Finally took the time to read that, glad I did, I needed a laugh. It's funny when people play the "you're saying something bad about my favourite team/player, you must be biased" card. Honestly, the only point you made in that rant was that Fenwick is apparently tracked for every team. A quick glance at that page didn't confirm for me that Corsi is, but I'm willing to admit that it very well may be. I'll admit I was wrong about that, I remember reading somewhere, an article or blog or something on advanced stats and it talked about one of the supposedly better ones that unfortunately was only tracked for a handful of teams. Somewhere along the way I got it in my head that it was Fenwick and Corsi they were talking about. Apparently it was something else.

You'll forgive me for not thanking you now or ever for the link. I feel that if the snobbery I see in your posts here has any correlation with taking those "advanced stats" for gospel truth, I'll pass. Sure they give a more in-depth look at what's happening over the course of a full game, but to what end? So I can look down on everyone that doesn't use them, which at this point is probably over 90% of hockey fans and 50% or more of hockey experts. Sure I'll give a cursory glance at them from time to time, but I'll stick with the stats that are more widely used for now. What benefit is there for anyone not working in an NHL head office to use Fenwick or Corsi? I can't think of any benefits beyond looking smarter than others, which to be perfectly honest with you, isn't something I need to do. My self-esteem is fine the way it is. If you need the boost, more power to you.

If I am relying too heavily on +/- because it supports my statements, you're taking it even further to the other extreme. You're completely denying the relevance of a very widely used stat simply because it doesn't support your statements. As I've said, probably close to a dozen times now, +/- is a perfectly meaningful stat if you look at it critically. Which is exactly what I've been doing.

Alright, so Phaneuf is good at gaining possession and generating an attack. I'd say that shines a light more on his defensive liabilities. If a player is good at moving the puck forward, but also has one of the worst +/-'s on the team, something is breaking down. Maybe he's awful defending the rush, maybe he's getting burned on cheating too often. Either way doesn't speak well for the soundness on the defensive side of his game.

Sure the team played well for a good portion of the season, I'm not denying that. Maybe Phaneuf is a good leader when things are going well. He can get a winning team motivated, good for him. I suppose I'll concede the fact that he knows how to lead a team when everything is going well, but when adversity strikes, he doesn't seem to be that great at righting the ship.