Adjusted Even-Strength Plus-minus 1960-2017

  • Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
Looking at the 1976-79 Canadiens will illustrate this approach. Pierre Bouchard and Gilles Lupien filled this role.Other than Mario Tremblay who could fight a bit, none of the Canadiens forwards could fill the enforcer role.
Doug Risebrough... :nod:
 
PP% : The % of the team’s power play goals for that the player was on the ice for.
SH%: The % of the team’s power play goals against that the player was on the ice for.

Overpass, I'd be interested in looking at these numbers in more detail. Is it possible to provide the following four top fifty lists?

- Highest career PP%
- Lowest career PP%
- Highest career SH%
- Lowest career SH%

I noticed some interesting patterns/observations based on the data in your initial post and it would be nice to get more details.

If it's not too much work, it might make sense to break it out between forwards and defensemen, and to have a game played limit (maybe 500 games). This might merit a new thread. Thanks!
 
I've updated the numbers on this through 2010. I won't post numbers for the past season because plus-minus is too variable as a single-season metric. Instead, I'll post updated career totals for a number of players who were active in the past season.

The stats glossary from the beginning of the thread is repeated at the end of this post.

Here are the top active players in adjusted even-strength plus-minus.

Rk | Player | Seasons | $F/G | $A/G | R-ON | R-OFF | XEV+/- | EV+/- | AEV+/- | /Season | PP% | SH%
10 | Teemu Selanne | 14.8 | 1.0 | 0.8 | 1.24 | 0.84 | -123 | 232 | 355 | 24 | 74% | 5%
15 | Nicklas Lidstrom | 17.6 | 1.19 | 0.83 | 1.43 | 1.25 | 208 | 513 | 306 | 17 | 72% | 53%
24 | Joe Thornton | 11.2 | 1.00 | 0.75 | 1.34 | 0.95 | -26 | 231 | 257 | 23 | 64% | 11%
32 | Keith Tkachuk | 15.0 | 0.93 | 0.83 | 1.12 | 0.86 | -109 | 126 | 235 | 16 | 65% | 8%
33 | Patrik Elias | 10.7 | 0.89 | 0.57 | 1.56 | 1.12 | 47 | 282 | 234 | 22 | 58% | 15%
35 | Milan Hejduk | 10.2 | 0.98 | 0.69 | 1.42 | 1.05 | 21 | 244 | 222 | 22 | 59% | 13%
37 | Alex Tanguay | 9.0 | 1.03 | 0.70 | 1.47 | 1.05 | 21 | 242 | 221 | 24 | 47% | 4%
38 | Chris Pronger | 13.8 | 1.01 | 0.83 | 1.22 | 0.98 | -14 | 206 | 219 | 16 | 66% | 54%
40 | Mike Modano | 18.1 | 0.85 | 0.69 | 1.23 | 1.03 | 19 | 238 | 219 | 12 | 62% | 26%
42 | Brian Rafalski | 9.4 | 1.08 | 0.76 | 1.42 | 1.07 | 33 | 247 | 214 | 23 | 67% | 23%
45 | Simon Gagne | 8.1 | 0.87 | 0.58 | 1.50 | 0.95 | -15 | 193 | 209 | 26 | 51% | 18%
46 | Daniel Alfredsson | 12.2 | 0.96 | 0.73 | 1.31 | 1.04 | 22 | 227 | 205 | 17 | 70% | 19%
50 | Jarome Iginla | 12.5 | 0.93 | 0.80 | 1.16 | 0.88 | -72 | 128 | 201 | 16 | 64% | 14%
51 | Pavel Datsyuk | 7.4 | 1.01 | 0.62 | 1.63 | 1.12 | 36 | 235 | 199 | 27 | 55% | 13%
52 | Chris Chelios | 20.7 | 0.99 | 0.77 | 1.27 | 1.18 | 161 | 359 | 199 | 10 | 52% | 57%
53 | Jere Lehtinen | 10.7 | 0.79 | 0.52 | 1.50 | 1.08 | 30 | 228 | 198 | 19 | 41% | 34%
54 | Steve Sullivan | 10.3 | 0.87 | 0.69 | 1.27 | 0.91 | -38 | 158 | 196 | 19 | 53% | 19%
57 | Henrik Sedin | 8.9 | 0.83 | 0.56 | 1.47 | 1.00 | 1 | 192 | 191 | 22 | 46% | 7%
61 | Sergei Gonchar | 12.4 | 1.02 | 0.88 | 1.16 | 0.94 | -41 | 139 | 180 | 15 | 77% | 21%
62 | Alex Ovechkin | 4.8 | 1.25 | 0.88 | 1.41 | 0.88 | -36 | 145 | 180 | 37 | 88% | 4%
69 | Dany Heatley | 7.2 | 1.10 | 0.90 | 1.23 | 0.87 | -53 | 120 | 173 | 24 | 73% | 11%
71 | Daniel Sedin | 8.6 | 0.79 | 0.54 | 1.46 | 1.01 | 4 | 175 | 172 | 20 | 45% | 4%
72 | Paul Kariya | 12.5 | 0.94 | 0.84 | 1.13 | 0.90 | -64 | 108 | 171 | 14 | 78% | 16%
73 | Pavol Demitra | 10.5 | 0.95 | 0.73 | 1.31 | 1.05 | 21 | 190 | 169 | 16 | 60% | 8%
74 | Jason Arnott | 13.7 | 0.90 | 0.74 | 1.20 | 1.00 | 2 | 171 | 169 | 12 | 60% | 5%
79 | Marian Gaborik | 7.0 | 0.91 | 0.72 | 1.27 | 0.85 | -51 | 111 | 162 | 23 | 60% | 10%
80 | Mike Knuble | 10.8 | 0.75 | 0.60 | 1.26 | 0.94 | -25 | 137 | 162 | 15 | 37% | 9%
82 | Vyacheslav Kozlov | 14.8 | 0.81 | 0.66 | 1.22 | 1.03 | 18 | 179 | 161 | 11 | 45% | 8%
94 | Brenden Morrow | 8.1 | 0.84 | 0.60 | 1.40 | 1.04 | 13 | 161 | 148 | 18 | 42% | 20%
96 | Marian Hossa | 10.1 | 0.90 | 0.67 | 1.34 | 1.11 | 45 | 193 | 148 | 15 | 58% | 15%
100 | Daymond Langkow | 12.4 | 0.76 | 0.65 | 1.18 | 0.94 | -28 | 118 | 146 | 12 | 46% | 21%
105 | Wade Redden | 12.1 | 1.04 | 0.81 | 1.28 | 1.14 | 80 | 222 | 143 | 12 | 50% | 39%
113 | Sidney Crosby | 4.5 | 1.16 | 0.88 | 1.31 | 0.87 | -35 | 101 | 137 | 30 | 81% | 8%

