Poll: What is the most useless stat in hockey?

[Trotsky]

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?

Why should an at-em ball snagged by the shortstop that you hit off a nasty splitter be any less valued than a bloop single off a dead-armed hanging curve?

Does that make hits and outs "worthless" metrics?

[Hillel Hoffmann]

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?

Why should an at-em ball snagged by the shortstop that you hit off a nasty splitter be any less valued than a bloop single off a dead-armed hanging curve?

Does that make hits and outs "worthless" metrics?

I withdraw my dumbass shutout rant, which I admit is irrationally motivated by people fawning over Brodeur. ::blush::

[KeithK]

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?

Why should an at-em ball snagged by the shortstop that you hit off a nasty splitter be any less valued than a bloop single off a dead-armed hanging curve?

Does that make hits and outs "worthless" metrics?

I withdraw my dumbass shutout rant, which I admit is irrationally motivated by people fawning over Brodeur. ::blush::

I can totally appreciate irrational rants.

[Roy 82]

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.

Why is Plus/Minus a meaningless stat?

There are problems with all stats. Even goals and assists don't accurately measure the value of a player. Ryan Vesce score something like 3 goals in 3 games when he was on Joe Thornton's line. None otherwise. Heck, I probably could score on that line. Why the particular hate on +/-?

[Trotsky]

Why is Plus/Minus a meaningless stat?

A great player on a terrible team will log a ton of minutes and wind up with a hugely negative +/-.    It's not meaningless -- it's just that its meaning amounts to "likelihood the coach will play you even strength," and for that you may as well use TOI directly.

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

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?

Why should an at-em ball snagged by the shortstop that you hit off a nasty splitter be any less valued than a bloop single off a dead-armed hanging curve?

Does that make hits and outs "worthless" metrics?

I withdraw my dumbass shutout rant, which I admit is irrationally motivated by people fawning over Brodeur. ::blush::

I can totally appreciate irrational rants.

So can I.  However, a rant about people fawning over Brodeur is not irrational, IMHO.

[dbilmes]

Plus-minus is a useless stat because a player on a checking line may be an excellent defensive forward, but have a terrible plus-minus number because he's usually matched against the opposition's No. 1 line. I used to cover the Hartford Whalers (remember them?) for a local paper and never put much stock in that statistic. If a goalie gives up a soft goal, for example, everyone else on the ice for his team gets a minus even though it's not their fault. There are numerous examples of how this statistic is a poor way to measure a player's value to his team. Here's a similar sentiment from an Edmonton sportswriter who did a statistical analysis of various hockey stats:
Plus/minus -- When a guy gets a plus or a minus, he might not earn it. In fact, at least 30 per cent of the time, a player has nothing to do with goal being scored, but he gets assigned a false positive or a false negative. This high error rate does little for my confidence in this stat.

The basic problem here is the player is just one of five guys on the ice, and if he's consistently out on the ice with weak players, he's going to have a weak plus/minus, no matter how good he is.The same goes for a weak player out there with good players.

You put Bobby Orr with the wrong four guys, he'll be negative plus/minus. You put Zack Stortini out there with Jason Strudwick and Kyle Brodziak, he's going to have a crappy Corsi plus/minus. The same high error rate for this stat applies to all plus/minus stats, be they Shots For/Shots Against plus/minus, or Corsi plus/minus (which is Shots At For/Shots At Against plus/minus), or Scoring Chances For/Scoring Chances Against plus/minus.

The full article is available here: http://communities.canada.com/edmontonjournal/print.aspx?postid=359038

[jtwcornell91]

Plus-minus is a useless stat because a player on a checking line may be an excellent defensive forward, but have a terrible plus-minus number because he's usually matched against the opposition's No. 1 line. I used to cover the Hartford Whalers (remember them?) for a local paper and never put much stock in that statistic. If a goalie gives up a soft goal, for example, everyone else on the ice for his team gets a minus even though it's not their fault. There are numerous examples of how this statistic is a poor way to measure a player's value to his team. Here's a similar sentiment from an Edmonton sportswriter who did a statistical analysis of various hockey stats:
Plus/minus -- When a guy gets a plus or a minus, he might not earn it. In fact, at least 30 per cent of the time, a player has nothing to do with goal being scored, but he gets assigned a false positive or a false negative. This high error rate does little for my confidence in this stat.

