Rasmus Asplund Watch 2018

[North Buffalo]

Isn't Asplund a tree removing service?  So maybe the little guy can fell some trees!

[Randall Flagg]

Rereading some of this, I need to rephrase this sentence: "Goals are a better predictor of future success for players or for teams than plus minus is, "

With whole teams you refer to goal differential which has good predictive power. I mean for my whole argument to center around individual players and their individual plus-minus. 

And even though goal differential does ultimately predict winning well at a team level, future goals are better predicted by shot events than by current goals. 

Which is the case at an individual level as well. That is what I mean when I say that the more sophisticated stats that have larger sample sizes are better predictors, that is the context in which they are.

[Wyldnwoody44]

There is this fancy new stat called... Looking.

 

I just want my guys in the scouting department to look on the ice and see that a player isn't crap, then talk to them, do some legwork and see if you can tell anything about their character.

 

I play the piano, it usually sounds pretty good too... I never learned to play music, and learning to read music would make it boring for me. I apply this to my hockey, I see what I believe looks good and what looks bad (granted I'm not a scout) and that should be the most important thing.

 

Idk when stats got so out of hand these days, don't get me wrong, I do enjoy y'all bantering with them and I read them, but at the end of the day it makes my head spin in circles and I'd rather just watch the on ice

[SwampD]

Goals are a better predictor of future success for players or for teams than plus minus is, because a player is far more likely to have done something requiring hockey skill to score a goal than he is to have done a good hockey thing that contributes to +/-. This is statistical fact. No matter the position. But goals are also bad relative to other metrics. So if you concede to delving into numbers to try and analyze a player, which is almost always necessary because even if we give all of our free time to hockey we still can only really follow one team, then you should combine and use numbers that are literally better and perform better in the past, now, and in the future than other numbers. And ideally, you get a good amount of time watching the player yourself to couple to that. But historically on this board, when you pull out this stat it's often the only thing you look at and you draw these ridiculously hard conclusions from it. 

The problem I have with all of your arguments when it comes to this kind of stuff is that you basically just say, "no, you are wrong and here's some number to prove it," yet you yourself have said that there are still a lot of thing that take place on the ice that there are no measurements for. Like a nice D pass out of the zone after stealing the puck, or a slick pass of the boards in the neutral zone to a rushing forward, which might result in a goal that leads to no points for those players, yet would not have happened had they not made those plays.

 

I know that +/- and, well, wins/losses, gets scoffed at around here sometimes because they are course measurements. but just because there are finer measurements out there, doesn't mean they should just be completely discounted.

 

I would love to see a comparison of goal diff/possession/standings for the past couple of years.

 

Also, if I'm a coach, and a player is on the ice, and is a +40,… even if he "does nothing to make that happen",… you better believe I'm going to keep putting him on the ice.

[LGR4GM]

Let's start a thread about plus minus because it has nothing to do with Asplund.