Just a hunch... haven't asked him about it... but perhaps he was more concerned with focusing on playing his new position well.
Yours is a much more logical reason than mine. I was thinking Kings management told him to tone it down as he was making the rest of the team look bad.
I’m no Durzi fan and take Spence over him (and Walker) all day but +/- tells you nothing in this context over a single season. You have to break it down by partner, deployment and analyse his partners +/- over the same periods. Even then within a single I’d be looking at high danger chances conceded alongside it, especially considering the poor early season goaltender. It’s not a stat you can assess as a raw number in a single season , without some significant slicing and dicing.
That’s a fair assessment. Whilst I’m not a Durzi guy, I have no issue acknowledging that he has improved that side of his game. It’s definitely been a focus for him.
agreed, i move durzi more because of who is behind him and what I think LA could get for him than because of his play
Would you have any interest in doing a better statistical analysis of his play?
I wanted his take on the idea of comparing GA/P60 of those pairings with data that is a more fair sampling (e.g. llike what you said - since Copley).. reading his initial post, it sounds like even that is too general to draw a lot of conclusions.
It's a better take.....but still doesn't mean much.....+/- literally only measures if you are on the ice that a time a goal is scored....how fair is it for a player to garner a - because he made a line change on a 3-1.....steps on the ice, goal is scored....either way plus or minus, what does that tell you? Nothing..at all...
Important to remember: Shorthanded goals are.
There are certain stats that over time average out to be meaningful, ie the case you mentioned (just step on ice and end up with goal against) is balanced by hopping off the ice right before a goal is scored.. but over time the bs cancels out and you are left with a valuable stat. Apparently +/- isnt one of those according to Statto. Edit: it must have some value or why would they keep track of it?
i agree with most of everything you posted.
I always look at +/- in relation to the team's goal differential.. if you are a minus on a team that is net positive (or a positive on a team with a negative). Then Ill see what line or pairing you are on and mentally adjust for ease or difficulty of competition... e.g. Danault gets some slack for having the hardest assignments usually. If you want to get more into it, look at zone starts and then dive into advanced analytics.. but for a rough gauge thats my approach.
If I had the time and the numbers to hand I would but even if the numbers are available they’d be all over the shop. So probably not, but…
Short term, nothing, I agree. However over a long period of time causation and correlation come together. The issue is that the point it matters is subjective. It’s why the stat needs context and supporting information to get full value from it. I like the stat but it’s an indicator for further investigation rather than one from which to draw a conclusion.
A good example of the sort of context that is needed.
Exactly we'll confirmation bias our way into to fitting our currently held opinionIf I had the time and the numbers to hand I would but even if the numbers are available they’d be all over the shop. So probably not, but…
I’ll have a brief look tomorrow to see if I can do it easily as it has spiked my curiosity. It’ll then be fun watching us all draw completely disparate conclusions from the same result sets.
