I haven't posted in a long time. In the meantime, I've started a new job all the way across the country and mostly completed the move. I say "mostly" because while I am here, my furniture and other essentials are taking their own sweet time getting across the country. My experience should maybe serve as a cautionary tale. Based on the experience detailed below, I must recommend to anyone who asks that they stay away from Colonial Van Lines Relocation Division (which is different from Colonial Van Lines, by the way) and especially from Best Price Moving and Storage (who were hired for me by Colonial Van Lines Relocation Division).
Here's what's happening:
In September, I knew I was going to be moving to Seattle, so I contacted several moving companies to get estimates for the cost of moving my stuff across the country. After viewing several estimates, I chose to go with Colonial Van Lines Relocation Division because their estimate was close to $1000 less than the others even though they estimated the weight of my stuff as higher. Being on a tight budget, this seemed like a good idea at the time.
I made the decision in mid-September and immediately talked to someone at Colonial Van Lines Relocation Division about the need to pick my stuff up on October 26. (NOTE: I was making arrangements over a month in advance, mostly because I was not going to be in Connecticut during the month of October, but also partially because I figured that would give them plenty of time to schedule things for a rapid and efficient move.) I was told that they had to give a two day window, so they said October 25 or 26. I made it very clear that it really needed to be Saturday the 26th, as I had plans for Friday. I was also told that the move itself would take "about one to two weeks" from pickup to delivery, so I figured I'd have my stuff by the beginning of November, maybe about November 10 at the latest. Over the course of the next few weeks, I was contacted by various people, all of whom said that the pickup window was October 25-26; I always emphasized that it really needed to be the 26th and I was always reassured that the two-day window was a formality and it was 99% certain that they would be picking my stuff up on the 26th.
Less than a week before the pickup, I finally got a phone call confirming that they were coming to pick up my stuff on, of course, the afternoon of October 25. Luckily, the only unbreakable plans I had for that day were in the morning, so I broke all plans for the afternoon so I could hang around my apartment waiting. Around 1:30 that afternoon, I got a call from the movers (Best Price) telling me that they were running late and wouldn't be there until about 4:00. Just before 4:00, I got another call saying they wouldn't be able to be there until 7:00 at the earliest, but would probably have to come back the next morning to finish. I really didn't relish the idea of splitting the process, so I suggested the next morning at 8:00. The driver asked, "Not 7:00?" I told him that 7:00 was okay even though I really didn't want to get up early enough to be ready for them at 7:00. I was ready on time, and they arrived promptly at 8:19 that morning.
The two guys who were there were very efficient and had me moved out by 12:30. I have no complaints about the work they did. I was, in fact, very impressed by how carefully they packed everything and how quickly they got the job done. When they were done, the driver presented me with paperwork stating that the delivery window was November 1-13. Still believing the one-to-two weeks estimate, I assumed it would be well before the 13th but that they were giving themselves some extra time in case something went wrong with the truck or something.
On November 4, I received a voice mail telling me that they were sending a truck out on November 12 and that delivery would be on the 13th, 14th, or 15th. I was not happy since two of those dates were even outside the window given to me by the driver, but what could I say? I had to accept the dates. I did call and leave a message that I really needed to talk to my move coordinator because those dates were "unacceptable". My call was never returned.
Today (November 13), I called and again left a voice mail for my move coordinator saying that I needed to speak with her. A couple of hours later, she did call me, not because she had gotten my message, but because she had found out that the truck with my stuff was making a delivery in Illinois today and had a stop in another state nearby (I forget which one right at the moment) tomorrow before heading my way. As a result, my stuff would be delivered on November 19, 20, or 21. Needless to say, I was not happy. She asked me if I could be flexible. I asked her if I had a choice. It's not like I could say "No, it has to be here by tomorrow since you promised." They couldn't magically get the truck from Illinois to Kent, WA overnight. She didn't seem to understand my point and, in spite of me making it very clear that I was angry, not at her, but at how this move has been botched from the start, had nothing to say to mollify me--not even an apology, let alone something that might make me feel a little better.
I would like to point out that they don't know that I am staying with my parents. For all they know, I'm renting a motel room or sleeping in an empty apartment while I wait for them to get their acts together. But they clearly don't care if I've been left out in the cold all this time. In the meantime, I have been paying rent on my apartment since November 1 since they told me they might deliver that early, and now I won't even have my stuff until the latter half of the month. I'm tempted to send them a bill for November's rent.
Here ends the recital of facts. You can see why I am unhappy. I am beginning to wonder if I've really been the victim of a big scam and they've stolen all of my stuff and are just putting me off over and over in order to keep me from reporting it soon. I am on the verge of contacting the attorneys general in WA and CT to see if there's anything they can do for me. Just in case it wasn't clear, here's the moral of my story:
I STRONGLY recommend that you avoid doing business with Colonial Van Lines Relocation Division and Best Price Moving and Storage. You may save money by going with them, but the aggravation just isn't worth it.
Edit (11-18-2013): Now they are saying that it will be November 27-30 that my stuff will get delivered.
Edit (11-25-2013): After a bit more back-and-forth, I was told that I would receive my stuff this morning and the driver himself told me he would call me last night to confirm the time. Sure enough, promptly at 7:15 this morning, he called to confirm drop off today. (I realize that 7:15 this morning is not the same as last night, but give the rate at which this company moves, I would say that making it within 12 hours is akin to him having called me last Tuesday on anyone else's timeline.) I am now sitting in a box-filled apartment wondering what I'm going to do with all of this stuff.
Wednesday, November 13, 2013
Saturday, July 6, 2013
Bicycle/Jogging Trail Etiquette
My past posts concerning cycling have all had to do with bikes on the road, but many cyclists spend most of their time on trails. There is a certain etiquette that is expected of all users of a bike trail, whether on two wheels, more wheels, or no wheels. (By bike trail, I mean a paved trail intended for use by the public for walking, biking, jogging, roller skating, etc. Rails-to-trails projects are good examples of what I mean. I do not mean mountain bike trails--I have no knowledge of the etiquette on those trails.)
A long time ago, trail users were few and everyone just "knew" the etiquette or picked it up by watching others. These days, trails are much more popular (this is a good thing), but no one ever teaches people trail etiquette. The following are just a few of the rules. If you think of some that I've left out, please feel free to add them in the comments section.
A long time ago, trail users were few and everyone just "knew" the etiquette or picked it up by watching others. These days, trails are much more popular (this is a good thing), but no one ever teaches people trail etiquette. The following are just a few of the rules. If you think of some that I've left out, please feel free to add them in the comments section.
- Keep right. This is the most fundamental rule of trail etiquette. It doesn't matter if you're riding a bike, jogging, or out for a Sunday stroll. You should keep to the right half of the trail. Trails (usually) have no center line, but neither do some roads and on those roads, cars are also expected to keep right. It's the same thing. It is, in fact, mildly rude to be jogging up the left side of the trail and forcing those going the other direction to go around you, yet I encounter many people doing just that every time I ride a trail. I used to run regularly on trails--that's how I learned trail etiquette, so I know it's the same for everyone. Keep right!
- Pass left. If everyone is keeping to the right then obviously you need to pass on the left, correct? Apparently not; I have been within a foot of the right-hand side of a trail and had another cyclist actually leave the trail to pass me on the right. He gave no warning that he was passing (see below) and blew by at high speed. There was plenty of room on the left for him to pass since we were the only two on that section of the trail.
