My rule of thumb isn't whether it's a + or a -, but where the player finishes on the team.
If a player was -10, but the rest of the team are -20 or worse, I would consider -10 to be good.
Alternatively, if a player was +10 and the rest of the team +20 or better, I would consider +10 quite poor.
For me +/- is best judged relative to the rest of team, because a player isn't going to be a + on a rubbish team, even if he's played quite well.
Regards
Doom
Rumours 26/27
Moderator: Mods
-
paul johnston
- Veteran
- Posts: 922
- Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2020 1:51 pm
- Has Liked: 761 times
- Been Liked: 299 times
Thats very sound logic, makes sense.Doom wrote: ↑Thu Jul 30, 2026 2:02 pmMy rule of thumb isn't whether it's a + or a -, but where the player finishes on the team.
If a player was -10, but the rest of the team are -20 or worse, I would consider -10 to be good.
Alternatively, if a player was +10 and the rest of the team +20 or better, I would consider +10 quite poor.
For me +/- is best judged relative to the rest of team, because a player isn't going to be a + on a rubbish team, even if he's played quite well.
Regards
Doom
What i like about Perrault (apart from who his brother is and plays for!) is that the scouting reports on elite prospects say he is a pure sniper so that is encouraging.
First round draft pick, young, will be questions re why is he in our league but for our level dont think we can go wrong....hopefully! If he is the signing of course.
-
Jayboy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2652
- Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2020 9:43 am
- Location: Chesterfield
- Has Liked: 88 times
- Been Liked: 729 times
- Contact:
This is AI take on the awful -/+ stats..
Makes interesting reading...
I wanted an impartial veiw on the stats and how they work.. given they have long been my most hated stat quoted:
Here’s my take: Plus-minus (+/-) is one of the most misleading statistics in sports because it measures team context far more than individual ability. It regularly makes elite hockey players look terrible while making mediocre players look like defensive stalwarts.
Here is why the stat is so flawed and whether it holds any real fairness.
Why +/- Makes Great Players Look Bad
At its core, a player gets a +1 when their team scores an even-strength or shorthanded goal while they are on the ice, and a -1 when the opponent scores under the same conditions. That sounds simple, but in practice, it creates major distortions.
1. The "Bad Team" Penalty
If you are an elite player on a struggling team, you play high minutes against the opponent's best lines. Even if you dominate your matchup, your team’s general lack of depth, poor defensive structure, or weak goaltending will result in goals against.
Example: Connor Bedard was an instant offensive force in his rookie season, but because the Chicago Blackhawks were rebuilding and getting outscored heavily across the board, his +/- was deep in the negative.
2. You Don't Get Credit for Power-Play Goals
Power-play goals do not award a +1, but shorthanded goals conceded do give a -1.
If an offensive superstar scores 35 of their goals on the power play, zero of those count toward their +/-.
Conversely, if they play on the penalty kill and concede a goal, they take a -1. This system explicitly penalizes specialists who excel in special-teams situations.
3. Goaltending Dictates Your Stat Line
A defender can execute a flawless shift, force a weak shot from the blue line, and still end up with a -1 if their goalie lets in a soft goal. Conversely, a defender who gives up three high-danger breakaways might finish with a 0 if their goalie pulls off highlight-reel saves.
4. Empty-Net Goals Punish the Best Players
When a team is trailing late in the third period, coaches send out their top offensive stars with an empty net. Losing the puck and conceding an empty-net goal results in a -1 for everyone on the ice—even though taking that high-risk approach was the mathematically correct strategy to try to tie the game.
5. Deployment Bias
Not all shifts are created equal. Coaches deploy defensive specialists to start shifts in the defensive zone against the opponent's highest-scoring lines, while sheltering younger or purely offensive players with offensive-zone starts against lower-tier lines. Plus-minus ignores zone starts entirely.
Is It Fair?
In modern hockey evaluation, no. Most analysts, front offices, and knowledgeable fans consider raw +/- an obsolete stat.
When it is useless: Judging an individual player across a single season, or comparing players from different teams (or even different lines on the same team).
