Hockey-Reference.com has recently added point shares to their statistics. There's a list of year-by-year leaders here: http://www.hockey-reference.com/leaders/ps_yearly.html Here's a lengthy explanation of the stat: http://www.hockey-reference.com/about/point_shares.html Basically it's a system to attempt to determine for each player how many of a teams points he was responsible for, similar to Bill James Win Shares for Baseball. There have been several hockey analysts who have attempted similar systems to this over the past few years. My opinions on it: Positives: - The core of the stat is based on how often the players team wins. That's how it should be since the point of hockey is winning and not accumulating individual statistics. But theoretically a player wouldn't do as well if he was on a stacked team with several players better than him. - It does attempt to combine offensive and defensive contributions of skaters; something most stats lack Negatives: - It uses icetime as a key factor in determining a players defence rating (as it should be) , but (if I'm reading it correctly) doesn't make any distinction between ES, PP or PK minutes, which would be a huge factor considering that PK minutes are far more indicative of a players defensive worth. The defence ratings of top scorers like Lafleur, Gretzky and Jagr seem way out of whack. - It uses Goals Created for the offence ratings which places more emphasis on goals than assists. It may be to reduce the impact of secondary assists, but this hurts the scores of playmakers who often are the ones most responsible for the goal. They have Milan Hejduk as the top player in '02-'03 instead of Peter Forsberg primarily because of their respective goals/assists ratios. I'd love to meet the person who honestly believes Hejduk was the better player that year. - They give ratings to all seasons, even though many of the key stats (plus/minus, icetime, save percentage) are only available for the recent years. As a result, this limits how high players from the eras before these stats can separate themselves from the rest of the league. Therefore, it makes it easier for players from the last decade or so to rack up better point share seasons. For example, most of the highest defensive ratings for forwards have been in the last decade http://hkref.com/tiny/r0uHO. This skews the all-time rating lists in favour of modern players. Overall, I thought it was somewhat interesting. Klein and Reif said in one of their compendiums that a single statistic that could define a players total contribution was the "holy grail" of hockey fans who loved to research stats. I've always felt that a hockey version of Win Shares could be a valid statistic, but there are still some obvious kinks to be worked out. Since there are some hockey sabremetric fans on this board, I'd be curious about their opinions on this stat and suggestions on how it could be better.