  • Lidstrom continues his incredible late-career run. While his teammates were much weaker this season, Lidstrom was well on the plus side of the ledger again.
  • Ovechkin and Crosby have entered the leaderboard. Both are among the best ever on a per-season basis.
  • As always, it's difficult to separate the contributions of linemates/defence partners. Some of the players on this list, while fine players, had a lot of help. Hejduk, Tanguay, and Rafalski are clear examples, others are more debatable.

Here are the 10 active players with the lowest career adjusted even-strength plus-minus.

Player | Seasons | $F/G | $A/G | R-ON | R-OFF | XEV+/- | EV+/- | AEV+/- | /Season | PP% | SH%
Ian Laperriere | 13.5 | 0.47 | 0.55 | 0.86 | 1.08 | 28 | -85 | -113 | -8 | 3% | 32%
Karlis Skrastins | 9.2 | 0.79 | 0.92 | 0.86 | 1.04 | 16 | -98 | -113 | -12 | 3% | 51%
Ryan Johnson | 8.1 | 0.28 | 0.49 | 0.58 | 0.90 | -18 | -139 | -122 | -15 | 1% | 43%
Aaron Ward | 10.2 | 0.67 | 0.79 | 0.85 | 1.08 | 29 | -97 | -126 | -12 | 4% | 36%
Donald Brashear | 12.7 | 0.37 | 0.49 | 0.77 | 1.07 | 20 | -115 | -135 | -11 | 5% | 1%
Wayne Primeau | 9.4 | 0.39 | 0.57 | 0.69 | 1.00 | 1 | -136 | -137 | -14 | 7% | 21%
Jamal Mayers | 9.0 | 0.40 | 0.58 | 0.70 | 1.07 | 15 | -129 | -143 | -16 | 1% | 26%
Brendan Witt | 10.9 | 0.68 | 0.87 | 0.78 | 1.00 | 2 | -167 | -168 | -16 | 1% | 47%
Eric Brewer | 8.3 | 0.78 | 1.00 | 0.78 | 1.06 | 24 | -148 | -173 | -21 | 34% | 42%
Rob Niedermayer | 13.6 | 0.54 | 0.66 | 0.81 | 1.10 | 41 | -140 | -181 | -13 | 30% | 29%

It would be completely inaccurate to say that these are the "worst players" or any such phrase. They have all had long NHL careers. But they have all been outscored by a fair margin while on the ice, for whatever reason.

