What to make of this: Toews: +193, Kane: +59

[CokenoPepsi]

Toews was the more important player up until he signed that albatross of a contract. His game just simply does not translate well later in his career as his physical abilities start to diminish. Kane however, uses pure skill and hockey IQ to be successful. He's been the better play for the past 2-3 years and that's not even close and likely will be much, much better for the duration of the contract. One guy got paid for what he HAS done, the other guy got paid for what he has done + what he will continue to do. Value-wise kane wins. Skill wise Kane wins. Career wise to date you could make the argument for either but by the end of their careers I don't think it'll be much of a discussion.

I don't see how you could make the argument for Toews over Kane career wise.

But I would be down to listen

 

[DudeWhereIsMakar]

Toews is better defensively but has a good offensive side.

Kane is the type that can produce offensively but not defensively.

 

[Connor McConnor]

I don't see how you could make the argument for Toews over Kane career wise.

But I would be down to listen

I would definitely not be the person to make that argument as I personally would take Kane but as many other posters have pointed out Toews has a lot of other things going for him that Kane doesn't (defensive play, leadership qualities etc.) which you could justify to saying he's had the better career thus far. It would be a much easier argument to make 2 years ago though.

 

[JoelWarlord]

What should one make of this fact?

Basically nothing we don't already know. All it tells us is Toews kills penalties and defends against teams with the goalie pulled and Kane doesn't. It shouldn't change your evaluation of either player in any significant way.

+/- contains a lot of garbage like SHG and EN goals, and those things over a large sample can skew +/- largely due to deployment and team quality. This is why the worst +/- defenseman is usually a top pair offensive guy on a bad team, because these players are always out with the goalie pulled and get tons of minuses from EN against, and they're always on the PP which gives bonus SHG minuses. These are a ton of minuses and they aren't what people are thinking of when they dump on a player like Leddy for being bad defensively because he's -42. If you took the worst 6 defensemen in the league by +/- this year I think you'd be pretty happy with your top 6 (Leddy, Goligoski, Petry, Keith, Ekman-Larsson, Skjei).

The same applies in this case and an 800 game career gives a lot of time for the +/- garbage to pile up. Kane doesn't kill penalties and Toews does, so Toews being on the ice for ~5 SHG a year over 10 years is an additional +30-40 that Kane will never get because he'd never kill penalties. Kane will always be on the powerplay, and that's probably conceding ~5 SHG a year for an aggregate -30 (granted Toews would be on the PP too and get some of these minuses too). The other thing is empty net goals which mostly comes in to play by reinforcing the plusses on a good team and doubling down the minuses on a bad team.

The Blackhawks had a 9 year stretch as one of the best teams in the league, which means they would be in a lot of games where the other team pulls the goalie. Toews would be on the ice in these shutdown situations, and any EN goals the team scores would be an additional plus for him. Again, over an 800 game career that is a whole lot of pluses for Toews simply for empty netters, and Kane would never get any of these because he wouldn't be used in these situations. In contrast, Kane would only be on the ice in EN situations if the team was down a goal, and he'd get a lot of minuses for being on the ice for an EN goal against. You can see the effect this year, Kane and Keith were consistently plus players their whole career, but now that the Blackhawks are on the downswing they're getting tons of minuses because they're on the ice for EN goals against all the time because they're out trying to tie the game with a minute left.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

So we've moved on from intangibles to career +/-?

 

[JaegerDice]

+/- contains a lot of garbage like SHG and EN goals, and those things over a large sample can skew +/- largely due to deployment and team quality. This is why the worst +/- defenseman is usually a top pair offensive guy on a bad team, because these players are always out with the goalie pulled and get tons of minuses from EN against, and they're always on the PP which gives bonus SHG minuses. These are a ton of minuses and they aren't what people are thinking of when they dump on a player like Leddy for being bad defensively because he's -42. If you took the worst 6 defensemen in the league by +/- this year I think you'd be pretty happy with your top 6 (Leddy, Goligoski, Petry, Keith, Ekman-Larsson, Skjei).

