You'll probably be pleased to know you are currently on track with all of the other boring Barrie detractors!
It's nearly always the exact same handful of arguments. +/- is a nearly useless statistic. You can read
here, for example, about its problems and the many who disagree with it. It's an excellent article on the history of +/-, and the long history of criticisms of it. For example:
Players:
Poile and Lamoriello:
Burke:
McPhee:
And this gem:
Zone starts is a statistic doesn't actually have a huge impact. You can read more about that
here and
here. You might say "well yeah, but it shows Barrie's sheltered". Not really. 2014/15 (Barrie's first full season) to today, 80 players have played for the Avs. Of those 80 players across that timeframe no player has averaged more even strength minutes per game than Barrie. I'd be curious to hear more about how a defensman who plays as many even strength minutes has he does, on a team that has been as poor / mediocre as the Avs, has been somehow "sheltered" from the other team's best players.
Finally, I'm rather glad you opted to use two "advanced" statistics to back up your claim. Because it opens the door for a whole bunch of other advanced statistics which you now can't dismiss. Specifically, Andrew Berkshire of Sportsnet did a ranking of the 20 best defensmen in the league which you can read
here. The ranking weighs the past three years and is 100% based off of advanced statistics. You'll be particularly pleased to know that, unlike your two statistics, it uses
fifty-nine. The ranking uses that collection of weighted stats across three full seasons to measure offence, defense, transition, and the degree of difficulty defensmen face. What won't please you so much is that Barrie ends up #19 on that ranking.
Now, I've already laid out some of the problems with the ranking (specifically advanced stats) in a prior post, but I don't think you get to do that considering you just called Tyson Barrie a "one-dimensional dman incapable of playing defense", which you then proceeded to justify via just two statistics. Based on that you clearly don't see any problems with advanced statistics considering even +/- qualifies as a valid one in your book.
So...have fun with that ranking. It's rather undeniably infinitely more nuanced and comprehensive than your own two statistics, I think you'll agree, so I don't think you're in any position to discredit it, which would come across as rather hypocritical in addition to being uninformed about the player Tyson Barrie actually is.