Finally, here are the numbers for all NHL players who were active in this past season and have played 1000 or more games.

Player | Seasons | $F/G | $A/G | R-ON | R-OFF | XEV+/- | EV+/- | AEV+/- | /Season | PP% | SH%
Mathieu Schneider | 16.1 | 0.96 | 0.85 | 1.13 | 1.02 | 17 | 142 | 125 | 8 | 70% | 31%
Scott Niedermayer | 15.8 | 1.04 | 0.83 | 1.24 | 1.21 | 150 | 263 | 113 | 7 | 64% | 40%
Bryan Mccabe | 13.0 | 0.99 | 0.93 | 1.07 | 0.95 | -32 | 68 | 101 | 8 | 56% | 43%
Bill Guerin | 15.8 | 0.77 | 0.66 | 1.17 | 1.08 | 47 | 144 | 96 | 6 | 51% | 3%
Miroslav Satan | 12.8 | 0.79 | 0.71 | 1.11 | 0.99 | -3 | 82 | 85 | 7 | 53% | 16%
Alexei Kovalev | 15.3 | 0.84 | 0.81 | 1.04 | 0.94 | -42 | 36 | 77 | 5 | 59% | 11%
Mark Recchi | 19.6 | 0.90 | 0.85 | 1.06 | 1.01 | 7 | 79 | 72 | 4 | 65% | 17%
Ray Whitney | 13.4 | 0.77 | 0.79 | 0.97 | 0.86 | -84 | -27 | 57 | 4 | 63% | 6%
Brian Rolston | 14.0 | 0.69 | 0.59 | 1.16 | 1.12 | 54 | 110 | 57 | 4 | 49% | 32%
Darryl Sydor | 16.1 | 0.82 | 0.78 | 1.05 | 1.01 | 5 | 54 | 49 | 3 | 40% | 25%
Shane Doan | 12.8 | 0.75 | 0.75 | 1.01 | 0.92 | -40 | 5 | 46 | 4 | 44% | 11%
Owen Nolan | 15.0 | 0.75 | 0.75 | 1.00 | 0.97 | -20 | 3 | 24 | 2 | 47% | 23%
Adam Foote | 13.8 | 0.92 | 0.83 | 1.11 | 1.14 | 82 | 103 | 20 | 1 | 18% | 53%
Rob Blake | 15.7 | 0.94 | 0.91 | 1.03 | 1.03 | 21 | 34 | 13 | 1 | 67% | 50%
Roman Hamrlik | 15.4 | 0.93 | 0.96 | 0.97 | 0.94 | -51 | -37 | 13 | 1 | 57% | 35%
Radek Dvorak | 12.8 | 0.70 | 0.71 | 0.98 | 0.98 | -9 | -17 | -8 | -1 | 20% | 25%
Brad May | 13.0 | 0.48 | 0.49 | 0.98 | 1.01 | 2 | -9 | -12 | -1 | 9% | 1%
Todd Marchant | 14.0 | 0.58 | 0.64 | 0.91 | 0.95 | -22 | -68 | -45 | -3 | 14% | 46%
Kris Draper | 13.8 | 0.51 | 0.49 | 1.05 | 1.32 | 101 | 26 | -75 | -5 | 2% | 34%
Kirk Maltby | 13.5 | 0.42 | 0.45 | 0.94 | 1.16 | 47 | -28 | -75 | -6 | 3% | 29%
Rod Brind'Amour | 18.5 | 0.80 | 0.82 | 0.98 | 1.06 | 50 | -26 | -76 | -4 | 50% | 45%

In Rod Brind'Amour's defence, he was basically even by this measure before the last two seasons. He's also had a major role on special teams throughout his career.