When it has minor value: Evaluating extreme outliers within the exact same defense pair or forward line over multiple seasons, where teammates and goaltending conditions are identical.
Today, analysts rely on advanced metrics like Corsi/Fenwick (shot attempt differentials), Expected Goals Share (xG%), and Goal Differential Relative to Team (Rel%). These stats isolate how much better or worse the team performs specifically because a particular player is on the ice, filtering out the noise that makes +/- so unfair.
Jayboy
Makes interesting reading...
I wanted an impartial veiw on the stats and how they work.. given they have long been my most hated stat quoted:
Here’s my take: Plus-minus (+/-) is one of the most misleading statistics in sports because it measures team context far more than individual ability. It regularly makes elite hockey players look terrible while making mediocre players look like defensive stalwarts.
Here is why the stat is so flawed and whether it holds any real fairness.
Why +/- Makes Great Players Look Bad
At its core, a player gets a +1 when their team scores an even-strength or shorthanded goal while they are on the ice, and a -1 when the opponent scores under the same conditions. That sounds simple, but in practice, it creates major distortions.
1. The "Bad Team" Penalty
If you are an elite player on a struggling team, you play high minutes against the opponent's best lines. Even if you dominate your matchup, your team’s general lack of depth, poor defensive structure, or weak goaltending will result in goals against.
Example: Connor Bedard was an instant offensive force in his rookie season, but because the Chicago Blackhawks were rebuilding and getting outscored heavily across the board, his +/- was deep in the negative.
2. You Don't Get Credit for Power-Play Goals
Power-play goals do not award a +1, but shorthanded goals conceded do give a -1.
If an offensive superstar scores 35 of their goals on the power play, zero of those count toward their +/-.
Conversely, if they play on the penalty kill and concede a goal, they take a -1. This system explicitly penalizes specialists who excel in special-teams situations.
3. Goaltending Dictates Your Stat Line
A defender can execute a flawless shift, force a weak shot from the blue line, and still end up with a -1 if their goalie lets in a soft goal. Conversely, a defender who gives up three high-danger breakaways might finish with a 0 if their goalie pulls off highlight-reel saves.
4. Empty-Net Goals Punish the Best Players
When a team is trailing late in the third period, coaches send out their top offensive stars with an empty net. Losing the puck and conceding an empty-net goal results in a -1 for everyone on the ice—even though taking that high-risk approach was the mathematically correct strategy to try to tie the game.
5. Deployment Bias
Not all shifts are created equal. Coaches deploy defensive specialists to start shifts in the defensive zone against the opponent's highest-scoring lines, while sheltering younger or purely offensive players with offensive-zone starts against lower-tier lines. Plus-minus ignores zone starts entirely.
Is It Fair?
In modern hockey evaluation, no. Most analysts, front offices, and knowledgeable fans consider raw +/- an obsolete stat.
When it is useless: Judging an individual player across a single season, or comparing players from different teams (or even different lines on the same team).
When it has minor value: Evaluating extreme outliers within the exact same defense pair or forward line over multiple seasons, where teammates and goaltending conditions are identical.
Today, analysts rely on advanced metrics like Corsi/Fenwick (shot attempt differentials), Expected Goals Share (xG%), and Goal Differential Relative to Team (Rel%). These stats isolate how much better or worse the team performs specifically because a particular player is on the ice, filtering out the noise that makes +/- so unfair.
Jayboy
-
Doom
- Veteran
- Posts: 1726
- Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2020 7:18 am
- Has Liked: 143 times
- Been Liked: 937 times
I don't think you can beat what you see with your own eyes, but in the absence of that information, I think the +/- is useful even if it is a bit flawed.
I've heard Fox reference +/- a few times with regards to our players.
Regards
Doom
I've heard Fox reference +/- a few times with regards to our players.
Regards
Doom
-
Doom
- Veteran
- Posts: 1726
- Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2020 7:18 am
- Has Liked: 143 times
- Been Liked: 937 times
Perreault is listed as RW/C on Elite Prospects.
If he has signed for us, I'm assuming it's as a centre.