A corollary to this one is that you need to look behind you before moving left to pass. For all you know, someone else is about to pass you on the left and if you move out in front of them there could be a nasty crash. - Give warning before passing. You need to warn others before you pass them, whether it's a shouted warning (I usually yell, "Bike on the left!"), a bell, a horn, or some other audible warning, you need to make some sound. Not doing so is not only extremely rude, it's downright dangerous. People on trails have a tendency to suddenly change direction without warning--you never know when something on the left side of the trail will get a pedestrian's attention; they could turn right in front of you without warning.
You need to give your warning early enough that those you are overtaking can react by (hopefully) acknowledging the warning and/or moving out of the way. Scaring the daylights out of some poor old woman out walking her dog by yelling from a foot behind her and blowing by before she has a chance to let the words sink in is not cool.
Since you're giving warning early, the sound has to be loud enough to be heard more than a foot away from you. I've heard people mutter "bike passing" before passing someone, but I could barely hear them and I was only a couple of feet away; the people they were passing never had a chance. - Turn the volume down on headphones. This rule used to be "don't wear headphones", but headphones while working out (or even just walking somewhere) are so prevalent now that the rule has to be modified. If you are wearing headphones, turn the volume down to a level that allows you to hear what's going on around you. This isn't a matter of me not wanting to hear your music; I'm only going to be next to you for a moment, so I don't care about that. This is a matter of you wanting to hear my warning that I'm going to pass. It does no good for me to give a warning if you can't hear it. I don't know how many times I've called out a warning and then scared the daylights out of someone as I passed them because they had headphones on, so had no idea I was there. I try to give people with headphones a wide berth, both to avoid scaring them and because I don't know if they heard me, so might just turn right in front of me.
- Don't block the trail. If you stop to talk to someone, both of you step off the side of the trail if possible. If it's not possible to step off the trail, then stand as close to the side of the trail as possible so as to leave enough room on the trail for people to comfortably pass both ways. When you do stop (for whatever reason) look back first and make sure that you're not going to get rear ended by someone who wasn't ready for you to stop.
Last fall, I came across a person who was changing a flat tire right in the middle of the trail. It was late evening, the sun was going down, and the light was failing under the trees. This person was not only being rude by blocking the entire trail, but was putting themselves and others in danger by being in the way in a poor visibility situation. Luckily, it was a chilly evening, so there weren't a lot of other trail users, but please think before squatting down in the middle of a trail. Change a tire at the side of the trail--off the side, if possible.
One more form of trail-blockage is the person with a dog on a long leash. The person is politely walking along the right-hand edge of the trail, but their dog is exploring the bushes off the left side of the trail. In between is a nearly invisible leash. I've never done it or seen it, but I know someone who ran into a leash while passing someone because they never saw it. This resulted in damage to the bike; injury to the rider; injury to the person holding the leash (sprained wrist); and a dog that was frightened by the jerk on his leash, ran off while everyone was focused on the injured people, and wasn't found for close to an hour. Again, please think, folks. Keep your dog on a leash and keep that leash short enough that he/she isn't blocking the trail. - Dogs must be on a leash. Dogs are even more unpredictable than humans. A normally well-behaved dog may be startled by a jogger or bicyclist and chase them and/or bite them. Even a dog that's behaving itself might suddenly be distracted by a movement and dart across the trail in front of somebody. I see people walking dogs without leashes on trails all the time. I've even seen one man walk his dog to the trail with a leash, then take the leash off and let the dog run all over the trail. This is illegal, dangerous, and rude.
Saturday, March 23, 2013
Niagara Falls, part 2
When we last left our intrepid heroes, we were heading inside and then to get some lunch after a successful morning stalking the elusive huge waterfall. We emerged from Outback Steakhouse after lunch to find that the sun had come out and it was warmer than the predicted 30°. We headed back down to the falls area to explore some more.
With the sun out, we found the very elusive waterfall rainbows playing in the spray. The American Falls rainbow was easily spotted right out in the open.
The river itself was an interesting green color in the sunlight.
Before long, however, we were able to find the Canadian rainbow--and a friend! (That's the aforementioned surprise.)
We moved upstream to investigate some things we'd seen from the hotel, but we kept an eye on the frolicking rainbows, too.
The rainbows liked us. They even followed us above the falls. You can see in the shot below that the brighter rainbow is definitely standing in the river above the falls.
The plants were coated with ice, even upstream from the falls.
Below, I tried to take a really artsy shot through the ice plant. It didn't turn out quite as I had hoped, but it's not bad.
With the sun out, we found the very elusive waterfall rainbows playing in the spray. The American Falls rainbow was easily spotted right out in the open.
The rainbow on Horseshoe Falls was a bit more shy, however, but we would locate it (and a surprise) before the afternoon was over.
Before long, however, we were able to find the Canadian rainbow--and a friend! (That's the aforementioned surprise.)
We moved upstream to investigate some things we'd seen from the hotel, but we kept an eye on the frolicking rainbows, too.
The rainbows liked us. They even followed us above the falls. You can see in the shot below that the brighter rainbow is definitely standing in the river above the falls.
The plants were coated with ice, even upstream from the falls.
Below, I tried to take a really artsy shot through the ice plant. It didn't turn out quite as I had hoped, but it's not bad.
One more rainbow shot, then we'll move to the next part of our tour.
When we were taking a break before getting lunch, we discovered that an attraction called "Behind the Falls" was open. We hadn't really thought it would be. Remember that viewing platform at the base of the falls that I mentioned in part 1? We got to go down there.
Our friend the rainbow came down there with us. It sure looks like it's having fun frolicking in the spray.
The view downstream from down there was pretty spectacular, too.
For some reason, they made us stay in the covered upper viewing area. We couldn't even go down and read the signs in the lower area.
While we were taking pictures, I saw some movement out of the corner of my eye and heard a strange sound down on the lower platform. Looking over the rail, I found that someone was probably on the cliff above squinting in the sun.
Now, this attraction was called "Behind the Falls" for a reason. There are tunnels leading to two viewports out of the rock behind the falls. Here's the view from the first one.
I guess the ice on the rocks behind the falls kind of filled it in. Ever optimistic, we headed off to the second viewport.
Oh, well. I guess it wasn't really surprising that these were completely blocked. I'll have to get back there some day when it isn't all frozen up. We were told by some locals that September is a great time to go because tourist season is over, but things haven't started freezing yet. Something to keep in mind.
At least we got to find out where we would have been looking out.
It was getting to be dinner time and the sun was setting, so we headed back up to the top of the cliff and said one last goodbye to the falls.
The trip home started out waaayyy too early (the train left at 7:20). We also got stuck at Penn Station for an extra hour and a half, as there were track problems in Virginia that delayed our train back home. Luckily, we were able to swap our tickets for another train and we managed to get home by 8:30 or so that night.
Niagara Falls, Part 1
A number of people have asked about our trip to Niagara Falls last weekend. For those who don't know, I have been a big fan of waterfalls since I was a kid. One of my favorite places to visit is Dry Falls, WA. (Granted, there's no actual falls there now, but imagining what it was like boggles the mind.) I had never seen Niagara before, though, so this was almost a sort of pilgrimage for me.