Glossary of Terms:

Seasons: Seasons Played. 1.00 is a full season. I prefer it to games played because it gives a 48 game season, a 74 game season, an 80 game season or an 82 game season the same weight.
$ESGF: Even-strength goals for, normalized to a 200 ESG scoring environment and with estimated SH goals removed, per game.
$ESGA: Even-strength goals against, normalized to a 200 ESG scoring environment and with estimated SH goals removed.
R-ON: Even strength GF/GA ratio when the player is on the ice.
R-OFF: Even-strength GF/GA ratio when the player is off the ice.
XEV+/-: Expected even-strength plus-minus, which is an estimate of the plus-minus that an average player would post with the same teammates. The calculation is described above.
EV+/-: Even –strength plus-minus, which is simply plus-minus with estimated shorthanded goals removed and normalized to a 200 ESG environment.
AEV+/-: Adjusted even-strength plus-minus, which is even-strength plus-minus minus expected even-strength plus-minus. This is the final number.
The following stats evaluate special teams play and are not related to adjusted plus-minus. I’m including them in the table for a quick reference to the player’s role outside of even-strength play.
PP% : The % of the team’s power play goals for that the player was on the ice for.
SH%: The % of the team’s power play goals against that the player was on the ice for.
 
Last edited:
Awesome update, I love this.

So Lidstrom had +50 this year?

Doesn't this show a clear bias against players on great teams?
Have you thought of any adjustments to this (maybe something like the simple-rating-system on hockey-reference)?

Edit: Oops! I missed Selanne on the active list. He jumps to the top of the active players list. I think Lidstrom's plus-minus may be more impressive than Selanne's, as Lidstrom has generally played against the league's best while Selanne has played fairly easy minutes, at least later in his career.
Again? ;)
 
Doesn't this show a clear bias against players on great teams?

It sure looks like it does.

Good and bad teams almost always skew the stats and it is very hard to account for what portion of the success/failure is the player and what part is the team.

Still an interesting list though.
 
Awesome update, I love this.

So Lidstrom had +50 this year?

Doesn't this show a clear bias against players on great teams?
Have you thought of any adjustments to this (maybe something like the simple-rating-system on hockey-reference)?


Again? ;)
I wouldn't call the Red Wings a great team this past year. They only scored 13 more goals than they allowed and for a good stretch were icing a $36m team due to injuries.
 
I agree. I didn't get that statement either. Lidström is by far the best defenseman the last 15 years and it is the explination for having better numbers, more hardware and better recognition than any other defenseman.
 
Doesn't this show a clear bias against players on great teams?
Have you thought of any adjustments to this (maybe something like the simple-rating-system on hockey-reference)?

Yes, overpass has accounted for this. To beat the goal differential of a bad team by one degree, will not earn a player the same score as beating the goal differential of a good team by the same degree.
 
Awesome update, I love this.

So Lidstrom had +50 this year?

Doesn't this show a clear bias against players on great teams?
Have you thought of any adjustments to this (maybe something like the simple-rating-system on hockey-reference)?

I had Lidstrom with +39 this year. If you are looking backwards to the last update, I made a slight update to the way I calculate the numbers so Lidstrom's numbers jumped a little more. (It's just a minor change, so I haven't updated the numbers for everyone).

If +39 seems a little high, keep in mind that last seasons numbers are adjusted to an all-time level of scoring of 200 ESG per season, so they are bumped about 20%. Also, Detroit was a big minus with Lidstrom off the ice this year - I have them with 80 GF and 107 GA without Lidstrom at even strength. So the model gives Lidstrom extra credit for succeeding in that environment.

Do you still think that shows a clear bias against players on great teams? I think my main argument against that would be that on the leaderboard, there are a lot of players on great teams. Bobby Orr, Wayne Gretzky, Larry Robinson, and Bobby Clarke all look very good using this stats, to name a few.

The main problem with the adjustment is that it's a one-size-fits-all adjustment for strength of team, based on performance with the player off the ice. It doesn't break down the team strength into forwards, defencemen, goalies, etc. I thought of adjusting for actual goalie numbers, and I tested a version of the model including that, but there were almost no changes overall, so I scrapped it to keep things simpler.


Oops! /facepalm.

Thanks for pointing it out, I've added Selanne.
 
Yes, overpass has accounted for this. To beat the goal differential of a bad team by one degree, will not earn a player the same score as beating the goal differential of a good team by the same degree.

Correct. Although it's always fair to question if I've struck the right balance on this.