The same applies in this case and an 800 game career gives a lot of time for the +/- garbage to pile up. Kane doesn't kill penalties and Toews does, so Toews being on the ice for ~5 SHG a year over 10 years is an additional +30-40 that Kane will never get because he'd never kill penalties. Kane will always be on the powerplay, and that's probably conceding ~5 SHG a year for an aggregate -30 (granted Toews would be on the PP too and get some of these minuses too). The other thing is empty net goals which mostly comes in to play by reinforcing the plusses on a good team and doubling down the minuses on a bad team.

The Blackhawks had a 9 year stretch as one of the best teams in the league, which means they would be in a lot of games where the other team pulls the goalie. Toews would be on the ice in these shutdown situations, and any EN goals the team scores would be an additional plus for him. Again, over an 800 game career that is a whole lot of pluses for Toews simply for empty netters, and Kane would never get any of these because he wouldn't be used in these situations. In contrast, Kane would only be on the ice in EN situations if the team was down a goal, and he'd get a lot of minuses for being on the ice for an EN goal against. You can see the effect this year, Kane and Keith were consistently plus players their whole career, but now that the Blackhawks are on the downswing they're getting tons of minuses because they're on the ice for EN goals against all the time because they're out trying to tie the game with a minute left.

It's true that the gap closes when you cut the noise of special teams and empty net situations out of the equation, but even strictly at 5v5 and even strength there's a sizeable gap.

Toews has a 5v5 +/- of 156
Kane has a 5v5 +/- of 93

Toews has an ES +/- of 168
Kane has an ES +/- of 90


Props to you on your 30-40 estimate as far as the noise, that's almost exactly what Kane gained and Toews lost when you cut out the noise.


But seriously, there are much better stats you can use to show Toews superior impact on goal differential over the bulk of their careers than plus-minus. It's just an outdated stat.

 

[Thenameless]

I don't see how you could make the argument for Toews over Kane career wise.

But I would be down to listen

Better junior player - WJC hero both in regular play and in the shootout where he scored multiple clutch goals.
Plays most important position (number one center) for a quasi-dynasty that wins three Stanley Cups - very hard to do in today's salary cap and free agent era.
Heart and soul of the team.
Face of the franchise - say all you will about how Keith and Kane might have been more important, but it's always been Toews' team.
Captain of the team. He lifts the Stanley Cup first.
You can apply almost everything said above to an even higher standard than an NHL team - Team Canada. Both he and Crosby were the face of the team, but Toews was the heart and soul and true captain.
Clutch offensive player, fantastic two way player. He seems to score when the teams needs him to, and he's expected to shut down the opposition's best - that's quite a tall order.
If you told me that the Habs were gonna get a player this good...

He may still not win the argument once their careers are over, but he certainly makes a case. During the Cup run days, some people were arguing Toews over Crosby. It may sound ridiculous now, but there would never have been a Kane over Crosby argument unless it was just for pure scoring.

 

[Sky04]

Better junior player - WJC hero both in regular play and in the shootout where he scored multiple clutch goals.
Plays most important position (number one center) for a quasi-dynasty that wins three Stanley Cups - very hard to do in today's salary cap and free agent era.
Heart and soul of the team.
Face of the franchise - say all you will about how Keith and Kane might have been more important, but it's always been Toews' team.
Captain of the team. He lifts the Stanley Cup first.
You can apply almost everything said above to an even higher standard than an NHL team - Team Canada. Both he and Crosby were the face of the team, but Toews was the heart and soul and true captain.
Clutch offensive player, fantastic two way player. He seems to score when the teams needs him to, and he's expected to shut down the opposition's best - that's quite a tall order.
If you told me that the Habs were gonna get a player this good...

He may still not win the argument once their careers are over, but he certainly makes a case. During the Cup run days, some people were arguing Toews over Crosby. It may sound ridiculous now, but there would never have been a Kane over Crosby argument unless it was just for pure scoring.

Only idiots thought Toews was on Crosby's level or even argued it, never once has Toews ever been in the conversation as Crosby. Kane on the otherhand had a 3 year offensive year that put him as a top-2 offensive player in the league.

