TSN's Top 50

[WarriorofTime]

+/- is only ever relevant when comparing players on the same team

Compare Toews +/- to the rest of the Hawks over that time.

 

[KingBran]

Tom Preissing not only lead his team in +/- once, but the entire league.

+/- is about as useful a statistic, in terms of determine skill at the sport of hockey, as the number of hairs on a player's head, or the number of pairs of underwear they own. It's completely and utterly irrelevant. I put zero stock in +/-.

I disagree. Its pretty useless for forwards but there's definitely something to say about a defenseman who is on the ice more often when the other team scores than when his team scores. Its a telling stat. Nothing to be taken out of context or a be-all end-all but it has its uses.

 

[DCHabitant]

What do you think Lemieux's plus minus in his first season is an indicator of?

He looks terrible!

Then again, he was the 1st overall pick in that draft year.

Which says something about the team he was on.

I already said that you need to compare to other players on the team, and that the stat shouldn't be looked at in a vacuum. I don't see how bringing up Mario's first season negates my point. (What's more, there were probably other players that year that would have been more valuable to my team.)

All I'm saying is that the stat does correlate to defensive play. Other than the eye test, is there a better stat for evaluating a forward's defensive play?

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

What has John Tavares ever done to be placed over Ovechkin....?

 

[Lonewolfe2015]

Interesting to see Duchene on the list but no mention of Erik Johnson or Semyon Varlamov... both players are better than Duchene.

 

[NyQuil]

I disagree. Its pretty useless for forwards but there's definitely something to say about a defenseman who is on the ice more often when the other team scores than when his team scores. Its a telling stat. Nothing to be taken out of context or a be-all end-all but it has its uses.

In the case of Preissing, as someone who watched all of his games that year, he played 14 minutes a game which was by far the least by all 6 regular defencemen.

That Ottawa team was an offensive juggernaut that year. (2006-2007)

The stat was a function of being sheltered rather than any defensive acumen.

He was signed by the Kings in the off-season to a 3-year contract and then out of the league a year later.

All I'm saying is that the stat does correlate to defensive play. Other than the eye test, is there a better stat for evaluating a forward's defensive play?

It has just as much to do with offensive play as far as even-strength and shorthanded situations go.

You can be a terrible defensive player but put up enough goals to end up as a + player.

I get that, as a rough proxy, you think it works, but I'd argue that there are enough exceptions that you have to be really careful to derive any conclusions involving plus/minus.

Exceptions like:
-Limited usage or sheltered usage against good players
-An overall weak team
-Bad linemates
-A PP with 4 forwards on it that gives up SH goals
-Difficult opposition in your division/conference

You can talk about "effectiveness" from the perspective that, yes, you are supposed to score more goals than the opposition, so winning 8-7 is just as good as winning 1-0. But it doesn't say anything about defensive play specifically.

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

3 players end up with a +/- of zero.

One was on ice for 0 goals for and against: one was on ice for 25 goals for and against: one was on the ice for 50 goals for and against.

The issue with +/- isn't that it misrepresents players (though the example above does that it does this very well, don't mistake this post). The issue is that it doesn't tell you anything. To actually know if a player is good offensively/defensively if you're only looking at his +/-, you then need to look up additional information. Which you could have done without looking at +/- anyway.

Literally the only time I see it brought up is when someone looked up a players stat sheet and noticed that his +/- was good: or perhaps they did a bit more clicking and noticed that it was good compared to his team. In that light, seeing it applied to Toews in his defense is ironic, when posters who defend Toews accuse others of "stat watching".

(Especially since there are far superior statistics than +/- that show that Toews is, indeed, good at defense)

All I'm saying is that the stat does correlate to defensive play. Other than the eye test, is there a better stat for evaluating a forward's defensive play?

No it doesn't. It correlates to ice time and usage. Eric Staal generally has the worst +/- on the Hurricanes: but he is clearly not the worst defensive player on the team. This is because he gets, by far, the most ES minutes: and because the sheltered matchups go to other players, such as Jeff Skinner, who blows at defense; or Riley Nash, who just blows at everything.