Rachel and I each took well over a hundred pictures of the falls and the surrounding area, so I'm not going to share all of them here. I will be uploading a photo album to facebook eventually which will contain photos taken by each of us. All of the pictures in this post were taken by me using my phone. Click on any image to see it at full resolution.
We started out pretty early on Saturday morning by taking a taxi to the train station and then an Amtrak train down to Penn Station in New York. That part was about 2 hours and we've done it before, so it was a little humdrum. After leaving the train and getting on a packed escalator, I suddenly realized that I didn't have my wallet, which meant that I had left it on the train which was going to depart in a few minutes.
As soon as I got to the top of the escalator, I found an escalator down to the platform, told the employee who was checking tickets before sending people down what was happening, and she let me go down. I searched near the area where I thought we had been sitting and found nothing. I returned to the up escalator just in time for it to turn into a down escalator. I found another way back upstairs.
We made a quick search to make sure I hadn't shoved it in my backpack somewhere. I hadn't. There was now someone manning the escalator we had originally come up, so I told her I needed to go check for my wallet again. She gave me more of a hassle than the other had, but eventually let me go down so I could check the route we followed off the car. No dice.
When I got off the train again, I spotted a couple of conductors and told them I'd lost my wallet on that train and asked if there was any way to find out if someone had found it before the train departed. One of the conductors returned to the car with me one more time, and while I crawled on the floor and looked, he announced to the passengers that I had lost my wallet. Someone found it at that point, because the next thing I knew, the conductor was tossing it to me. That was a huge relief; I might not have enjoyed any part of the trip if I hadn't been able to find my wallet.
But the fun wasn't quite over. As the conductor and I went to exit the train, we found that the doors were already closed, meaning that the train was going to start moving at any moment. He grabbed his radio and told the train not to leave while he got the door open and we stepped out. I was nearly on my way south a bit further than I wanted to be. Thank goodness it hadn't taken any longer to find my wallet.
The rest of the trip to Niagara Falls was pretty uneventful. It included a 9 1/2 hour train ride, so it was also pretty boring. We arrived in Niagara Falls, NY at about 10:30, or 15 minutes early. Luckily, I had been able to call the cab that was supposed to pick us up and he was waiting for us as we got off the train. We stayed on the Canadian side of the river, so he had to take us across the border. We were amazed at how long the lines to cross the border were at 11:00 on a Saturday night in mid-March (and freezing temperatures). While we were on the bridge, Rachel spotted a colorful glow off the the left. We guessed (correctly) that it was the spray of the Canadian falls reflecting the colored lights that they shine on the falls until midnight. That was sort of our first view of the falls.
Our real first view of the falls was from our hotel room. Well, "room" is a bit of a misnomer; the hotel was pretty empty, so they upgraded us to the "Junior Presidential Suite". I didn't take any pictures of the suite and now I wish I had. I assumed that the hotel's web site would have some good pictures of it, so I could just link to that. Unfortunately, the picture they have labeled "Junior Presidential Suite" is very clearly not of the suite we stayed in. The suite we stayed in had a kitchenette, a dining area, a separate living room, a bedroom, and a large bathroom with both a shower and a two-person hot tub. The view was incredible; it was night when we arrived, so the all three falls (yes, there are three that make up Niagara Falls, not just the two) were lit up with multicolored lights. Personally, I'd rather they just used white lights, but that's me. No pictures at that point because our camera doesn't do well with that kind of shot, but here's an image of what it looked like in the morning:
The steaming cauldron in the foreground is, of course, Horseshoe Falls, which is the part of Niagara Falls on the Canadian side of the river. On the left is American Falls. For those of you wondering about the third falls, it is in this picture right next to American Falls. If you look really closely, you can see that the very right-hand edge of that part of the falls is separated from the rest by a bit of rock. The bit on the very right-hand edge is Bridal Veil Falls, and is the third part of Niagara. This image is looking roughly southeast with Niagara Falls, NY in the background. For some reason, neither Rachel nor I realized that the river was flowing north at this point, so we both had pictured the falls going the other direction for our entire lives.
The package deal we got included being able to ride buses all day, but we were close enough to the falls that we decided to walk down. To get there, we first had to walk north a bit so that we were straight across from American and Bridal Veil Falls. Coming down the hill and seeing the falls through the trees, I was amazed at how close it was; it seemed much further away to me from the hotel. The picture below was taken just as we finished going down the hill. You can clearly see Bridal Veil Falls on the right.
Looking downstream, you see a lot of ice blocked up under Rainbow Bridge. The "ice bridge" used to be much larger (and extend all the way to the base of the falls). People would go out on the bridge to take in the view of the falls. On at least one occasion, the ice bridge suddenly broke up and people lost their lives. These days, they block the larger chunks of ice from entering the Niagara from Lake Erie.
At this point, we turned south along the river. It wasn't long before we got to see Horseshoe Falls.
I was enthralled with the falls itself. Pictures do not do justice to the flow of water and amount of power those falls represent. And we were there in March, which meant that the flow we saw could be as low as half of what is flowing over the falls during tourist season! While I was staring at the falls, Rachel spotted odd lily pad-like bits of ice in the water. I guess they get rounded by their trip over the falls.
As we walked closer to the falls, we spotted a viewing platform very close to the falls themselves. We figured it was closed for the season, but as it turned out, we got to go down there ourselves before the day was over.
Being there in subfreezing temperatures (the predicted high for the day was 30° F) gave us an opportunity to see things that most visitors to the falls never do. The rock below is entirely encased in ice from the spray to a depth of up to an inch in places.
Of course, there were also interesting ice formations near the falls.
And man-made structures are frequently completely coated in ice, too. The railing that Rachel is leaning on here got coated with more ice as you moved closer to the falls. Right above the brink of the falls, one of the railings was so icy that the blank spaces between the bars were completely filled in with ice!
No, I don't know who the guy is in the next picture, but he wouldn't move and I wanted to get the shot while the sun was still back lighting the ice.
The plants were even completely encased in the ice. The shot below is from almost at the lip of the falls. All that separates these plants from the water is the wall you can see.
After taking that shot, it wasn't long before we got to where the walkway practically overhangs the lip of the falls.
After being amazed by this view for a while, we realized that it was after noon and we were both very hungry. The second part of this post contains pictures taken during that very sunny afternoon, including some from the viewing platform shown in the sixth image above.
Rachel and I each took well over a hundred pictures of the falls and the surrounding area, so I'm not going to share all of them here. I will be uploading a photo album to facebook eventually which will contain photos taken by each of us. All of the pictures in this post were taken by me using my phone. Click on any image to see it at full resolution.
We started out pretty early on Saturday morning by taking a taxi to the train station and then an Amtrak train down to Penn Station in New York. That part was about 2 hours and we've done it before, so it was a little humdrum. After leaving the train and getting on a packed escalator, I suddenly realized that I didn't have my wallet, which meant that I had left it on the train which was going to depart in a few minutes.
As soon as I got to the top of the escalator, I found an escalator down to the platform, told the employee who was checking tickets before sending people down what was happening, and she let me go down. I searched near the area where I thought we had been sitting and found nothing. I returned to the up escalator just in time for it to turn into a down escalator. I found another way back upstairs.
We made a quick search to make sure I hadn't shoved it in my backpack somewhere. I hadn't. There was now someone manning the escalator we had originally come up, so I told her I needed to go check for my wallet again. She gave me more of a hassle than the other had, but eventually let me go down so I could check the route we followed off the car. No dice.