 

[CokenoPepsi]

Better junior player - WJC hero both in regular play and in the shootout where he scored multiple clutch goals.
Plays most important position (number one center) for a quasi-dynasty that wins three Stanley Cups - very hard to do in today's salary cap and free agent era.
Heart and soul of the team.
Face of the franchise - say all you will about how Keith and Kane might have been more important, but it's always been Toews' team.
Captain of the team. He lifts the Stanley Cup first.
You can apply almost everything said above to an even higher standard than an NHL team - Team Canada. Both he and Crosby were the face of the team, but Toews was the heart and soul and true captain.
Clutch offensive player, fantastic two way player. He seems to score when the teams needs him to, and he's expected to shut down the opposition's best - that's quite a tall order.
If you told me that the Habs were gonna get a player this good...

He may still not win the argument once their careers are over, but he certainly makes a case. During the Cup run days, some people were arguing Toews over Crosby. It may sound ridiculous now, but there would never have been a Kane over Crosby argument unless it was just for pure scoring.

So, he doesn't really have an argument then.. I mean it is great you can throw out buzzwords like "great leader" and "heart and soul" but they carry zero weight in regards to being a hockey player.

Toews is clutch? Eh not really...maybe a moment here and there but it is nothing compared to Kane who you could make the argument he is the most clutch player of his generation. Toews has been good in the playoffs but Kane has likely been the Hawks best forward for all three cups.

I like Toews and at the very start of his career he may have even been better than Kane...but since the end of the lockout Kane has been head and shoulders above him and it looks like the gap will just continue to widen.

 

[Filthy Dangles]

It's true that the gap closes when you cut the noise of special teams and empty net situations out of the equation, but even strictly at 5v5 and even strength there's a sizeable gap.

Toews has a 5v5 +/- of 156
Kane has a 5v5 +/- of 93

Toews has an ES +/- of 168
Kane has an ES +/- of 90

Props to you on your 30-40 estimate as far as the noise, that's almost exactly what Kane gained and Toews lost when you cut out the noise.But seriously, there are much better stats you can use to show Toews superior impact on goal differential over the bulk of their careers than plus-minus. It's just an outdated stat.

Is it possible to see Toews' Plus Minus with and without Duncan Keith and vice versa?

Kane is, quite obviously, the better player.

Right now? Sure. But I'd say there's a 5-6 stretch where Toews was more valuble than both Kane and Keith.

 

[CokenoPepsi]

Is it possible to see Toews' Plus Minus with and without Duncan Keith and vice versa?



Right now? Sure. But I'd say there's a 5-6 stretch where Toews was more valuble than both Kane and Keith.

Eh, what years? Kane has clearly been better from 2013 on.

Toews was probably better their first two years though he didn't play much D.

Kane was easily better in 2009-2010

 

[JaegerDice]

Is it possible to see Toews' Plus Minus with and without Duncan Keith and vice versa?



Right now? Sure. But I'd say there's a 5-6 stretch where Toews was more valuble than both Kane and Keith.

Yeah, could take a bit though cause Corsica's wowy tool isn't live and NST's tool doesn't aggregate over years, have to do season by season and add them up.

And yeah, Toews was definitely the more important, impactful player from 2008-2015. He and Keith were the twin engines that powered the Blackhawks. Around 2015 was when Kane started to draw even and maybe he would have been had he not gotten injured. Since 2016 he's been the more impactful player.

 

[Thenameless]

So, he doesn't really have an argument then.. I mean it is great you can throw out buzzwords like "great leader" and "heart and soul" but they carry zero weight in regards to being a hockey player.

Toews is clutch? Eh not really...maybe a moment here and there but it is nothing compared to Kane who you could make the argument he is the most clutch player of his generation. Toews has been good in the playoffs but Kane has likely been the Hawks best forward for all three cups.

I like Toews and at the very start of his career he may have even been better than Kane...but since the end of the lockout Kane has been head and shoulders above him and it looks like the gap will just continue to widen.

