Sports Perspectives

Statistics can be a tricky thing. Like words, they can easily be pulled out of context.

In sports, stats are recounted and uttered on a daily basis. The problem is, if they’re not interpreted properly, all they represent are empty numbers.

One such statistic is plus/minus in hockey.

Plus/minus was first used in the 1950s when the Montreal Canadiens began to log it but it seems it only became popular in the 1960s with Emile Francis who is often credited for enhancing the system.

Regardless of history, plus/minus rewards players (with a plus) who are on the ice for an even strength goal and a shorthanded goal and penalizes (with a minus) those who are on the ice when an ESG and SHG is scored while they are on the ice.

Be careful. It can be a trap. When we see a +28 we think a player is an asset “a great two-way player.” Conversely, the player at -28 is considered a liability – that is, an irresponsible player.

All things being equal, yes, this interpretation would be a correct. If both players are on a powerful team with a goal differential of, say, +58, then something is disturbingly wrong about the -28 player. Even then caution must be exerted. How do we know if it’s a case of a player not fitting in or not getting along with coaching or management?

Many factors come into play with a plus/minus rating. It’s not like an “unforced error” or “Ace” in tennis where it’s readily quantifiable. A player serves and either gets an ace or they don’t. They either hit the ball for a winner or they don’t.

A career “plus” player who happened to play on great teams, for example the New Jersey Devils or Detroit Red Wings, had an added advantage over “minus” players who played on bad ones – like the Columbus Blue Jackets and New York Islanders.

That same “plus” player can just as easily drop to a minus and vice-versa if teams were swapped.

Of course, some players are simply great and manage to maintain a strong plus/minus regardless of their situation. I’m thinking along the lines of guys like Joe Sakic. By contrast, players can be on great teams and still post poor ratings. I’m thinking Brad Richards here.

Nonetheless, plus/minus, to me anyway, needs to be explored deeper.

Hockey is a team game and in the case of plus/minus, the individual on the ice is tied into four other team mates. What happens when you have a responsible player surrounded by two lazy ones who are about as agile as Dudley-Do-Right? It’s not likely to show up in the plus/minus. Or at least, the rating won’t be a true reflection of it.

Mentioned earlier was the word context. Who’s better? The player with a +33 on a team that is a powerhouse with multiple players over the plus mark or a player with a +6 on a crappy team filled with minuses?

So next time you hear plus/minus to prove the worth of a player, remember to consider other factors that come into play.

It might just save your life.

Wait. Wrong article.