You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Go to Page...
Thank you for crosschecking our sponsors!
About This Page: This is a discussion on LA Kings Talk within the LetsGoKings.com forums, at Los Angeles Kings Hockey Fan Forum. Originally Posted by d dub
Exactly.
+/- blindly as a stat by itself is the most misleading stat ever in hockey (see Tom Preissing 2006-07). You have to take into
+/- blindly as a stat by itself is the most misleading stat ever in hockey (see Tom Preissing 2006-07). You have to take into account both match ups 5 on 5 & how much ice time a player is getting. Crawford doesn't shy away from top line vs top line, so anything Frolov gets is earned by playing both ends.
Actually you have to decide if you agree with what +/- says. If you do agree with the result of +/-, than the stat is ok. If you don't agree with it, than the stat is misleading. Come on...
This is why a worthless stat is still hanging around: because EVERYBODY, no matter how intelligent or knowledgeable he/she is, takes out the +/- stat when it suits them. Gescom, where are the principles?
i don't believe it's worthless, otherwise the league wouldn't keep that stat.
i think the scouts, coaches, and general managers involved in professional hockey the world over are WELL aware of the existing problems and the margin of error inherent in the tabulation of plus/minus.
contrary to the popular opinion of hockey bbs expert analysis, there ARE effective reasons for the +/- rating when looking at and discussing players... but a lot of factors need to be considered in that discussion.
i don't believe it's worthless, otherwise the league wouldn't keep that stat.
i think the scouts, coaches, and general managers involved in professional hockey the world over are WELL aware of the existing problems and the margin of error inherent in the tabulation of plus/minus.
contrary to the popular opinion of hockey bbs expert analysis, there ARE effective reasons for the +/- rating when looking at and discussing players... but a lot of factors need to be considered in that discussion.
Well, I have said many times, that the margins of error, as you say, get lost very late - basically I consider +/- to be a good career stat. One season is not enough to give the stat any major credibility.
Considering the factors you mention, it's what - subjective analysis of an objective stat? Thanks a lot for such a stat. Wouldn't you agree, that whoever is capable of "correct" interpretation of particular player's +/-, is without any doubt also capable of creating the same opinion, the same analysis without any knowledge of the +/- value? In other words, +/- is just giving some fake credibility, because it's an official stat.
Edit: And sorry, I'm just not buying the "+/- is cool, you just can't read it because you are too dumb" argument.
Last edited by trdi; February 22nd, 2008 at 05:07 PM.
Well, I have said many times, that the margins of error, as you say, get lost very late - basically I consider +/- to be a good career stat. One season is not enough to give the stat any major credibility.
Considering the factors you mention, it's what - subjective analysis of an objective stat? Thanks a lot for such a stat. Wouldn't you agree, that whoever is capable of "correct" interpretation of particular player's +/-, is without any doubt also capable of creating the same opinion, the same analysis without any knowledge of the +/- value? In other words, +/- is just giving some fake credibility, because it's an official stat.
Edit: And sorry, I'm just not buying the "+/- is cool, you just can't read it because you are too dumb" argument.
what?
dude...
Niklas Lidstrom +2
Brett Lebda +17
would Lebda be better? if not, using +/-, tell me WHY not... i think it's a pretty obvious explanation. it isn't just functional as a career stat. it CAN be indicative of a player's season.
you have a very strange way of interpreting things i say... like that whole Cammalleri thing earlier.
Last edited by gescom; February 22nd, 2008 at 05:13 PM.
I think it's actually more indicative of a team's season. +/- is a hybrid stat.
not completely... and they also keep stats on team plus/minus as well.
Rob Blake -3
Lubomir Vinsovsky -2
Brad Stuart -1
Jack Johnson 0
Tom Preissing +6
Jarsolav Modry +8
say #s 1/2 are a pair, 3/4 a pair and 5/6 a pair... is Tom Preissing a better defenseman than Lubomir Visnovsky?
no. you know why? because all things considered, their plus/minus is the same.... but if you had those same numbers with the exception of Johnson (say), and he was somehow a +24, what would that say about Jack in one season, specifically?
Last edited by gescom; February 22nd, 2008 at 05:36 PM.
would Lebda be better? if not, using +/-, tell me WHY not... i think it's a pretty obvious explanation.
See, I bet there is some lunatic out there, who thinks Lebda is better. He will make up some general **** and back it up with the +/- stat. THAT'S why I hate +/- stat - the stupid people are using it for giving them fake credibility.
Here are some of the most common +/- arguments that can always be used one way or another:
- He plays in Eastern/Western Conference!
- He plays on the top line, he has better teammates!
- He plays on the top line, he plays against better defensemen.
- He plays on a good/bad team. If he played on a better/worse team, his +/- would be better/worse, because he would play on a better/worse line, having better/worse teammates playing against better/worse defensemen.
- He plays a lot/little minutes. If he played more/less minutes, his +/- would be better/worse.
- He plays on an offensively minded team, that's why his +/- is better - they score goals.
- He plays on an offensively minded team, that's why his +/- is so bad - they get a lot of goals.
..........
There are always pro and contra arguments and it's the same if there was never any +/- in the first place. Overall I think +/- has done more damage than good things to the hockey community. Which doesn't consist of GM's only.
I actually think Brett Lebda's pretty good. Not Lidstrom good, but if Detroit's all over the place in the third, with only a minute or so to go and they're up by a goal, then maybe you would want Lebda on more, given his +/-. But what does all this have to do with Frolov? I think it's nice he is 4th in forwards over the last 30 games, but he really needed to be that good all year long.
The problem is, that it could also NOT be indicative of a player's season. For instance George looks more tired than John after some sport activity. This might be indicative of:
- John is in a better shape
- George ran more and faster
- George was drunk, stoned and just ate a whole chicken before the match
We have no idea, which thing it's indicative of. Even if we watched the game and noticed, that George was more active during the match, we still don't know if that was enough for the observation we made after the match. What if George is actually in better shape, BUT he was drunk, stoned and ate some nasty chilii sauce pizza before the match? Maybe it's the sauce causing him to sweat more?! Now if we KNEW all these answers - why would we need the observation that George was tired at all?
I'm stubborn I've realized. But I really hate the +/- stat.
Quote:
you have a very strange way of interpreting things i say... like that whole Cammalleri thing earlier.
Now THAT one didn't need any interpretation, a quote is a quote.