For the latest update, I did some regression analysis to derive the correct weight. However, that's not perfect either, because it assumes player quality is independent of team quality. For the 1970s at least, good players tended to play on the same teams, so player quality and team quality weren't independent. And in todays salary capped NHL, player quality and team quality should be inversely related, in theory, because good players will make more money, leaving less money for the rest of the team. So I looked at results from different time periods as well, to compensate for this.

I also tested to see whether forwards and defencemen should have different adjustments, but found no significant difference.

I ended up very slightly lowering the adjustment from what it was previously. It could possibly be better, but at this point I'm satisfied.

If you aren't satisfied, at least you can look at the R-ON and the R-OFF for a player to compare their teams performance with them on the ice vs off the ice. It's just not folded into a single number.
 
Last edited:
Good stuff. I never caught this the first time around. Not really surprised to see Lindros so high up. How do you think he fairs assuming all careers stop after 9 seasons? If the same or relatively close I think that really says something, if it doesn't already.
 
Good stuff. I never caught this the first time around. Not really surprised to see Lindros so high up. How do you think he fairs assuming all careers stop after 9 seasons? If the same or relatively close I think that really says something, if it doesn't already.

Here are the numbers for the top 10 players in adjusted plus-minus through their first 10 seasons.

Rk | Years | Player | Seasons | $F/G | $A/G | R-ON | R-OFF | XEV+/- | EV+/- | AEV+/- | /Season | PP% | SH%
1 | 68-76 | Bobby Orr | 7.4 | 1.84 | 0.85 | 2.18 | 1.10 | 51 | 600 | 549 | 75 | 98% | 64%
2 | 80-89 | Wayne Gretzky | 9.7 | 1.67 | 1.08 | 1.54 | 1.10 | 66 | 463 | 397 | 41 | 86% | 37%
3 | 93-02 | Eric Lindros | 7.2 | 1.39 | 0.86 | 1.62 | 0.95 | -20 | 312 | 332 | 46 | 74% | 15%
4 | 91-00 | Jaromir Jagr | 9.3 | 1.31 | 0.92 | 1.43 | 0.95 | -26 | 301 | 327 | 35 | 61% | 10%
5 | 76-85 | Bryan Trottier | 9.5 | 1.10 | 0.58 | 1.91 | 1.23 | 87 | 406 | 319 | 34 | 67% | 21%
6 | 80-89 | Ray Bourque | 9.0 | 1.18 | 0.75 | 1.57 | 0.99 | -3 | 314 | 317 | 35 | 83% | 51%
7 | 78-87 | Mike Bossy | 9.4 | 1.08 | 0.60 | 1.80 | 1.17 | 67 | 370 | 302 | 32 | 75% | 5%
8 | 80-89 | Mark Howe | 8.8 | 1.17 | 0.80 | 1.46 | 0.94 | -28 | 266 | 293 | 33 | 64% | 44%
9 | 70-79 | Bobby Clarke | 9.8 | 0.91 | 0.49 | 1.87 | 1.14 | 49 | 341 | 292 | 30 | 66% | 42%
10 | 72-81 | Guy Lafleur | 9.2 | 1.25 | 0.62 | 2.01 | 1.50 | 185 | 473 | 289 | 31 | 74% | 5%

It's worth noting that there isn't much separation from spots 3 through 10 on this list. Also, it's about the most favorable comparison for Lindros. But Lindros's numbers are still very impressive. He was a dominant outscorer at even strength in his prime like few players have been.
 
Here are the numbers for the top 10 players in adjusted plus-minus through their first 10 seasons.

It's worth noting that there isn't much separation from spots 3 through 10 on this list. Also, it's about the most favorable comparison for Lindros. But Lindros's numbers are still very impressive. He was a dominant outscorer at even strength in his prime like few players have been.

You need to post in the Lindros for the Hall thread.. a lot of haters in there who still don't believe that he was ever dominant.. and he certainly was for a short time. Probably the best player in the world for a while.

EDIT - You did!
 
You need to post in the Lindros for the Hall thread.. a lot of haters in there who still don't believe that he was ever dominant.. and he certainly was for a short time. Probably the best player in the world for a while.

EDIT - You did!

He barely beats Jagr even though Jagr played more games than him. He was not the best in the world.