When I got off the train again, I spotted a couple of conductors and told them I'd lost my wallet on that train and asked if there was any way to find out if someone had found it before the train departed. One of the conductors returned to the car with me one more time, and while I crawled on the floor and looked, he announced to the passengers that I had lost my wallet. Someone found it at that point, because the next thing I knew, the conductor was tossing it to me. That was a huge relief; I might not have enjoyed any part of the trip if I hadn't been able to find my wallet.
But the fun wasn't quite over. As the conductor and I went to exit the train, we found that the doors were already closed, meaning that the train was going to start moving at any moment. He grabbed his radio and told the train not to leave while he got the door open and we stepped out. I was nearly on my way south a bit further than I wanted to be. Thank goodness it hadn't taken any longer to find my wallet.
The rest of the trip to Niagara Falls was pretty uneventful. It included a 9 1/2 hour train ride, so it was also pretty boring. We arrived in Niagara Falls, NY at about 10:30, or 15 minutes early. Luckily, I had been able to call the cab that was supposed to pick us up and he was waiting for us as we got off the train. We stayed on the Canadian side of the river, so he had to take us across the border. We were amazed at how long the lines to cross the border were at 11:00 on a Saturday night in mid-March (and freezing temperatures). While we were on the bridge, Rachel spotted a colorful glow off the the left. We guessed (correctly) that it was the spray of the Canadian falls reflecting the colored lights that they shine on the falls until midnight. That was sort of our first view of the falls.
Our real first view of the falls was from our hotel room. Well, "room" is a bit of a misnomer; the hotel was pretty empty, so they upgraded us to the "Junior Presidential Suite". I didn't take any pictures of the suite and now I wish I had. I assumed that the hotel's web site would have some good pictures of it, so I could just link to that. Unfortunately, the picture they have labeled "Junior Presidential Suite" is very clearly not of the suite we stayed in. The suite we stayed in had a kitchenette, a dining area, a separate living room, a bedroom, and a large bathroom with both a shower and a two-person hot tub. The view was incredible; it was night when we arrived, so the all three falls (yes, there are three that make up Niagara Falls, not just the two) were lit up with multicolored lights. Personally, I'd rather they just used white lights, but that's me. No pictures at that point because our camera doesn't do well with that kind of shot, but here's an image of what it looked like in the morning:
The steaming cauldron in the foreground is, of course, Horseshoe Falls, which is the part of Niagara Falls on the Canadian side of the river. On the left is American Falls. For those of you wondering about the third falls, it is in this picture right next to American Falls. If you look really closely, you can see that the very right-hand edge of that part of the falls is separated from the rest by a bit of rock. The bit on the very right-hand edge is Bridal Veil Falls, and is the third part of Niagara. This image is looking roughly southeast with Niagara Falls, NY in the background. For some reason, neither Rachel nor I realized that the river was flowing north at this point, so we both had pictured the falls going the other direction for our entire lives.
The package deal we got included being able to ride buses all day, but we were close enough to the falls that we decided to walk down. To get there, we first had to walk north a bit so that we were straight across from American and Bridal Veil Falls. Coming down the hill and seeing the falls through the trees, I was amazed at how close it was; it seemed much further away to me from the hotel. The picture below was taken just as we finished going down the hill. You can clearly see Bridal Veil Falls on the right.
Looking downstream, you see a lot of ice blocked up under Rainbow Bridge. The "ice bridge" used to be much larger (and extend all the way to the base of the falls). People would go out on the bridge to take in the view of the falls. On at least one occasion, the ice bridge suddenly broke up and people lost their lives. These days, they block the larger chunks of ice from entering the Niagara from Lake Erie.
At this point, we turned south along the river. It wasn't long before we got to see Horseshoe Falls.
I was enthralled with the falls itself. Pictures do not do justice to the flow of water and amount of power those falls represent. And we were there in March, which meant that the flow we saw could be as low as half of what is flowing over the falls during tourist season! While I was staring at the falls, Rachel spotted odd lily pad-like bits of ice in the water. I guess they get rounded by their trip over the falls.
As we walked closer to the falls, we spotted a viewing platform very close to the falls themselves. We figured it was closed for the season, but as it turned out, we got to go down there ourselves before the day was over.
Being there in subfreezing temperatures (the predicted high for the day was 30° F) gave us an opportunity to see things that most visitors to the falls never do. The rock below is entirely encased in ice from the spray to a depth of up to an inch in places.
Of course, there were also interesting ice formations near the falls.
And man-made structures are frequently completely coated in ice, too. The railing that Rachel is leaning on here got coated with more ice as you moved closer to the falls. Right above the brink of the falls, one of the railings was so icy that the blank spaces between the bars were completely filled in with ice!
No, I don't know who the guy is in the next picture, but he wouldn't move and I wanted to get the shot while the sun was still back lighting the ice.
The plants were even completely encased in the ice. The shot below is from almost at the lip of the falls. All that separates these plants from the water is the wall you can see.
After taking that shot, it wasn't long before we got to where the walkway practically overhangs the lip of the falls.
After being amazed by this view for a while, we realized that it was after noon and we were both very hungry. The second part of this post contains pictures taken during that very sunny afternoon, including some from the viewing platform shown in the sixth image above.
Thursday, March 7, 2013
How Can Hockey be Changed for the Better?
Putting aside any argument about whether hockey can be improved or not, I've been thinking about rule changes that could be put in place that at least some people would think improved the game. Some of the proposals below I think would be good for the game and some I don't, but I'm going to lay them out here without imposing my opinion as best as I can and I'd like to know what other people think. Please note: these are not my proposed rule changes, I'm just collecting several here that I've seen elsewhere.
Introduce a Goal Verification Line
This is one that was play-tested in the AHL a few years back. I think it was just as the NHL was getting back on the ice after the lost season, but I don't remember for sure. Basically, a goal verification line is a line drawn exactly one puck-width behind the goal line between the goal posts. The picture below is from the original article I read about this many years ago. I saved the picture because I thought it was interesting, but I have no idea who to credit. I think it was NHL.com.
The idea here is that if the puck is even touching the goal verification line then it is a valid goal. This is supposed to help on those goals that are too close to call even on replays because the goal line itself is blocked from view by equipment, etc.
Cease Allowing a Penalized Player to Return to the Ice After a Goal
The NHL has explicitly stated that many of the rule changes instituted since 2005 are intended to increase scoring (e.g., smaller goalie pads, the introduction of the trapezoid behind the net, and the moving of the blue lines closer to center ice). One thing that would greatly increase scoring would be eliminating the rule that allows a player serving a minor penalty to return to the ice after their team is scored on.
Believe it or not, the rule allowing a penalized player to return to the ice at that point was only instituted in 1956 (http://www.rauzulusstreet.com/hockey/nhlhistory/nhlrules.html). Prior to that time, a minor penalty lasted a full two minutes and the penalized team was a man short for that entire time (http://www.nhl.com/history/060656.html). The rule was modified to allow the penalized team to return to full strength because the Montreal Canadiens had gotten so good on the power play that they would regularly score several times in the two minutes (http://media.nesn.com/2011/03/top-10-most-important-rule-changes-in-nhl-history/5/).
