What facts exactly?
Plus-minus is a mostly useless statistic because there's too many random variables involved for it to demonstrated anything meaningful.
In 2011 Nick Lidstrom finished the season as a -2. Rafalski was the highest among D men with +11. So what does that mean? Rafi > Lidstrom?
Oh, that's also the year Lids won the Norris.
as a minus 2.
It's not a damning statistic but the fact is if you're a defensemen and you get a minus, there's at least a good chance that it was due to your poor defensive play. You can come up with a laundry list of reasons why it might not be. But at what point does the disparity between Kronwall's -6, or whatever it is now, (moving up from a shocking -10 before last week) and Quincey's +11 indicate that maybe someone is doing a better job at keeping the puck out of their own net?
And it's not a mathematical identity. 11 > -6; therefore, Quincey > Kronwall. But you can come to some qualitative intuitions based off an imprecise quantitive metric.
On the bigger picture. I think it was a mistake for Babs to say earlier in the year that the defense was Kronwall and then a committee. Kronwall's play was poorer for it and the committee showed no initiative. I haven't once in the past week seen Kronwall gesticulating and directing traffic in his own zone only to find that his man is now open and receiving a pass on route to scoring a goal.
- dobbles likes this