For defensive play: quality of comp.; CorsiRelative; on ice save percentage (check to see if a player is getting abnormally good goaltending); shots against while on the ice. And much more!

 

[DCHabitant]

In the case of Preissing, as someone who watched all of his games that year, he played 14 minutes a game which was by far the least by all 6 regular defencemen.

That Ottawa team was an offensive juggernaut that year. (2006-2007)

The stat was a function of being sheltered rather than any defensive acumen.

He was signed by the Kings in the off-season to a 3-year contract and then out of the league a year later.



It has just as much to do with offensive play as far as even-strength and shorthanded situations go.

You can be a terrible defensive player but put up enough goals to end up as a + player.

I get that, as a rough proxy, you think it works, but I'd argue that there are enough exceptions that you have to be really careful to derive any conclusions involving plus/minus. Exceptions like:

-Limited usage or sheltered usage against good players
-An overall weak team
-Bad linemates
-A PP with 4 forwards on it that gives up SH goals

I agree. One nedds to be careful not to give it too much weight. But, in context, it does tell a story. That's all I'm saying. If evaluating a player, it's not the first thing I look at obviously. But I do think a high + or a high - tells you something about a player and the season he's having--see Ovy, Kessel, Pacioretty, Bergeron Toews...

 

[NyQuil]

But I do think a high + or a high - tells you something about a player and the season he's having--see Ovy, Kessel, Pacioretty, Bergeron Toews...

The issue with plus/minus is that it's virtually useless without any context.

You need to see the other plus/minus leaders.

You need to see the other players on the same team.

You need to see their production.

You need to see their TOI.

The fact that you need so much additional information to understand the number makes it a bit weak as an indicator.

But, in context, it does tell a story.

Is it even necessary by the time you have the context?

In general, I find it is a proxy for how good or bad your team is.

 

[DCHabitant]

3 players end up with a +/- of zero.

One was on ice for 0 goals for and against: one was on ice for 25 goals for and against: one was on the ice for 50 goals for and against.

The issue with +/- isn't that it misrepresents players (though the example above does that it does this very well, don't mistake this post). The issue is that it doesn't tell you anything. To actually know if a player is good offensively/defensively if you're only looking at his +/-, you then need to look up additional information. Which you could have done without looking at +/- anyway.

Literally the only time I see it brought up is when someone looked up a players stat sheet and noticed that his +/- was good: or perhaps they did a bit more clicking and noticed that it was good compared to his team. In that light, seeing it applied to Toews in his defense is ironic, when posters who defend Toews accuse others of "stat watching".

(Especially since there are far superior statistics than +/- that show that Toews is, indeed, good at defense)



No it doesn't. It correlates to ice time and usage. Eric Staal generally has the worst +/- on the Hurricanes: but he is clearly not the worst defensive player on the team. This is because he gets, by far, the most ES minutes: and because the sheltered matchups go to other players, such as Jeff Skinner, who blows at defense; or Riley Nash, who just blows at everything.

For defensive play: quality of comp.; CorsiRelative; on ice save percentage (check to see if a player is getting abnormally good goaltending); shots against while on the ice. And much more!

These are good points. (And I agree that context is very important.) But if we're talking hypotheticals: Two player on the same team have identical offensive stats 40 goals and 80 points. One is a plus 25, the other a minus 25. Is it unreasonable to see their +/- as an indicator that perhaps one of the players is more well-rounded than the other? Or does the stat tell you nothing at all?

 

[NyQuil]

These are good points. But if we're talking hypotheticals: Two player on the same team have identical offensive stats 40 goals and 80 points. One is a plus 25, the other a minus 25. Is it unreasonable to see their +/- as an indicator that perhaps one of the players is more well-rounded than the other? Or does the stat tell you nothing at all?

One guy plays against the opposition's top units and the other guy doesn't.

One guy is carrying two one-dimensional scrubs on his wings while the other has two two-way dynamos on his.

You need more info to draw conclusions.