Don't Allow a Shorthanded Team to Ice the Puck
As far as I know, a team that is shorthanded has always been allowed to ice, or "rag" the puck. In fact, until 1925, play was not stopped regardless of whether the icing team was shorthanded or not (http://www.rauzulusstreet.com/hockey/nhlhistory/nhlrules.html). The idea behind taking that privilege away is once again to increase scoring. I've also heard that there are kids' leagues that don't allow a shorthanded team to ice the puck (this to encourage skill development), so it's not an unheard-of concept.
Institute No-Touch or Hybrid Icing
This one is a hugely hot topic. Many levels of play use a "no-touch" icing rule, meaning that icing is called as soon as the puck crosses the goal line, regardless of whether there is a player on the attacking team there to play the puck first or not. A lot of people have been supporting this idea because of the number of injuries sustained by players when they get knocked down during a fast race for the puck. The resulting crash is often quite awkward and results in the player slamming into the boards at 25 mph or so. Don Cherry has advocated no-touch icing for many years. (If you don't know who Don Cherry is, don't sweat it, but most hockey fans have at least heard of "Grapes".)
The argument against no-touch icing refers to maintaining the purity of the game and the excitement of the race for the puck (which is rare, yes, but exciting nonetheless). Those that argue this side are not ignoring the safety issue. The argument is that the key to preventing the often catastrophic, career-ending injuries is better enforcement of the rules about interference, checking from behind, and boarding. The idea is that if a player knows that he'll be called for a penalty if he so much as touches his opponent in that vulnerable situation then he'll lay off.
In an effort to keep the race for the puck but eliminate the injuries incurred by crashing into the end boards, the concept of "hybrid" icing was developed. Many leagues have adopted this approach, including the NCAA, and it was play-tested in the AHL a few years ago. The exact rules for hybrid icing vary from implementation to implementation, but the basic idea is that there is an invisible line across the ice somewhere far from the end boards (frequently between the face off dots). Icing is called if the usual requirements are met and the first player to cross that invisible line is a defender. It is not called if the first player across that line is an attacker.
Institute Stiffer Penalties for Fighting/Ban Fighting
If no-touch icing is a hot topic then fighting is scorching. On the one hand, you have the people who want to ban fighting, who are pointing out head injuries that occur as a result of fights and that most 'enforcers' are really not skilled players and don't belong in an elite league. On the other hand, you have those who say that fighting is part of the game and that those who want it removed aren't real hockey fans (this is frequently stated using crude insults, which kind of undermines the argument if you ask me).
Among arguments for keeping the fighting rules just as they are in the NHL, tops is probably "it's part of the game; leave it alone." The next argument usually points out that if pests such as Sean Avery or Matt Cooke don't know that they're going to have to fight the opponents' enforcer then they'll continue to make dirty hits and attempt to injure other players. (Different topic, but Matt Cooke has actually changed his ways. It would be nice if people noticed that.) Finally, the argument is frequently made that hockey is a rough sport and by removing fighting, you remove some of the 'manliness' from it. (Frequently, a reference is made to figure skating at this point.)
Arguments for banning fighting altogether include the injury argument mentioned above as well as opening up the spots currently taken by team enforcers for more skilled players. Fighting is not a part of the game, this side argues, because if it was then the game wouldn't stop whenever a fight broke out and there wouldn't be any penalties. Besides, look at international hockey (such as the Olympics and World Championships); fighting is banned in international hockey and you see some of the best hockey you ever will at that level. This side also points out that dirty plays exist now, so there's no basis for arguing that fighting deters dirty plays. In fact, many fights are started after a good, clean, solid check is made, so the argument can be made that fighting actually discourages good, solid checks, which are undeniably part of the game.
Eliminate the Shootout
The shootout is apparently very popular amongst fans, but there are those who don't like it because they feel that it's not really hockey. Hockey is a team sport, the argument goes, so something so individual as a shootout should not decide a game. Either allow for endless overtimes or accept ties.
Replace the +/- with the Adjusted +/-
Okay, so I'm probably the only one who has ever put this forward as a 'rule' change, and it's not even technically a rule, just stats. Still, I think it would be cool to see it adopted.
There are many more proposed rule changes out there, some serious, some not-so-serious, but this is probably plenty to get any conversation rolling. Please feel free to share other ideas or to discuss those mentioned above in the comments section. Please note, however, that I do not tolerate name-calling in the comments. Any comments that include ad hominem attacks will be deleted.
Introduce a Goal Verification Line
This is one that was play-tested in the AHL a few years back. I think it was just as the NHL was getting back on the ice after the lost season, but I don't remember for sure. Basically, a goal verification line is a line drawn exactly one puck-width behind the goal line between the goal posts. The picture below is from the original article I read about this many years ago. I saved the picture because I thought it was interesting, but I have no idea who to credit. I think it was NHL.com.
The idea here is that if the puck is even touching the goal verification line then it is a valid goal. This is supposed to help on those goals that are too close to call even on replays because the goal line itself is blocked from view by equipment, etc.
Cease Allowing a Penalized Player to Return to the Ice After a Goal
The NHL has explicitly stated that many of the rule changes instituted since 2005 are intended to increase scoring (e.g., smaller goalie pads, the introduction of the trapezoid behind the net, and the moving of the blue lines closer to center ice). One thing that would greatly increase scoring would be eliminating the rule that allows a player serving a minor penalty to return to the ice after their team is scored on.
Believe it or not, the rule allowing a penalized player to return to the ice at that point was only instituted in 1956 (http://www.rauzulusstreet.com/hockey/nhlhistory/nhlrules.html). Prior to that time, a minor penalty lasted a full two minutes and the penalized team was a man short for that entire time (http://www.nhl.com/history/060656.html). The rule was modified to allow the penalized team to return to full strength because the Montreal Canadiens had gotten so good on the power play that they would regularly score several times in the two minutes (http://media.nesn.com/2011/03/top-10-most-important-rule-changes-in-nhl-history/5/).
Don't Allow a Shorthanded Team to Ice the Puck
As far as I know, a team that is shorthanded has always been allowed to ice, or "rag" the puck. In fact, until 1925, play was not stopped regardless of whether the icing team was shorthanded or not (http://www.rauzulusstreet.com/hockey/nhlhistory/nhlrules.html). The idea behind taking that privilege away is once again to increase scoring. I've also heard that there are kids' leagues that don't allow a shorthanded team to ice the puck (this to encourage skill development), so it's not an unheard-of concept.
Institute No-Touch or Hybrid Icing
This one is a hugely hot topic. Many levels of play use a "no-touch" icing rule, meaning that icing is called as soon as the puck crosses the goal line, regardless of whether there is a player on the attacking team there to play the puck first or not. A lot of people have been supporting this idea because of the number of injuries sustained by players when they get knocked down during a fast race for the puck. The resulting crash is often quite awkward and results in the player slamming into the boards at 25 mph or so. Don Cherry has advocated no-touch icing for many years. (If you don't know who Don Cherry is, don't sweat it, but most hockey fans have at least heard of "Grapes".)
The argument against no-touch icing refers to maintaining the purity of the game and the excitement of the race for the puck (which is rare, yes, but exciting nonetheless). Those that argue this side are not ignoring the safety issue. The argument is that the key to preventing the often catastrophic, career-ending injuries is better enforcement of the rules about interference, checking from behind, and boarding. The idea is that if a player knows that he'll be called for a penalty if he so much as touches his opponent in that vulnerable situation then he'll lay off.
