoff was more valuable than Crosby, but only if you added Crosby's higher salary in the mix. Because the only reason that would sound crazy is without the salary qualifier.
I disregarded much of anything that behindthenet had to say the moment that they tried to tell me that 17 Oilers faced `tougher`competition than all but 4 Senators (3 regular skaters)... after trying to find out why Oiler fans were stating that everyone one of their players was a `shutdown player`(like us and Turris ).
That was also around the time that they were using behindthenet to argue that Horcoff was more valuable than Crosby, but only if you added Crosby's higher salary in the mix. Because the only reason that would sound crazy is without the salary qualifier.
If you just look at that, you have no idea how well he's doing. Say player X plays against easy competition... if the guy has a high +/-, maybe he's ready for a bigger role (TJ Brodie).
If player Y plays against very good competition, but has a horrible +/-, maybe it's time to take him out of that role (Shawn Horcoff).
Players who excel (high +/-) in very difficult situations are awesome (Gabriel Landeskog)
Once again, you're inserting +/- where it doesn't need to be. Your post should read:
Say player X plays against easy competition... if the guy is clearly playing above the level of his competition, maybe he's ready for a bigger role (TJ Brodie).
If player Y plays against very good competition, but has a horrible time keeping up with that level of competition, maybe it's time to take him out of that role (Shawn Horcoff).
Players who excel in very difficult situations are awesome (Gabriel Landeskog)
You don't need +/- in any of those three examples. The three points I just made are all common frigging sense.
Once again, you're inserting +/- where it doesn't need to be. Your post should read:
Say player X plays against easy competition... if the guy is clearly playing above the level of his competition, maybe he's ready for a bigger role (TJ Brodie).
If player Y plays against very good competition, but has a horrible time keeping up with that level of competition, maybe it's time to take him out of that role (Shawn Horcoff).
Players who excel in very difficult situations are awesome (Gabriel Landeskog)
You don't need +/- in any of those three examples. The three points I just made are all common frigging sense.
What success is, for me, is keeping pucks out of your net, and putting them in the opposition's net. What better way to measure that then +/-?
What happens in between is pretty much irrelevant. Unless Chris Neil's big hit inspires Jason Spezza to play better. But really, how often does that happen.
What success is, for me, is keeping pucks out of your net, and putting them in the opposition's net. What better way to measure that then +/-?
What happens in between is pretty much irrelevant. Unless Chris Neil's big hit inspires Jason Spezza to play better. But really, how often does that happen.
Chris Neil's big hits inspire the team to play better/energize the entire team multiple times per year, actually per month, I don't get this comment, do you watch the sens?
).
