Sheng Peng: Is Nic Dowd Struggling? Inside the rookie's recent play...does he deserve to get scratched?

Plus/minus isn't just about fault or who the fall guy is. It seems to me that you may've been putting a little too much focus on the "goals against" aspect of plus/minus. As your further analysis suggested, that hasn't been the main problem with Dowd's play; it's been the lack of production. In other words, those five EV goals against might've happened anyways, but, if he'd been more productive, those goals against would've been cancelled out by as many or more EV goals for.

As it turns out, his -5 in the last 7 games suggested that there was a problem with his play, it encouraged you to dig into more numbers and, lo and behold, there's a problem with his play. We can, as you did, dig deeper to find out the why's and how's that plus/minus can't tell us, but plus/minus did its job. It distilled everything down into a simple number that encouraged further analysis, further analysis that confirmed the warning sign that it indicated.

BTW, the article linked to ("Why Plus/Minus Is the Worst Statistic in Hockey") is absurd because it throws out all context, pointing out that identical players could have largely different plus/minus due only to factors outside of their control (ex. ice time). That's the case for every stat, even Corsi. Throw out the context and you can engineer examples that suggest that any stat is worthless. A lot of advanced stats guys (not saying you, Sheng) do that to discredit plus/minus, but, when advanced stats like Corsi are discredited in the same way, act like others aren't smart enough to properly understand how to use the stats in context. It's a bit ironic.

There are no such things as good or bad stats. There are only good or bad understandings of what the stats mean and how to use them. Too often, though, people apply good understanding to the stats that they like, holding them up as "good" stats, and apply bad understanding to the stats that they don't like, putting them down as "bad" stats. The referenced article's title, "Why Plus/Minus Is the Worst Statistic in Hockey," is meaningless because it doesn't say what it's worst at. Is it the worst stat at accurately grading players all by itself, as the article implies? If so, the problem is with the very notion that you should try to grade players by the lone use of any stat. In other words, the problem is with the analysis and use of the stat, not the stat, itself.

Thanks for the thoughtful response, Osprey. Much appreciated.

As your further analysis suggested, that hasn't been the main problem with Dowd's play; it's been the lack of production.

As it turns out, his -5 in the last 7 games suggested that there was a problem with his play, it encouraged you to dig into more numbers and, lo and behold, there's a problem with his play. We can, as you did, dig deeper to find out the why's and how's that plus/minus can't tell us, but plus/minus did its job.

If so, the problem is with the very notion that you should try to grade players by the lone use of any stat. In other words, the problem is with the analysis and use of the stat, not the stat, itself.
- Osprey

I think the issue that a lot of people have with plus-minus is not the stat itself -- you're right, it's just a number -- but the way that it has been used for decades as a be-all, end-all defensive stat. Analysts today probably go overboard to smear the stat because of its outsized reputation historically -- in part, to diminish its importance. To some degree, that's worked. Yes, I looked beyond plus-minus to dig -- and these days, more and more people are -- but not everybody.

Of course, not everybody has to adopt this militant attitude against plus-minus -- to each, his or her own for how they enjoy hockey -- but you can understand, as somebody who also takes the sport seriously, why seeing top hockey people misuse plus-minus has gotten frustrating over the years. I'm not talking necessarily about Sutter here, but in general.

There are no such things as good or bad stats.
- Osprey

"Good" or "bad" is indeed very subjective, but there are stats that are better correlated with future winning, such as Corsi and Expected Goals. Indeed you're right that the lone use of any stat is dangerous -- but the continual search for "better" stats is a good thing. If all stats were the same thing -- in terms of their relationship to future winning -- the search would probably be pointless.

Wonder if a Ryan for Brown would/could work for both teams

Wonder if a Ryan for Brown would/could work for both teams
- AlfieisKing

Ryan is younger with more upside, but the extra cost (7.25 mil cap hit compared to Brown's 5.875) is probably a nope? Also, I question how well Ryan's game would fit in LA. Upside is tantalizing but probably not worth the extra cap hit for a cap-strapped team.

+/- can be a very telling stat. You had a guy like Niklas Lidstrom lead the league in +/- just about every year and faced the oppositions top lines to boot. Then you have Dustin Brown's ugly -10 staring you in the face and you know it's because he takes horrible shots and commits turnovers which send the opposition screaming the other way on an outnumbered attack.

I'm reminded of ol Jack Johnson and his many giveaways and -forever. Of coarse if you play against other teams top competition and start many defensive zone faceoffs your +/- may be skewed, but many times it is very telling. In Dowd's case, Setoguchi and Brown may be dragging him down.

Wonder if a Ryan for Brown would/could work for both teams
- AlfieisKing

It would work for me if Ottawa retained half of Ryan's salary.

+/- can be a very telling stat. You had a guy like Niklas Lidstrom lead the league in +/- just about every year and faced the oppositions top lines to boot.
- verwustung

The stat tells you that Lidstrom had some very good linemates for a long time and probably a very good team. I don't think it says much about the player. If Lidstrom had been on the Kings for the same length of time, he would've been more or less the same great player with an uglier +/-.

In Dowd's case, Setoguchi and Brown may be dragging him down.
- verwustung

It's easy to blame the vets, but I believe Dowd himself was struggling too. Normal for a rookie. Was discouraged to read reports that Andreoff practiced at 3C today though, one game off to reset was enough for Dowd.

It would work for me if Ottawa retained half of Ryan's salary.
- verwustung

Hard to see Ottawa taking on about 8.4 mil (Brown + 1/2 Ryan) to get rid of Ryan's 7.25. Have to imagine motivation for Ottawa to lose age + upside in Ryan for Brown is to gain $$$.

The stat tells you that Lidstrom had some very good linemates for a long time and probably a very good team. I don't think it says much about the player. If Lidstrom had been on the Kings for the same length of time, he would've been more or less the same great player with an uglier +/-.

By that definition, there is then no point in awarding a Norris or Selke or even a Hart trophy for that matter. You're only as good as your teammates are, so you say. Sure, Lidstrom's +!/- might have been a little lower, but that's because he doesn't have the finishers around him but still everyone else's would have improved. Lidsrom was the straw that stired the drink and why they say you should build from the back-end out.


It's easy to blame the vets, but I believe Dowd himself was struggling too. Normal for a rookie. Was discouraged to read reports that Andreoff practiced at 3C today though, one game off to reset was enough for Dowd.

Brown is to blame. He's terrible now.

Hard to see Ottawa taking on about 8.4 mil (Brown + 1/2 Ryan) to get rid of Ryan's 7.25. Have to imagine motivation for Ottawa to lose age + upside in Ryan for Brown is to gain $$$.
- Sheng Peng

That's why it will never happen.