In an effort to keep the race for the puck but eliminate the injuries incurred by crashing into the end boards, the concept of "hybrid" icing was developed. Many leagues have adopted this approach, including the NCAA, and it was play-tested in the AHL a few years ago. The exact rules for hybrid icing vary from implementation to implementation, but the basic idea is that there is an invisible line across the ice somewhere far from the end boards (frequently between the face off dots). Icing is called if the usual requirements are met and the first player to cross that invisible line is a defender. It is not called if the first player across that line is an attacker.
Institute Stiffer Penalties for Fighting/Ban Fighting
If no-touch icing is a hot topic then fighting is scorching. On the one hand, you have the people who want to ban fighting, who are pointing out head injuries that occur as a result of fights and that most 'enforcers' are really not skilled players and don't belong in an elite league. On the other hand, you have those who say that fighting is part of the game and that those who want it removed aren't real hockey fans (this is frequently stated using crude insults, which kind of undermines the argument if you ask me).
Among arguments for keeping the fighting rules just as they are in the NHL, tops is probably "it's part of the game; leave it alone." The next argument usually points out that if pests such as Sean Avery or Matt Cooke don't know that they're going to have to fight the opponents' enforcer then they'll continue to make dirty hits and attempt to injure other players. (Different topic, but Matt Cooke has actually changed his ways. It would be nice if people noticed that.) Finally, the argument is frequently made that hockey is a rough sport and by removing fighting, you remove some of the 'manliness' from it. (Frequently, a reference is made to figure skating at this point.)
Arguments for banning fighting altogether include the injury argument mentioned above as well as opening up the spots currently taken by team enforcers for more skilled players. Fighting is not a part of the game, this side argues, because if it was then the game wouldn't stop whenever a fight broke out and there wouldn't be any penalties. Besides, look at international hockey (such as the Olympics and World Championships); fighting is banned in international hockey and you see some of the best hockey you ever will at that level. This side also points out that dirty plays exist now, so there's no basis for arguing that fighting deters dirty plays. In fact, many fights are started after a good, clean, solid check is made, so the argument can be made that fighting actually discourages good, solid checks, which are undeniably part of the game.
Eliminate the Shootout
The shootout is apparently very popular amongst fans, but there are those who don't like it because they feel that it's not really hockey. Hockey is a team sport, the argument goes, so something so individual as a shootout should not decide a game. Either allow for endless overtimes or accept ties.
Replace the +/- with the Adjusted +/-
Okay, so I'm probably the only one who has ever put this forward as a 'rule' change, and it's not even technically a rule, just stats. Still, I think it would be cool to see it adopted.
There are many more proposed rule changes out there, some serious, some not-so-serious, but this is probably plenty to get any conversation rolling. Please feel free to share other ideas or to discuss those mentioned above in the comments section. Please note, however, that I do not tolerate name-calling in the comments. Any comments that include ad hominem attacks will be deleted.
Thursday, October 18, 2012
A Few Hairy Thoughts about Evolution
Before getting into this one, I want to make it clear that this is not an invitation to debate the merits of the theory of evolution. For the purposes of this post, it is assumed that evolution, specifically that humans evolved from ancient apes (NOT modern apes--humans are not descended from any modern ape). As for the "it's only a theory" argument, a theory is as close to fact as you can get in science. We don't discount Einstein's theory of relativity or Newton's gravitational theory because they are "only theories", so neither should we reject the theory of evolution on those grounds. If evolution wasn't as close to fact as science will get then it would be the conjecture of evolution, not the theory.
Anyway, continuing on now from the assumption that evolution is a fact:
Do you ever wonder why, if our distant ancestors were hairy apes, we have lost almost all of our body hair? Even stranger to me is how long the hair on our heads grows; I know of no other animal that grows the hair on its head to such ridiculous lengths. (If there is one, please enlighten me.)
In pondering this, we must understand that natural selection does not select for any traits. In fact, it selects against traits that are reproductively disadvantageous. Two big words--maybe I should clarify: suppose there are two possible traits in a critter, a red chest or a brown chest. Further suppose that, all other things being equal, those critters with a red chest have a much worse time hiding from predators and, therefore, tend to die younger (some even before they have a chance to reproduce at all) than those with a brown chest. Natural selection is at work here, selecting against red-chested critters, giving you more descendants of brown-chested critters, possibly until there are no more red chests in the critter population.
Going back to body hair, the question I find myself asking is, "why was it a disadvantage for our ancestors to have thicker body hair?" All other land mammals seem to get along just fine with more body hair in all environments. What was different about human ancestors? There is the possibility that the mutation that causes less body hair just never occurred in any other evolutionary line, but that seems unlikely to me. And why is it that we still have thick hair in certain places? What's special about an arm pit that the "less body hair" gene left that alone?
Along the same vein, why do women tend to have less body hair than men (even when they don't shave it off)? Clearly, some evolutionary force selected against women with much body hair. Nowadays, that could be seen because most men (in our culture, anyway) are more attracted to women with little body hair, but is that what started it all? If that was the selective factor, where did that attitude come from in the first place?
A similar question goes for head hair: "what was the disadvantage for not being able to grow long hair on the head?" Those who have had long hair can tell you the disadvantages of same: it takes a long time to dry; it gets tangled and is hard to maintain; it can get caught on things (which seems like a distinct disadvantage to a primitive ape to me); etc. Perhaps the two things are related; longer head hair had to come with less body hair for some reason (or vice versa).
Finally, why do men tend to grow facial hair, but women don't? (I'm speaking in generalities here, and not talking about a little "peach fuzz" on the upper lip.) What possible evolutionary factor could there have been to select against males with no facial hair, but against females with facial hair? Perhaps, again, we're looking at what specific mutations did or did not occur, but why affect males and females differently? Maybe it has something to do with the second X chromosome, seeing as the Y chromosome doesn't have as many genes on it. (I do know that this is the source of some male-female differences, such as pattern baldness, which is a recessive gene but occurs on the X chromosome and not on the Y. A woman with the gene might well have the dominant gene against pattern baldness on the other X chromosome. That's an oversimplification, I'm sure, but it's the basic idea as I understand it.)
I'm afraid I don't have the answers to any of these questions, but they have been occurring to me off and on for years. Please feel free to educate me if you know, or even share if you have a theory. I'd love to know what other people think, especially about the reduced body hair question.
Hey, not all my posts can be deep and meaningful. :-)
Anyway, continuing on now from the assumption that evolution is a fact:
Do you ever wonder why, if our distant ancestors were hairy apes, we have lost almost all of our body hair? Even stranger to me is how long the hair on our heads grows; I know of no other animal that grows the hair on its head to such ridiculous lengths. (If there is one, please enlighten me.)
In pondering this, we must understand that natural selection does not select for any traits. In fact, it selects against traits that are reproductively disadvantageous. Two big words--maybe I should clarify: suppose there are two possible traits in a critter, a red chest or a brown chest. Further suppose that, all other things being equal, those critters with a red chest have a much worse time hiding from predators and, therefore, tend to die younger (some even before they have a chance to reproduce at all) than those with a brown chest. Natural selection is at work here, selecting against red-chested critters, giving you more descendants of brown-chested critters, possibly until there are no more red chests in the critter population.
