Poll: What is the most useless stat in hockey?

[CowbellGuy]

Was going to make this a regular poll, but I figured it would lend itself to plenty of discussion. Ready... Go!

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

Do I have to pick only one?  I'd be willing to vote for plus/minus and game winning goals.

[CowbellGuy]

I had a hard time not picking Plus/Minus, but I just had to go for GWG. Unless it's scored in the last minute of a game or overtime, most of the time it's just another goal. It certainly doesn't carry any extra significance when it's scored, unless you can predict the final score. And without the other goals, both for and against, it wouldn't be a GWG. Just let it go. Pointless.

[CowbellGuy]

In the preposterously-early voting, I'm heartened to see I'm not alone on this. But, yes, you can only pick one

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

In the preposterously-early voting, I'm heartened to see I'm not alone on this. But, yes, you can only pick one

OK, I went with GWG.  For exactly the reasons you cited.

[Robb]

I had a hard time not picking Plus/Minus, but I just had to go for GWG. Unless it's scored in the last minute of a game or overtime, most of the time it's just another goal. It certainly doesn't carry any extra significance when it's scored, unless you can predict the final score. And without the other goals, both for and against, it wouldn't be a GWG. Just let it go. Pointless.

Same here.  I'd much prefer a go-ahead-goals stat, or even better, a game-tying-goals stat.  Scoring when tied or down by one necessarily has much more of a clutch component to it.

[Trotsky]

I had a hard time not picking Plus/Minus, but I just had to go for GWG. Unless it's scored in the last minute of a game or overtime, most of the time it's just another goal. It certainly doesn't carry any extra significance when it's scored, unless you can predict the final score. And without the other goals, both for and against, it wouldn't be a GWG. Just let it go. Pointless.

It would be a little useful with a better definition: goal that put you ahead to stay (aka, the losing pitcher rule).  But nth + 1 goal in a game where the loser scores n is, like you said, completely valueless.

[Trotsky]

I had a hard time not picking Plus/Minus, but I just had to go for GWG. Unless it's scored in the last minute of a game or overtime, most of the time it's just another goal. It certainly doesn't carry any extra significance when it's scored, unless you can predict the final score. And without the other goals, both for and against, it wouldn't be a GWG. Just let it go. Pointless.

Same here.  I'd much prefer a go-ahead-goals stat, or even better, a game-tying-goals stat.  Scoring when tied or down by one necessarily has much more of a clutch component to it.

Oh God, please don't tell me you just say "clutch."  That's the sound of a thousand sabermetricians sharpening their knives.

[Rosey]

I think it's amusing that the bars for both choices with 1 vote are of different lengths. :-)

[Hillel Hoffmann]

Oooooh, I have some other hated stats that are lame enough to get some votes:

Shutouts. A totally dumbass comparative measure. Why should a brilliant game between the pipes when you're under constant assault but allow one fluky goal be any less valued than a game when you allow no goals because you're team is spending the whole time on the other side of the rink?

Hits. Total bullshit. As subjective as "errors" in baseball. It's especially stupid when you consider that grinding or just getting in someone's way can be just as effective, bruising and wearing on the opposition.

I also hate "scoring chances" (and other similar attempts to subjectively log especially dangerous shots). Geez, you put a guy like Holmstrom in front of the net, and even my weak wrist shot from the point is more dangerous than the best shooter in hockey teeing up an unscreened shot in the slot. Please.

[RichH]

I had a hard time not picking Plus/Minus, but I just had to go for GWG. Unless it's scored in the last minute of a game or overtime, most of the time it's just another goal. It certainly doesn't carry any extra significance when it's scored, unless you can predict the final score. And without the other goals, both for and against, it wouldn't be a GWG. Just let it go. Pointless.

In the 1980s, baseball kept the stat "Game Winning RBI."  Same thing.  MLB eventually wised up and dropped it completely.

[KeithK]

Shutouts. A totally dumbass comparative measure. Why should a brilliant game between the pipes when you're under constant assault but allow one fluky goal be any less valued than a game when you allow no goals because you're team is spending the whole time on the other side of the rink?

On average, games where a goalie gives up zero goals represent better performances than games where a goalie gives up one.  At the very least, a team can't lose when their goalie gives up zero; they can lose when the goalie gives up one, fluky or not.

A stat doesn't have to be perfect to be useful/provide useful information. A stat is only useless if it doesn't provide any useful information. Number of shutouts is useful information, even if no context is provided. GWG is probably not useful or at least has very little utility.

[cth95]

I like knowing the scoring chances.  Think of a game in which one team keeps sending shots in from the top of the faceoff circles to rack up 35-40 harmless shots, and the other team only has 25 but many come from cycling the puck in deep and finding open lanes for one-timers in front of the net. The box score could easily give the impression that the lesser team had the better game.

[Hillel Hoffmann]

Shutouts. A totally dumbass comparative measure. Why should a brilliant game between the pipes when you're under constant assault but allow one fluky goal be any less valued than a game when you allow no goals because you're team is spending the whole time on the other side of the rink?

On average, games where a goalie gives up zero goals represent better performances than games where a goalie gives up one.  At the very least, a team can't lose when their goalie gives up zero; they can lose when the goalie gives up one, fluky or not.

A stat doesn't have to be perfect to be useful/provide useful information. A stat is only useless if it doesn't provide any useful information. Number of shutouts is useful information, even if no context is provided. GWG is probably not useful or at least has very little utility.

You're right, of course -- GWG is the worst, by far, of all the stat nonsense.

But I'll never be comfortable with the Cult of the Shutout.

[ftyuv]

Shutouts. A totally dumbass comparative measure. Why should a brilliant game between the pipes when you're under constant assault but allow one fluky goal be any less valued than a game when you allow no goals because you're team is spending the whole time on the other side of the rink?

On average, games where a goalie gives up zero goals represent better performances than games where a goalie gives up one.  At the very least, a team can't lose when their goalie gives up zero; they can lose when the goalie gives up one, fluky or not.

A stat doesn't have to be perfect to be useful/provide useful information. A stat is only useless if it doesn't provide any useful information. Number of shutouts is useful information, even if no context is provided. GWG is probably not useful or at least has very little utility.

You're right, of course -- GWG is the worst, by far, of all the stat nonsense.

But I'll never be comfortable with the Cult of the Shutout.

The one thing a shutout says to me, albeit with a lot of error, is that the goalie is mentally in the game all 60 minutes. I've seen goalies in a 4-0 game who let up a goal with just a couple minutes left, and I can't help think that either they got lulled, or the psyched themselves out looking forward to the shutout. Getting the shutout is decent (again, not perfect) evidence that neither mental lapse happened.