Well, the crux of the argument is that at the height of his powers, Toews was considered the better and more important player in Chicago. I agree that Kane has more value now, and that the gap will likely widen in the future. But it's still more important to have the better peak/prime, than to be more productive for longer if you're not winning Cups anyways. The big stories are usually written in the big games like the WJC Finals, the Stanley Cup Playoffs, and the Olympics.

 

[RandV]

I think you have to step back and look at the big picture. Both players have been in the league for 11 seasons now, and signed equal 8 years $84M contracts 3 years ago. In those 3 years Toews dropped from a 70 point center to a < 60 point center. Kane on the other hand has two of his best years, 106 and 89 point seasons.

The discrepancy in views between the players is very much a 'what have you done for me lately' thing. Toew's play has dropped off to be worth well below his contract value, which still has 5 years on it, while Kane has just remained on par with it for 2/3 seasons. If you look at their entire careers though which includes another 8 seasons that's where things like goal differential will stack up, which is why Toews got the same contract as Kane in the first place.

 

[JaegerDice]

Is it possible to see Toews' Plus Minus with and without Duncan Keith and vice versa?

So since 2008 (Toews' first year):

Toews with Keith: 5v5 +/- of 79

Toews without Keith: 5v5 +/- of 75

Keith without Toews: 5v5 +/- of -9


EDIT: In an example of how +/- can be pretty stupid, if you remove last season from the equation, Keith without Toews rises to +17, while the other two catorgies each drop by -1, to 78 and 74.

He had a real bad time playing behind anybody other than Toews last season, which makes sense, because Toews and Saad are the only two forwards on the Blackhawks atm that can get back to their own end without a map... and they play on the same line.


Anyway, again, there are better stats than +/- to measure performance and impact on goal differential. Not to mention contextual stats to parse them by.

 

[Filthy Dangles]

So since 2008 (Toews' first year):

Toews with Keith: 5v5 +/- of 79

Toews without Keith: 5v5 +/- of 75

Keith without Toews: 5v5 +/- of -9


EDIT: In an example of how +/- can be pretty stupid, if you remove last season from the equation, Keith without Toews rises to +17, while the other two catorgies each drop by -1, to 78 and 74.

He had a real bad time playing behind anybody other than Toews last season, which makes sense, because Toews and Saad are the only two forwards on the Blackhawks atm that can get back to their own end without a map... and they play on the same line.


Anyway, again, there are better stats than +/- to measure performance and impact on goal differential. Not to mention contextual stats to parse them by.

Thanks for this. Still a big discrepancy and reaffirms Toews' value to the club

 

[CokenoPepsi]

Well, the crux of the argument is that at the height of his powers, Toews was considered the better and more important player in Chicago. I agree that Kane has more value now, and that the gap will likely widen in the future. But it's still more important to have the better peak/prime, than to be more productive for longer if you're not winning Cups anyways. The big stories are usually written in the big games like the WJC Finals, the Stanley Cup Playoffs, and the Olympics.

But at the height of their "powers" Kane was unquestioned the better player... He won the Hart and Art Ross trophies.

Not to mention being the Hawks leader in their 3 cup wins while Toews is well known to have gone through some big slumps during them.

Kane has shown throughout the majority of their careers to be the superior player in convincing fashion...there has been maybe one season out of 11 now where you could say Toews was clearly better than Kane...but then Toews got hurt.

 

[ClydeLee]

But at the height of their "powers" Kane was unquestioned the better player... He won the Hart and Art Ross trophies.

Not to mention being the Hawks leader in their 3 cup wins while Toews is well known to have gone through some big slumps during them.

Kane has shown throughout the majority of their careers to be the superior player in convincing fashion...there has been maybe one season out of 11 now where you could say Toews was clearly better than Kane...but then Toews got hurt.

I'm not sure what limits you place upon the game because it only seems you care about point production.

I'm wondering if you likely think Bergeron & Kopitar were overpraised for years and thought.. idk, Carter or Krejci mattered clearly more.

Because you equate any praise of twoway Toews play to somehow just intangibles or leadership talk. However, it's the factual results that prevent goals against and simply taking the puck away better, preventing shots, keeping the puck in the ozone, etc.