If it is, I think he'd slip nicely between Balmas and Archambault.
Edit: I've just had time to have a little read around and whilst I can't find any faceoff info, it does seem he's more right wing than centre, which makes me think it isn't him we've signed.
Regards
Doom
If he has signed for us, I'm assuming it's as a centre.
If it is, I think he'd slip nicely between Balmas and Archambault.
Edit: I've just had time to have a little read around and whilst I can't find any faceoff info, it does seem he's more right wing than centre, which makes me think it isn't him we've signed.
Regards
Doom
-
Keith Sheppard
- Draft Pick
- Posts: 151
- Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2020 1:52 pm
- Has Liked: 180 times
- Been Liked: 83 times
At the end of the day, it's the chemistry they produce when they are on the ice together. A musical analogy would be the Beatles, none of them are ever mentioned individually as instrumental virtuosos, but together they created something really special. (I'd make an exception with McCartney though as he's a hell of a bass player). We need to hope we get a team that gels with the creativity of the Beatles, rather than the all show no talent Spice Girls. Let's hope this team will 'Get Back' to winning trophy's, it may be a 'Long and Winding Road' and they don't make fans watching the game feel it's a 'Hard Day's Night'.
-
ginger
- Veteran
- Posts: 1135
- Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:24 pm
- Has Liked: 133 times
- Been Liked: 366 times
If it is him, I suspect this is a 'best player available ' signing (and he's got a very strong CV). Balmas can play centre, but could potentially be thinking slightly differently.Doom wrote: ↑Thu Jul 30, 2026 4:30 pmPerreault is listed as RW/C on Elite Prospects.
If he has signed for us, I'm assuming it's as a centre.
If it is, I think he'd slip nicely between Balmas and Archambault.
Edit: I've just had time to have a little read around and whilst I can't find any faceoff info, it does seem he's more right wing than centre, which makes me think it isn't him we've signed.
Regards
Doom
Archambault/Collins/Perrault
Balmas/Rockwood/Teissala
Jasper/Dowd/Tait
Juusola/Whistle/IBN
Maybe balances the lines more. Also puts potentially best face off winning centre with a creative winger in Archambault and goalscorer in Perrault. Rockwood as a creative centre for Balmas and potential skill of Teissala. 3rd is a known quantity and was good at the back end of last year. 4th looks like a pain to play against and gives IBN 2 linemates who will be able to create in the offensive zone but are defensively responsible to help him out if he makes an error (got to be expected with age/experience).
There's plenty other combos, so even if we do sign a winger for the final forward slot, the additons of Collins/Rockwood/Whistle have given us much better options than we have had for a couple of years at centre
-
Clear The Zone
- Draft Pick
- Posts: 69
- Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2026 11:09 pm
- Has Liked: 4 times
- Been Liked: 38 times
Fingers crossed we've not signed any Ringos though.Keith Sheppard wrote: ↑Thu Jul 30, 2026 5:28 pmAt the end of the day, it's the chemistry they produce when they are on the ice together. A musical analogy would be the Beatles, none of them are ever mentioned individually as instrumental virtuosos, but together they created something really special. (I'd make an exception with McCartney though as he's a hell of a bass player). We need to hope we get a team that gels with the creativity of the Beatles, rather than the all show no talent Spice Girls. Let's hope this team will 'Get Back' to winning trophy's, it may be a 'Long and Winding Road' and they don't make fans watching the game feel it's a 'Hard Day's Night'.
-
Doom
- Veteran
- Posts: 1726
- Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2020 7:18 am
- Has Liked: 143 times
- Been Liked: 937 times
Was there some ill feeling when Golod left, because that's how it comes across?
I see on The Cage there are suggestions he could be going there, although it could be a case of 2 + 2 = 5.
Regards
Doom
Rumours he caused serious problems in the changing room and on the ice. Wasn’t he left for family issue originally was we got rid and he did the same in UTE according to there fans.
Assuming Nottingham are guessing but good luck to them if they do sign him. Quality player but….
Assuming Nottingham are guessing but good luck to them if they do sign him. Quality player but….