The fact that you can go to a lot of trouble (analyzing Corsi and "rate statistics for goals for/scoring chances/shooting percentages") to get a more accurate picture doesn't make +/- "antiquated." +/- is a very useful boiling down of the data, an approximation, if you will. Naturally, the full collection of data tells you a lot more. If a scientific journal publishs a 20-page report on climate temperatures, those 20 pages will naturally tell you a lot more than the abstract on the first page, which summarizes and boils down the findings, giving you a general idea of the data, but that doesn't take away from the usefulness of the abstract.

As a bean counter, you may scoff at +/- and prefer to jump into the sea of data, and that's your right, but that doesn't take away the value of such a stat. It's valuable to those who don't want to pore over the various data and it can even be valuable to folks like you, though you may not care to admit it. For example, if you see a high-Corsi player with a high +/- (like Toffoli), you can assume that there isn't a problem there, but, if you see a high-Corsi player with a poor +/- (like Brown), that might be a red flag that encourages you to do more investigation, and that investigation would most likely reveal areas where the player has struggled (like in shooting percentage and shot quality). You're not likely to see someone with a poor +/- whose enhanced stats are all sterling. You're going to find some stats which explain why more goals were scored against him at even strength than for.

+/- is very easy to understand, is very easy to calculate and tells you a reasonable amount, considering. That's rather impressive and shouldn't be discounted. Yes, you can tell more by digging into stats that are harder to understand and calculate, but poo-pooing the simple computation to suggest that the complex, time-consuming one is the only proper way can come across as elitist. Not everyone has the luxury of making this his job and spending the better part of his afternoon poring over and making sense of the data. For those without time to kill, +/- gives a quick and general idea of whether a player is struggling or not. There may be more accurate ways to judge that, but they're not necessarily "better" just because they're more accurate. There's beauty in a simple solution, even if it's not the most accurate or efficient one.
- Osprey

Scoring chances are a better indicator of which team is playing better than goals. You see a ton of games where teams win while getting out-shot, but it's less frequent that teams win while getting out-chanced. I'm not saying it's perfect, but the logic is sound.

+/- tracks goal differential, Corsi is supposed to track scoring chance differential. You can argue that shot attempts don't align exactly with scoring chances, but it's the best indicator available. There's a lot of subjectivity in determining what constitutes a scoring chance, while a Corsi event is pretty cut and dry.

All that being said, advanced stats cannot be used as a standalone to judge the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of a player. Used in conjunction with other factors, they are certainly more helpful than relying on traditional statistics like +/-.

Scoring chances are a better indicator of which team is playing better than goals. You see a ton of games where teams win while getting out-shot, but it's less frequent that teams win while getting out-chanced. I'm not saying it's perfect, but the logic is sound.

+/- tracks goal differential, Corsi is supposed to track scoring chance differential. You can argue that shot attempts don't align exactly with scoring chances, but it's the best indicator available. There's a lot of subjectivity in determining what constitutes a scoring chance, while a Corsi event is pretty cut and dry.

All that being said, advanced stats cannot be used as a standalone to judge the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of a player. Used in conjunction with other factors, they are certainly more helpful than relying on traditional statistics like +/-.
- tkecanuck341

Scoring chances are a better indicator of which team is playing better than goals. You see a ton of games where teams win while getting out-shot, but it's less frequent that teams win while getting out-chanced. I'm not saying it's perfect, but the logic is sound.

+/- tracks goal differential, Corsi is supposed to track scoring chance differential. You can argue that shot attempts don't align exactly with scoring chances, but it's the best indicator available. There's a lot of subjectivity in determining what constitutes a scoring chance, while a Corsi event is pretty cut and dry.

All that being said, advanced stats cannot be used as a standalone to judge the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of a player. Used in conjunction with other factors, they are certainly more helpful than relying on traditional statistics like +/-.
- tkecanuck341

Your last paragraph is an opinion from you alone as none of us have said to use plus minus on its own. This type of comment amplifies the angst between analytic supporters & those that question the results they provide. Why not just say that they can be used together which they can. If you ignore the data when a goal is scored you are ignoring a lot of valuable data available to you.

I don’t disagree with your take of Schenn, but I don’t know anyone who didn’t know this already as he arrived in LA. He was always characterized as a defensive defenseman. He was so bad with the puck, and seeing him and Scuderi together was just mind boggling. His arrival really coincided with the end of our dominant play. He can’t complete a pass, and when he does it leaves the receptor in bad position. It was very painful to watch, and I’m glad he has moved on.

I don’t disagree with your take of Schenn, but I don’t know anyone who didn’t know this already as he arrived in LA. He was always characterized as a defensive defenseman. He was so bad with the puck, and seeing him and Scuderi together was just mind boggling. His arrival really coincided with the end of our dominant play. He can’t complete a pass, and when he does it leaves the receptor in bad position. It was very painful to watch, and I’m glad he has moved on.
- CrownedKing

He's no Drew Doughty

All that being said, advanced stats cannot be used as a standalone to judge the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of a player. Used in conjunction with other factors, they are certainly more helpful than relying on traditional statistics like +/-.
- tkecanuck341

No one has argued that we should be "relying on traditional statistics like +/-."

Your last paragraph is an opinion from you alone as none of us have said to use plus minus on its own. This type of comment amplifies the angst between analytic supporters & those that question the results they provide. Why not just say that they can be used together which they can. If you ignore the data when a goal is scored you are ignoring a lot of valuable data available to you.
- Aussiepenguin

It's both interesting and perplexing to see a number of different people argue so clearly that advanced stats aren't standalone and then criticize +/- for what it does or doesn't tell you by itself. It's a logical double standard. It's as though people feel that being fans of advanced stats puts them on that "side," and, with that, comes the need to denounce the other.