Going back to body hair, the question I find myself asking is, "why was it a disadvantage for our ancestors to have thicker body hair?" All other land mammals seem to get along just fine with more body hair in all environments. What was different about human ancestors? There is the possibility that the mutation that causes less body hair just never occurred in any other evolutionary line, but that seems unlikely to me. And why is it that we still have thick hair in certain places? What's special about an arm pit that the "less body hair" gene left that alone?
Along the same vein, why do women tend to have less body hair than men (even when they don't shave it off)? Clearly, some evolutionary force selected against women with much body hair. Nowadays, that could be seen because most men (in our culture, anyway) are more attracted to women with little body hair, but is that what started it all? If that was the selective factor, where did that attitude come from in the first place?
A similar question goes for head hair: "what was the disadvantage for not being able to grow long hair on the head?" Those who have had long hair can tell you the disadvantages of same: it takes a long time to dry; it gets tangled and is hard to maintain; it can get caught on things (which seems like a distinct disadvantage to a primitive ape to me); etc. Perhaps the two things are related; longer head hair had to come with less body hair for some reason (or vice versa).
Finally, why do men tend to grow facial hair, but women don't? (I'm speaking in generalities here, and not talking about a little "peach fuzz" on the upper lip.) What possible evolutionary factor could there have been to select against males with no facial hair, but against females with facial hair? Perhaps, again, we're looking at what specific mutations did or did not occur, but why affect males and females differently? Maybe it has something to do with the second X chromosome, seeing as the Y chromosome doesn't have as many genes on it. (I do know that this is the source of some male-female differences, such as pattern baldness, which is a recessive gene but occurs on the X chromosome and not on the Y. A woman with the gene might well have the dominant gene against pattern baldness on the other X chromosome. That's an oversimplification, I'm sure, but it's the basic idea as I understand it.)
I'm afraid I don't have the answers to any of these questions, but they have been occurring to me off and on for years. Please feel free to educate me if you know, or even share if you have a theory. I'd love to know what other people think, especially about the reduced body hair question.
Hey, not all my posts can be deep and meaningful. :-)
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
The Adjusted Plus-Minus
With the start of hockey season (though no NHL season just yet) upon us, my thoughts have turned towards the sport I love. This post may not be of much interest to those of you who aren't hockey fans (and maybe even to those who are but couldn't care less about stats). You have been warned.
The plus-minus; what it is
The plus-minus (or +/-) is relatively new in the hockey statistics world. It was first employed by the Montreal Canadiens in the 1950s and started being tracked by the NHL in 1968. That's over 40 years, but most fans had never heard of it until the last 15 or so (if ever). These days you hear it mentioned several times in most broadcasts, but what is it?
As with many sports, the most well known hockey statistics (goals and assists) are geared towards measuring a player's offensive ability. The plus-minus is intended to be a measure used for defensemen and defense-minded forwards. The statistic is calculated by taking the number of non-power play goals scored by the player's team (so even strength and shorthanded goals) while he/she is on the ice and subtracting the number of non-power play goals scored by the other team while he/she is on the ice. For example, suppose Roy was on the ice for 3 goals scored by his team, one of which was a power play goal. This gives him +2 (since the power play goal doesn't count).If the other team also scored 3 goals, none of them on the power play, then his plus-minus for the game is +2 - 3 = -1.
Once you get used to it, this is pretty straightforward. The idea is that a better defensive player will have a higher plus-minus since the other team will score less when he is on the ice and the offensive players on the team will likely score more since they can be confident that the defense is being taken care of.
What's wrong with the plus-minus
The plus-minus has a number of issues, but there two that I want to address here:
The first is that the plus-minus does not take into account the amount of time a player spends on the ice. A player that spends 20 minutes playing and earns a +1 is seen as contributing the same as a player who plays just 1 minute and also happens to earn a +1. This is not equitable.
The second (and, in my opinion, bigger) problem is that there is no baseline. Suppose Roy's team in the example above lost that game 14-3. Roy's -1 is actually quite good. On the other hand, if Roy's team won the game 14-3 then Roy's -1 is really bad. This becomes worse as you look at season or (shudder) career plus-minus. Someone who is very bad but plays for a very good team can have a season plus-minus that looks great, while someone who is very good but plays for a very bad team can have a plus-minus that looks horrible. (Take John Tavares, for example. His season plus-minus in 2011-12 was -6. That's on the minus side, so looks bad, but when you take into account that the Islanders were 26th in a league of 30 and that they were outscored by their opponents by 55 goals (251-196), his -6 is actually pretty decent. It's not great, but he's also a very offensively-minded player and it is 5th place on the team among players who played at least half the season.)
To make matters worse, stats pages and commentators compare plus-minus values between players on different teams as if that means anything. Is Chris Kunitz's +16 (5th among the Pittsburgh Penguins for players playing at least half the games in 2011-12) really better than John Tavares' -6? That's debatable since the Penguins outscored their opponents by 65 goals (273-218).
To make the plus-minus more comparable between teams, we need a baseline to work from. That's where my proposal for the adjusted plus-minus comes in.
Proposed solution: adjusted plus-minus
The goal behind the adjusted plus-minus is to create a statistic with a known baseline which is therefore comparable for players on different teams. The formula is below, but the idea is simple: adjust everyone's plus-minus so that a player that is neutral (in the sense of not directly affecting which team has more goals in the end) will have an adjusted plus-minus of 0. A positive adjusted plus-minus will show that the player is contributing to the team's success and a negative adjusted plus-minus will show that the player is not (or may, in fact, be contributing to the team's failure). The formula takes into account the player's time on the ice (TOI) as well as the overall performance of his team, thus addressing the two issues described above.
First, some notation:
EVTOI = the player's time on the ice when the teams are even strength. This includes 5 on 5, 4 on 4, 3 on 3, as well as times when one team has pulled the goalie in order to gain a one skater advantage. If either team is on a penalty kill then that time is not counted in the ESTOI.
EVTOT = the team's total time playing at even strength. (Obviously, this is the same for both teams in a single game, but not over the course of many games against differing opponents.)
TPM = the player's team's plus-minus. This is a total of all even strength and shorthanded goals scored by the players team minus all even strength and shorthanded goals scored by the opponent. In short, compute the traditional plus-minus for the entire team as if it was one person.
PPM = the player's traditional plus-minus.
Okay, here's the formula:
Once you get used to it, this is pretty straightforward. The idea is that a better defensive player will have a higher plus-minus since the other team will score less when he is on the ice and the offensive players on the team will likely score more since they can be confident that the defense is being taken care of.
What's wrong with the plus-minus
The plus-minus has a number of issues, but there two that I want to address here:
The first is that the plus-minus does not take into account the amount of time a player spends on the ice. A player that spends 20 minutes playing and earns a +1 is seen as contributing the same as a player who plays just 1 minute and also happens to earn a +1. This is not equitable.
The second (and, in my opinion, bigger) problem is that there is no baseline. Suppose Roy's team in the example above lost that game 14-3. Roy's -1 is actually quite good. On the other hand, if Roy's team won the game 14-3 then Roy's -1 is really bad. This becomes worse as you look at season or (shudder) career plus-minus. Someone who is very bad but plays for a very good team can have a season plus-minus that looks great, while someone who is very good but plays for a very bad team can have a plus-minus that looks horrible. (Take John Tavares, for example. His season plus-minus in 2011-12 was -6. That's on the minus side, so looks bad, but when you take into account that the Islanders were 26th in a league of 30 and that they were outscored by their opponents by 55 goals (251-196), his -6 is actually pretty decent. It's not great, but he's also a very offensively-minded player and it is 5th place on the team among players who played at least half the season.)
