If you really consider how statistics actually work, especially in hockey, every stat needs some context, even goals. In 84-85 (random 80s season) there were 56 players that scored 30 goals. Flash forward to 03-04 and there were just 20. Take someone like Warren Young who scored 40 goals, and then any one of Iginla/Kovy/Nash at 41. Are they nearly equivalent at face value? Sure, goals are goals after all. Was Young as effective? Well if just reading the stat line was that straightforward, then you would have no reason to notice that he played with Lemieux and never had a season like that before or after.
I don't agree with adjusted stats, and I'm not treating it like the bible, as some do, but context is always necessary when looking at any stat, even something as straightforward as goals.
One player that really is amazing is Herb Cain. What a generational talent. I mean, he won the NHL scoring race in 43-44. Fabulous. That is precisely what you get when not looking at the complete picture.
The reality is, that was during the extremely watered down war years, it was an anomaly season for him to an extreme degree, and he has no real accomplishments of note outside of that season, as far as I can tell.
Simply put, no matter what the stat, it can almost never be taken at face value. I still maintain that +/-, though a troublesome stat, can be useful when used in the right contexts.