The basic problem here is the player is just one of five guys on the ice, and if he's consistently out on the ice with weak players, he's going to have a weak plus/minus, no matter how good he is.The same goes for a weak player out there with good players.

You put Bobby Orr with the wrong four guys, he'll be negative plus/minus. You put Zack Stortini out there with Jason Strudwick and Kyle Brodziak, he's going to have a crappy Corsi plus/minus. The same high error rate for this stat applies to all plus/minus stats, be they Shots For/Shots Against plus/minus, or Corsi plus/minus (which is Shots At For/Shots At Against plus/minus), or Scoring Chances For/Scoring Chances Against plus/minus.

The full article is available here: http://communities.canada.com/edmontonjournal/print.aspx?postid=359038

I think the problem is that there are no good stats for defensemen.  The other standard one is PIM, with more penalties being considered better.

[ftyuv]

Plus-minus is a useless stat because a player on a checking line may be an excellent defensive forward, but have a terrible plus-minus number because he's usually matched against the opposition's No. 1 line. I used to cover the Hartford Whalers (remember them?) for a local paper and never put much stock in that statistic. If a goalie gives up a soft goal, for example, everyone else on the ice for his team gets a minus even though it's not their fault. There are numerous examples of how this statistic is a poor way to measure a player's value to his team. Here's a similar sentiment from an Edmonton sportswriter who did a statistical analysis of various hockey stats:
Plus/minus -- When a guy gets a plus or a minus, he might not earn it. In fact, at least 30 per cent of the time, a player has nothing to do with goal being scored, but he gets assigned a false positive or a false negative. This high error rate does little for my confidence in this stat.

The basic problem here is the player is just one of five guys on the ice, and if he's consistently out on the ice with weak players, he's going to have a weak plus/minus, no matter how good he is.The same goes for a weak player out there with good players.

You put Bobby Orr with the wrong four guys, he'll be negative plus/minus. You put Zack Stortini out there with Jason Strudwick and Kyle Brodziak, he's going to have a crappy Corsi plus/minus. The same high error rate for this stat applies to all plus/minus stats, be they Shots For/Shots Against plus/minus, or Corsi plus/minus (which is Shots At For/Shots At Against plus/minus), or Scoring Chances For/Scoring Chances Against plus/minus.

The full article is available here: http://communities.canada.com/edmontonjournal/print.aspx?postid=359038

But if you take that argument too far, all individual stats are meaningless. Put the NHL best goalie on my beer league against an NHL team, and he'll have a terrible save percentage. Put the most mediocre 4-th liner in my beer league, and he'll be scoring goals every 15 seconds. That's the cost of playing a team sport.

[DeltaOne81]

But if you take that argument too far, all individual stats are meaningless. Put the NHL best goalie on my beer league against an NHL team, and he'll have a terrible save percentage. Put the most mediocre 4-th liner in my beer league, and he'll be scoring goals every 15 seconds. That's the cost of playing a team sport.

Yes, if you take the argument *too* *far*, you can use it against anything. But +/- is so weak that you don't need to take the argument very far at all, nevermind *too* far.

Simply the idea of a checking line, or a team with a weak goalie, or players getting a +/- that had nothing to do with a play, are things that happen everyday, which can't be said for NHL players playing in your beer league.

[ftyuv]

But if you take that argument too far, all individual stats are meaningless. Put the NHL best goalie on my beer league against an NHL team, and he'll have a terrible save percentage. Put the most mediocre 4-th liner in my beer league, and he'll be scoring goals every 15 seconds. That's the cost of playing a team sport.