For example, a guy like Mike Hoffman scored 27 goals and was a +16 last year and his icetime was reduced, and he was moved out of the top 6, because the team was worried about his commitment to defensive play.

He was 3rd on the team in plus/minus, behind Methot and Stone.

What do those three players have in common? They all saw limited action/responsibilities in the first half of the season when the team was struggling.

Methot was out injured and Stone and Hoffman were still largely in the bottom six.

The team improves in the second half, and everyone's plus/minus goes up, but those three go up from 0 as opposed to the negative values that the core guys accumulated at that time.

Now Stone is an excellent defensive player and Hoffman arguably isn't, but there's no way of knowing that based on their plus/minus values.

 

[GreatGonzo]

Ovechkin had a +45 in 2010, 2nd best in the league. I guess he was stellar defensively. Right?

 

[Paradoc]

What about other years?

And thanks for proving they produce nearly identically at even strength

Toews is by far the best goal scorer. Datsyuk hasn't been a two-way force for a while now. More of a Powerplay Specialist these days.

You just said that he's BY FAR the best goal scorer and then he slams you with the facts and then you try to shift the topic. Datsyuk maybe not be a top 5 player anymore, but he is still once of the best in the game while being healthy.

 

[Chelios]

But Zetterberg still won the matchup though, which invalidates your first argument.

Still waiting on evidence for this. I honestly haven't seen any.

 

[STC]

He gets the most praise from the media, not the actual people within the game.

Stop lying. You know damn well that isn't true.

 

[armani]

Tavares, Doughty, and Getzlaf ranked a bit high. Karlsson a bit low.

 

[STC]

by best performing i mean numbers-wise. i'd still take Doughty ahead of Subban but Keith has only had 1 exceptional playoff performance, .

Can get a ruling on this being the dumbest comment in this thread?

 

[BB6]

this list is a joke and TSN should be ashamed.

 

[hatterson]

Compare Toews +/- to the rest of the Hawks over that time.

In the playoffs (which is apparently when he actually tries) Toews is behind Keith and Kane, Keith by a significant amount.

 

[NyQuil]

In the playoffs (which is apparently when he actually tries) Toews is behind Keith and Kane, Keith by a significant amount.

Well, a guy who is on a good team and is on the ice an additional 5-10 minutes per game had better be higher by a significant amount.

But I get that you're just responding with the basic facts.

 

[hatterson]

Well, a guy who is on a good team and is on the ice an additional 5-10 minutes per game had better be higher by a significant amount.

But I get that you're just responding with the basic facts.

Yea, I'm not trying to make a very advanced point given that I was responding to a thread of logic starting from listing +/- for 4 different players on completely different teams as some kind of argument for how Datsyuk isn't a two-way force anymore.

When you start with garbage there's only so many gems that can be pulled out.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Well, a guy who is on a good team and is on the ice an additional 5-10 minutes per game had better be higher by a significant amount.

But I get that you're just responding with the basic facts.

Keith is a monster in the Playoffs. If he brought what he brings to the Playoffs to the regular season he'd win the Norris every year. But he'd also burn out playing so many minutes.

 

[longchange]

I literally have no idea what "top hockey player" means anymore. No point in arguing about a list that just appears to be a smattering of great hockey players with an emphasis on Canadians.

 

[KaseMeOutside]

How are people still surprised about Toews being @ 2? It's TSN.

Still the same site that just recently had ''better goal-scorer'' -poll in which their viewers voted Toews over Ovechkin 69% - 31%.

No way

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

These are good points. (And I agree that context is very important.) But if we're talking hypotheticals: Two player on the same team have identical offensive stats 40 goals and 80 points. One is a plus 25, the other a minus 25. Is it unreasonable to see their +/- as an indicator that perhaps one of the players is more well-rounded than the other? Or does the stat tell you nothing at all?

In that context, sure: but surely you can see that it is only able to because the incredibly narrow applications, and because of the additional statistics that had to be brought in.

When people argue that +/- is useless, what they're actually saying is that, out of any stat, it is the worst, by far, if held up on its own.