Adjusted plus-minus is measured against a baseline of average, so it will tend to underrate players with a long decline phase or several poor years at the start of their career (Mark Messier) and give high ratings to players who retired young and didn’t play a lot past their prime(Bobby Orr, Eric Lindros).
 
He barely beats Jagr even though Jagr played more games than him. He was not the best in the world.

Adjusted plus-minus is measured against a baseline of average, so it will tend to underrate players with a long decline phase or several poor years at the start of their career (Mark Messier) and give high ratings to players who retired young and didn’t play a lot past their prime(Bobby Orr, Eric Lindros).

You might want to look at the dates chosen. It is first 10 seasons for each of them.
 
Here are the numbers for the top 10 players in adjusted plus-minus through their first 10 seasons.

Rk | Years | Player | Seasons | $F/G | $A/G | R-ON | R-OFF | XEV+/- | EV+/- | AEV+/- | /Season | PP% | SH%
1 | 68-76 | Bobby Orr | 7.4 | 1.84 | 0.85 | 2.18 | 1.10 | 51 | 600 | 549 | 75 | 98% | 64%
2 | 80-89 | Wayne Gretzky | 9.7 | 1.67 | 1.08 | 1.54 | 1.10 | 66 | 463 | 397 | 41 | 86% | 37%
3 | 93-02 | Eric Lindros | 7.2 | 1.39 | 0.86 | 1.62 | 0.95 | -20 | 312 | 332 | 46 | 74% | 15%
4 | 91-00 | Jaromir Jagr | 9.3 | 1.31 | 0.92 | 1.43 | 0.95 | -26 | 301 | 327 | 35 | 61% | 10%
5 | 76-85 | Bryan Trottier | 9.5 | 1.10 | 0.58 | 1.91 | 1.23 | 87 | 406 | 319 | 34 | 67% | 21%
6 | 80-89 | Ray Bourque | 9.0 | 1.18 | 0.75 | 1.57 | 0.99 | -3 | 314 | 317 | 35 | 83% | 51%
7 | 78-87 | Mike Bossy | 9.4 | 1.08 | 0.60 | 1.80 | 1.17 | 67 | 370 | 302 | 32 | 75% | 5%
8 | 80-89 | Mark Howe | 8.8 | 1.17 | 0.80 | 1.46 | 0.94 | -28 | 266 | 293 | 33 | 64% | 44%
9 | 70-79 | Bobby Clarke | 9.8 | 0.91 | 0.49 | 1.87 | 1.14 | 49 | 341 | 292 | 30 | 66% | 42%
10 | 72-81 | Guy Lafleur | 9.2 | 1.25 | 0.62 | 2.01 | 1.50 | 185 | 473 | 289 | 31 | 74% | 5%

It's worth noting that there isn't much separation from spots 3 through 10 on this list. Also, it's about the most favorable comparison for Lindros. But Lindros's numbers are still very impressive. He was a dominant outscorer at even strength in his prime like few players have been.

Great stuff! Do you have the rankings for BEST 10 seasons instead of first 10?
 
Great stuff! Do you have the rankings for BEST 10 seasons instead of first 10?