Yes, if you take the argument *too* *far*, you can use it against anything. But +/- is so weak that you don't need to take the argument very far at all, nevermind *too* far.

Simply the idea of a checking line, or a team with a weak goalie, or players getting a +/- that had nothing to do with a play, are things that happen everyday, which can't be said for NHL players playing in your beer league.

Obviously I took it to an extreme, but I don't think a +/- is much worse than any other individual stat. A goalie's stats depend very heavily on his teammates not hanging him out to dry. The forwards' shots-on-goal stats depend on their defence, as well as the coach's system. Etc etc.

Let's turn it on its head: what individual stat is most important? My nomination is TOI (maybe as a percentage of possible minutes, to account for injuries) -- it's the only one that wraps all of the other stats, adds in the intangibles as measured by the coach, and says "this is how important this player to the team, according to the people who would know best."

[sockralex]

My vote is for GWG for the same reasons as everyone else, but...

I think looking at any statistic alone doesn't tell the entire story. The +/- and the 3rd assist are good stats combined - a good indication of a "play maker" IMO.  I am not sure if there are players who have a combination of a lot of goals but a weak +/-.  I am not a big statistics hound so I'll throw the question out to other folks, what are good combinations  of statistics that can indicate player strengths?

[jkahn]

I think plus/minus is a pretty decent stat. Sure, it's dependent upon who else is on the ice for your team and for the opponent, but so are goals and assists. If you have a high scoring defenseman and a non-scoring defenseman on the same team (assuming they don't always play together) and their +/- is similar, that tells you something.

Plus-minus is a useless stat ...You put Bobby Orr with the wrong four guys, he'll be negative plus/minus.

Orr played with everyone on the Bruins and would often lead the team and league in +/- by a large margin.  One year he was +80, not to mention his huge contributions both on power plays and shorthanded.  Looking at both straight plus/minus and how it compares with teammates gives you a fuller picture.  There's no question that playing on the right line can help.  I've always thought that if the Pens had signed Moulson and he played with Crosby and Malkin, he'd be a 50 goal scorer.
Here are some interesting current plus/minus stats from the ECHL:
Evan Barlow 28GP 12-15 27 +12
Tony Romano 11GP 3-6 9 -5

[Al DeFlorio]

I think plus/minus is a pretty decent stat. Sure, it's dependent upon who else is on the ice for your team and for the opponent, but so are goals and assists. If you have a high scoring defenseman and a non-scoring defenseman on the same team (assuming they don't always play together) and their +/- is similar, that tells you something.

Plus-minus is a useless stat ...You put Bobby Orr with the wrong four guys, he'll be negative plus/minus.

Orr played with everyone on the Bruins and would often lead the team and league in +/- by a large margin.  One year he was +80, not to mention his huge contributions both on power plays and shorthanded.

An excerpt from the Wikipedia entry on Bobby Orr:

The following year, 1971, in a season when the powerhouse Bruins shattered dozens of league offensive records, Orr finished second in league scoring while setting records that still stand for points in a season by a defenceman [37 goals, 102 assists, 139 points] and for plus/minus (+124) by any position player. Orr's Bruins were heavy favourites to repeat as Cup champions, but were upset by the Montreal Canadiens and their rookie goaltender Ken Dryden.

That was the best team of NHL "everyones" I've ever seen.  They scored 399 goals, 108 more than the next highest team (Montreal), but couldn't beat the Big Kid when it counted.

[David Harding]

Let's turn it on its head: what individual stat is most important? My nomination is TOI (maybe as a percentage of possible minutes, to account for injuries) -- it's the only one that wraps all of the other stats, adds in the intangibles as measured by the coach, and says "this is how important this player to the team, according to the people who would know best."

I'll disagree on this one.  Directly, it really ONLY says "this is how important this player to the team, according to the people who would know best."  To me that is the antithesis of a statistic.  And it depends c0mpletely on The System favored by the coach.