To make matters worse, stats pages and commentators compare plus-minus values between players on different teams as if that means anything. Is Chris Kunitz's +16 (5th among the Pittsburgh Penguins for players playing at least half the games in 2011-12) really better than John Tavares' -6? That's debatable since the Penguins outscored their opponents by 65 goals (273-218).
To make the plus-minus more comparable between teams, we need a baseline to work from. That's where my proposal for the adjusted plus-minus comes in.
Proposed solution: adjusted plus-minus
The goal behind the adjusted plus-minus is to create a statistic with a known baseline which is therefore comparable for players on different teams. The formula is below, but the idea is simple: adjust everyone's plus-minus so that a player that is neutral (in the sense of not directly affecting which team has more goals in the end) will have an adjusted plus-minus of 0. A positive adjusted plus-minus will show that the player is contributing to the team's success and a negative adjusted plus-minus will show that the player is not (or may, in fact, be contributing to the team's failure). The formula takes into account the player's time on the ice (TOI) as well as the overall performance of his team, thus addressing the two issues described above.
First, some notation:
EVTOI = the player's time on the ice when the teams are even strength. This includes 5 on 5, 4 on 4, 3 on 3, as well as times when one team has pulled the goalie in order to gain a one skater advantage. If either team is on a penalty kill then that time is not counted in the ESTOI.
EVTOT = the team's total time playing at even strength. (Obviously, this is the same for both teams in a single game, but not over the course of many games against differing opponents.)
TPM = the player's team's plus-minus. This is a total of all even strength and shorthanded goals scored by the players team minus all even strength and shorthanded goals scored by the opponent. In short, compute the traditional plus-minus for the entire team as if it was one person.
PPM = the player's traditional plus-minus.
Okay, here's the formula:
Adjusted plus-minus = PPM - (TPM * EVTOI/EVTOT)
The logic is as follows:
EVTOI/EVTOT gives you the fraction of the team's even strength time during which the player was playing. Shorthanded goals for or against wind up acting as a bonus or penalty for the player, but power play goals either way do not affect them, so that time is not included in the ratio. In this way, the time that the player spends on the ice is taken into account in the statistic.
Multiplying EVTOI/EVTOT by TPM gives you the player's "expected" plus-minus. This is the plus-minus that would be earned by a player who is neutral in the sense described above. This is very likely to be a fractional amount; I've been rounding to two decimal places in my personal calculations, but any number of places could be chosen.
Subtracting the expected plus-minus from the actual plus-minus gives a statistic with a baseline of zero. A neutral player would be "even" (an adjusted plus-minus of 0), no matter how good or bad his/her team was.
Example with full statistics available:
Let's get some more information about Roy's game. The actual score for the game was 9-4, Roy's team lost, scoring once on the power play and giving up two power play goals against. The team's total plus-minus, then is TPM = 3 - 7 = -4. (3 because they scored 3 non-power play goals and 7 because they gave up 7 non-power play goals).
During the game, Roy played a total of 17:30 of ice time: 0:45 on the penalty kill, 1:15 on the power play, and the rest at even strength. That makes Roy's EVTOI = 15:30 (17:30 - 0:45 - 1:15).
During the 60:00 game, the team spent 4:30 shorthanded and 5:15 on the power play. Thus the teams even strength time is EVTOT = 50:15 and Roy's EVTOI/EVTOT = 15:30/50:15 = 0.31 (approximately).
Multiply that by the TPM and you get 0.31 * -4 = -1.24. This is Roy's expected plus-minus. His adjusted plus-minus, therefore is -1 - (-1.24) = +0.24. Roy was actually a little bit of a help to his team in this game, in spite of the -1 rating.
How to adjust for rec league:
Of course, most of us don't have that detailed TOI data to refer to. In my rec league, I've simplified the calculation to simply take the approximate fraction of the game I play based on the number of people playing my position. If I'm one of three centers, for example, then I make the fraction 1/3. If I'm one of 5 defensemen, I make it 2/5 (two defensemen on the ice at any time divided by 5 total). Other than that, I compute it just as described above.
Update 9/24/2012: As an example of what a difference it can make, I offer my own stats from the SCHL for summer 2012. That was a rough session for my team; we went winless and were completely blown out multiple times. My plus-minus for the summer was -21. My adjusted plus-minus was -0.70. I was still on the minus side, which doesn't please me, but at least it shows that I wasn't a complete drag on the team, which a -21 might seem to imply at first.
EVTOI/EVTOT gives you the fraction of the team's even strength time during which the player was playing. Shorthanded goals for or against wind up acting as a bonus or penalty for the player, but power play goals either way do not affect them, so that time is not included in the ratio. In this way, the time that the player spends on the ice is taken into account in the statistic.
Multiplying EVTOI/EVTOT by TPM gives you the player's "expected" plus-minus. This is the plus-minus that would be earned by a player who is neutral in the sense described above. This is very likely to be a fractional amount; I've been rounding to two decimal places in my personal calculations, but any number of places could be chosen.
Subtracting the expected plus-minus from the actual plus-minus gives a statistic with a baseline of zero. A neutral player would be "even" (an adjusted plus-minus of 0), no matter how good or bad his/her team was.
Example with full statistics available:
Let's get some more information about Roy's game. The actual score for the game was 9-4, Roy's team lost, scoring once on the power play and giving up two power play goals against. The team's total plus-minus, then is TPM = 3 - 7 = -4. (3 because they scored 3 non-power play goals and 7 because they gave up 7 non-power play goals).
During the game, Roy played a total of 17:30 of ice time: 0:45 on the penalty kill, 1:15 on the power play, and the rest at even strength. That makes Roy's EVTOI = 15:30 (17:30 - 0:45 - 1:15).
During the 60:00 game, the team spent 4:30 shorthanded and 5:15 on the power play. Thus the teams even strength time is EVTOT = 50:15 and Roy's EVTOI/EVTOT = 15:30/50:15 = 0.31 (approximately).
Multiply that by the TPM and you get 0.31 * -4 = -1.24. This is Roy's expected plus-minus. His adjusted plus-minus, therefore is -1 - (-1.24) = +0.24. Roy was actually a little bit of a help to his team in this game, in spite of the -1 rating.
How to adjust for rec league:
Of course, most of us don't have that detailed TOI data to refer to. In my rec league, I've simplified the calculation to simply take the approximate fraction of the game I play based on the number of people playing my position. If I'm one of three centers, for example, then I make the fraction 1/3. If I'm one of 5 defensemen, I make it 2/5 (two defensemen on the ice at any time divided by 5 total). Other than that, I compute it just as described above.
Update 9/24/2012: As an example of what a difference it can make, I offer my own stats from the SCHL for summer 2012. That was a rough session for my team; we went winless and were completely blown out multiple times. My plus-minus for the summer was -21. My adjusted plus-minus was -0.70. I was still on the minus side, which doesn't please me, but at least it shows that I wasn't a complete drag on the team, which a -21 might seem to imply at first.
Please feel free to ask any questions and/or offer any critiques of this proposed statistic. I've been using it for myself for years, but I'd like to know what other people think.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)