Rk | Years | Player | Seasons | $F/G | $A/G | R-ON | R-OFF | XEV+/- | EV+/- | AEV+/- | /Season | PP% | SH%
1 | 68-76 | Bobby Orr | 7.4 | 1.84 | 0.85 | 2.18 | 1.10 | 51 | 600 | 549 | 75 | 98% | 64%
2 | 80-89 | Wayne Gretzky | 9.7 | 1.67 | 1.08 | 1.54 | 1.10 | 66 | 463 | 397 | 41 | 86% | 37%
3 | 92-01 | Jaromir Jagr | 9.2 | 1.40 | 0.96 | 1.46 | 0.95 | -27 | 337 | 365 | 39 | 68% | 12%
4 | 83-92 | Ray Bourque | 9.2 | 1.20 | 0.79 | 1.51 | 0.94 | -30 | 307 | 337 | 37 | 88% | 54%
5 | 93-02 | Eric Lindros | 7.2 | 1.39 | 0.86 | 1.62 | 0.95 | -20 | 312 | 332 | 46 | 74% | 15%
6 | 77-86 | Bryan Trottier | 9.4 | 1.13 | 0.60 | 1.87 | 1.21 | 83 | 406 | 323 | 34 | 66% | 24%
7 | 71-80 | Bobby Clarke | 9.8 | 0.94 | 0.47 | 1.98 | 1.20 | 68 | 374 | 305 | 31 | 65% | 42%
8 | 81-90 | Mark Howe | 8.4 | 1.16 | 0.76 | 1.53 | 0.94 | -29 | 277 | 305 | 36 | 61% | 44%
9 | 78-87 | Mike Bossy | 9.4 | 1.08 | 0.60 | 1.80 | 1.17 | 67 | 370 | 302 | 32 | 75% | 5%
10 | 95-04 | John Leclair | 8.4 | 1.19 | 0.72 | 1.64 | 1.07 | 31 | 320 | 289 | 34 | 68% | 1%
11 | 72-81 | Guy Lafleur | 9.2 | 1.25 | 0.62 | 2.01 | 1.50 | 185 | 473 | 289 | 31 | 74% | 5%
12 | 76-85 | Marcel Dionne | 9.7 | 1.04 | 0.82 | 1.28 | 0.80 | -107 | 179 | 286 | 30 | 81% | 14%
13 | 97-07 | Peter Forsberg | 6.9 | 1.17 | 0.66 | 1.76 | 1.00 | 1 | 287 | 285 | 41 | 74% | 17%
14 | 74-83 | Borje Salming | 9.2 | 1.25 | 1.00 | 1.25 | 0.85 | -89 | 190 | 280 | 30 | 72% | 57%
15 | 74-83 | Larry Robinson | 9.3 | 1.51 | 0.83 | 1.83 | 1.54 | 247 | 522 | 275 | 30 | 50% | 52%
16 | 74-83 | Steve Shutt | 9.4 | 1.06 | 0.51 | 2.09 | 1.51 | 160 | 424 | 264 | 28 | 42% | 1%
17 | 88-97 | Mario Lemieux | 6.5 | 1.46 | 1.07 | 1.37 | 0.89 | -51 | 210 | 260 | 40 | 98% | 40%

Here are the top players by best 10 consecutive seasons of adjusted plus-minus. I went 17 deep this time because I wanted to include Mario.

Lindros drops a couple of spots, but he's still very high.
 
Here are the top players by best 10 consecutive seasons of adjusted plus-minus. I went 17 deep this time because I wanted to include Mario.

Lindros drops a couple of spots, but he's still very high.

I'm not a Lindros fan but this really adds ammunition to the argument that he was a very strong player.

Those are some big name hall of famers up there.

Mind boggling numbers by Orr and even Lemieux if you consider how much time he missed.
 
Yes and Jagr had 2 more seasons as Lindros was either injured or held out.

Lindros 7.2 seasons and Jagr 9.3...

You do realize that gives Jagr the advantage when it comes to plus minus, no? If Jagr took his best 7.2 seasons out of that 9.3 his plus minus would be lower...
 
You do realize that gives Jagr the advantage when it comes to plus minus, no? If Jagr took his best 7.2 seasons out of that 9.3 his plus minus would be lower...

It goes both ways. It could get better or worse. My point was that Lindros havent "risked" his +/- as Jagr has. If Lindros played those seasons he lacks he could've gotten a lower +/- or a higher. Problem is he didn't play them and stopped at a higher value.
 
It goes both ways. It could get better or worse. My point was that Lindros havent "risked" his +/- as Jagr has. If Lindros played those seasons he lacks he could've gotten a lower +/- or a higher. Problem is he didn't play them and stopped at a higher value.

Goal posts moved again.

No. Your point was:

He barely beats Jagr even though Jagr played more games than him. He was not the best in the world.

But Lindros was simply better at even strength than Jagr at least in this metric.
 
Last edited:
Here are the top players by best 10 consecutive seasons of adjusted plus-minus. I went 17 deep this time because I wanted to include Mario.

Lindros drops a couple of spots, but he's still very high.
Great post! The most overrated thread on main board needs more of this thread.

/Cheers
 
Goal posts moved again.

No. Your point was:



But Lindros was simply better at even strength than Jagr at least in this metric.

What are these goal posts you are talking about? You didn't even see him play? Which we get from the other thread where you didn't even know that Flyers were the favorites against the Red Wings.

He barely beats Jagr even though Jagr played more games than him. He was not the best in the world.

Which clearly indicates that I thought that I didnt think Lindros played enough seasons. He didn't risk his +/-.

Stop putting words in my mouth and find better arguments. Maybe go buy a dvd and actually watch the games he played?
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad