Edited Nov. 20, 2019 at 1:26 a.m.
Quoting: BOLTLOVER1
AGAIN the plus minus haters are out with NEVER a quantatative reason why they do .. some advice in life .. if u cant add any value just stay quiet .. my point remains .. even worse is the moron above who says FO% doesnt count .. would someone who actually played hockey opine on plus/minus in terms of other stats .. 5V 5 expected goals Corsi etc.. as long as sample size is big enough to discard it is moronic
"In the long-run, shot rates ultimately converge regardless of whether the faceoff is won or lost"
"a team needs to win 164 additional power-play or penalty-kill faceoffs to get one additional win. But a team typically only takes 790 such faceoffs per season, so it would be virtually impossible to win 164 more faceoffs."
And I will just let you read
this yourself on +/-.
"The weakest players are not given enough ice time to accumulate the large negative values in plus/minus. The most negative players are typically have some combination playing lots of minutes, playing for weaker teams, and carrying a low PDO. They are very rarely the worst negative players relative to ice time as well."
"What does a player with +5 rating tell you? Well that the team scored 5 more goals with them on the ice than the opposition scored (…well, not exactly, since this would be excluding power play goals for and short handed goals against as we noted earlier).
How good is that though?
Is the skater +5/-0, or +10/-5, or +15/-10, or +20/-15, or +25/-20,… +50/-45. That scale is a team controlling 100% of the goals, 66.7%, 60%, 57%, 56%,… 53%. Those are some huge differences in performance."
"even in the large samples, plus/minus fails to properly measure outscoring."
But sure, I, the informed one here is the idiot. The people saying these stats suck are always citing quantitative data.
Another thing I'd like to add is that while I did play hockey at a high level myself, you don't need to in order to know that **** stats are ****. You just need not be an obtuse idiot.
If you are going to call someone a moron and dispute their point while being a moron yourself, have the balls to @ them.