I agree that Faulk has never been a defensive stud, but I disagree that the +/- tells us much. In 2014/15 there were only 2 Hurricanes who had a positive +/-. They were +1 and +2 with under 50 games played. Faulk was hardly the only D with a bad +/- (at -19 through 82 games played). Tim Gleason had a -18 through 55 games, Ron Hainsey was -14 playing 3:30 less a night, Ryan Murphy was -11 through 37 games, John-Michael Liles was -9 through 57 games, Michal Jordan was -7 through 38 games and Andrej Sekera was -7 through 57 games. This was a bad team, but they were actually better defensively than offensively. They were 20th in goals against and 27th in goals for with a -38 differential. His bad +/- was largely because this team couldn't score. His 49 points were 2nd on the team and the leader had just 54 points. His expected +/- was -3.4, his actual GA/60 was 2.6 and he had 20 more takeaways than he did giveaways. His possession numbers were damn good. Every metric but raw +/- suggests that he was pretty decent defensively this year and everyone on this awful team had a bad +/- so I tend to put very little value in that number. 2015/16 was pretty similar, The leading scorer in the team had just 51 points, with Faulk's 37 points in 64 games being 5th on the team (all 4 guys ahead of him played 80+ games too). His defensive play was not as good this year. His expected +/- got worse despite playing 18 fewer games and his possession numbers got worse (although they were still good). His takeaway/giveaway ratio got worse as well (but was still positive), but it is worth noting he was used in a slightly more defensive role. His defensive play appears to have slipped this year, but all the metrics besides raw +/- suggest he was at least decent defensively on a bad team. 2016/17: This team has one of the most bizarre +/- splits I've ever seen. Pesce and Slavin were both +23. The other 6 D on the roster were -10 or worse. Even crazier, Pesce, Slavin, and Faulk all had a positive expected +/- (Pesce and Slavin were each about expected +10 while Faulk was 1.8). I'm not sure I've ever seen teammates with positive expected +/- have raw +/- totals that are that different. Other than the raw +/-, all of Faulk's numbers were good this year. 53 takeaways vs 45 giveaways, strong possession numbers with really strong relative possession numbers and the +1.8 expected +/- already mentioned. Again, every metric but raw +/- suggests that Faulk was decent defensively. 2017/18: Yet another year where all of his metrics besides +/- are solid. Expected +/- of 5.8, great possession numbers (likely bolstered by offensive-minded usage), 63 takeaways vs 66 giveaways, but he had a poor offensive season (31 points and an abysmal 3.8 personal shooting percentage). His actual +/- was -26. Ward and Darling's combined even strength SV% when he was on the ice was a staggeringly bad .885. It is tough to overstate just how bad Darling was this year. He posted a -28.22 GSAA through just 40 starts. Truly remarkable. All in all, Faulk has consistently had fine underlying/expected metrics that haven't translated at all to on ice results. His PDO has been below 100 in 7 of his 9 NHL seasons and below 98 in 5 of his 9 seasons. For the uninitiated, PDO is simply your goalie's SV% plus your team's shooting percentage while you are on the ice at even strength. It is one of those stats that generally regresses to 100 over time and anything above or below 100 suggests that you were unusually lucky (or unlucky). Consistent underperformance on this number suggests that the player's play contributes to the low SV% or shooting percentage. What's strange about Faulk is that his expected GF and GA numbers don't back this up. His expected numbers don't suggest that his goalie's SV% is low due to an increase in high danger chances when he is on the ice or that his team's low shooting percentage is a result of settling for low calorie chances. The combo of his expected numbers and his consistently low PDO is possibly the strangest I have ever seen. He has either been extraordinarily unlucky or something about his play style "breaks" the stats that measure quality of scoring chances. Or maybe a combination of both. I think the Blues looked at his success in a finally good system in 2018/19 as an indication that the underlying metrics had been accurate all along.