AmadiosAmigos
Registered User
- Oct 27, 2010
- 1,452
- 268
What is the worst stat to use in any category when evaluating a player?
Corsi?
Fenwick?
+/- ?
Corsi?
Fenwick?
+/- ?
differentials that drastically differ from a teams baseline tend to be caused by zone starts and QOC more than anything else, so i'd say its fairly useless, especially of the box score stats. No stat is truly useless, they just need context and how there being evaluated. For example shooting % if you look at a guy with a high percentage and you think its because he has an elite shot your using it wrong, more likely it will revert to the mean, same logic applies to a low one.+/- gets ripped on so much but its not as bad as people make it out to be. I needs context like everything else.
If nothing else, it highlights things that other numbers might not track. I always find its really interesting when looking at stats of individuals on a team most of the team is like -15 and you have 1 or 2 guys that are even or in the small positives. I don't think that should be overlooked.
In other words, most numbers can be useful if they are relative to a players team and teammates.
I always take GAA with a grain of salt. You can be the best goalie in the world but with a crappy defence you're bound to let in more goals than a crappy goalie who's not facing many quality shots because of a great defence.
That's correct. It's weird to me that save pct. is put on this pedestal while GAA is automatically dismissed as a "team stat"...it doesn't make a ton of sense to me...at least not to the degree that it is worshiped...
Also people tend to overrate how much of a difference 0.01 in SV% actually is. A .920 goalie isn't necessarily better than a .910 goalie. Stopping 92% of shots instead of stopping 91% of shots can be explained through several different reasons other than a difference in ability. It's 1 goal allowed on every 12.5 shots vs 1 goal allowed on every 11.1 shots.
In your example, the 0.910 goalie allows goals 12.5% more often than the 0.920 goalie. That's a meaningful difference.
I know it can make a significant difference, but it doesn't mean there is a gap in puck stopping ability.
+/- gets ripped on so much but its not as bad as people make it out to be. I needs context like everything else.
If nothing else, it highlights things that other numbers might not track. I always find its really interesting when looking at stats of individuals on a team most of the team is like -15 and you have 1 or 2 guys that are even or in the small positives. I don't think that should be overlooked.
In other words, most numbers can be useful if they are relative to a players team and teammates.
Punch thrown per fight ...?
+/-, GAA, and hits.
True - a simple binomial distribution example shows that two goaltenders of identical ability can have widely different save percentages in a full NHL season. Of course, the same can be said for goal totals, or point totals, or other non-goalie statistics that we use as gospel. Often, the difference between a 40-goal scorer and a 20-goal scorer is opportunity.
On the other hand, retrospective save percentage does show exactly what happened perfectly well. Whether or not there's a gap in puck stopping ability, the 0.910 goaltender *did* allow 12.5% more goals than the 0.920 goaltender.