Because until 2014 Toews had that major impact with the same 2way excellence and only in 15 on has Kane greatly separated himself point wise

 

[Thenameless]

But at the height of their "powers" Kane was unquestioned the better player... He won the Hart and Art Ross trophies.

Not to mention being the Hawks leader in their 3 cup wins while Toews is well known to have gone through some big slumps during them.

Kane has shown throughout the majority of their careers to be the superior player in convincing fashion...there has been maybe one season out of 11 now where you could say Toews was clearly better than Kane...but then Toews got hurt.

Kane was only better at scoring. Toews was still the better all-around player. If you need a concrete number in order to get rid of the vague "intangibles" argument, then the original poster already gave it to us. With his superior overall two-way game, Toews has produced a far superior plus/minus rating over his career with the Blackhawks than has Kane. End of story.

 

[JaegerDice]

I'm not sure what limits you place upon the game because it only seems you care about point production.

I'm wondering if you likely think Bergeron & Kopitar were overpriced for years and thought.. idk, Carter or Krejci mattered clearly more.

Because you equate any praise of twoway Toews play to somehow just intangibles or leadership talk. However, it's the factual results that prevent goals against and simply taking the puck away better, preventing shots, keeping the puck in the ozone, etc.

Because until 2014 Toews had that major impact with the same 2way excellence and only in 15 on has Kane greatly separated himself point wise

This is particularly true 5v5, where Toews was essentially equal to Kane and at times better in point production for a long stretch, but Kane out-produced him on the PP.

 

[Sky04]

If only Kane could score a big goal or so instead of being as clutch as the almighty 1 point in the SCF Toews.

Oh wait who scored that Cup winning goal in 2010 again? Who had 1goal and 1 assist in a 2-0 cup winning game in 2015 again? Hint: it wasn't toews.

 

[JaegerDice]

If only Kane could score a big goal or so instead of being as clutch as the almighty 1 point in the SCF Toews.

Oh wait who scored that Cup winning goal in 2010 again? Who had 1goal and 1 assist in a 2-0 cup winning game in 2015 again? Hint: it wasn't toews.

There isn't a single SCF that Toews has had a single point in. He's actually had the same number of points as Kane in 2 of his 3, and he won the Conn Smythe the one year he had fewer just by being far and away the best forward on the team through 3 of the 4 rounds.

Its also funny that you left out HIS one goal one assist performance in the clinching game in 2013.

I think you might be confusing him with Stamkos.

 

[GreatGonzo]

There isn't a single SCF that Toews has had a single point in. He's actually had the same number of points as Kane in 2 of his 3, and he won the Conn Smythe the one year he had fewer just by being far and away the best forward on the team through 3 of the 4 rounds.

Its also funny that you left out HIS one goal one assist performance in the clinching game in 2013.

I think you might be confusing him with Stamkos.

Toews piled on the points against Vancouver in the second round while taking full advantage of the PP, and was a ghost in the finals that year. Kane was the reason that walked away with a cup in 2010, Toews got MVP simply because he did enough to earn it having a whole 1 whole point ahead of Kane(29 vs 28). Toews should be thanking Kane for his Smythe.

2013? You mean the post season where he only scored 1 goal through 20 games and didn’t even have 10 points? Sure he showed his heroics in the finals, which again is funny because suddenly all was forgiven. He was a no show the first 3 game of the finals, but did you forget that Kane had 3 goals and 1 assists the last 3 games of the series, while Bolland had 2 goals and an assists, including the cup clinching goal? Oh ya but let’s give Toews more credit...

Toews is obviously a huge contributor and one of their key pieces to their cups, but let’s not forget that Kane’s offense was the difference maker a lot of the time as well. I mean you don’t lead your team in production for 2(nearly 3) cup wins with 100 points in 100 games, 10 GWG with 4 OTG(1st among team all 3) from 2010-15, and not be one of the most valuable members. Wherever you want to put him is debatable, but he still does have a Smythe, a cup winning goal in 2010, and had a goal and assists in the cup clinching game 6 in 2015.

 

[ClydeLee]

Toews piled on the points against Vancouver in the second round while taking full advantage of the PP, and was a ghost in the finals that year. Kane was the reason that walked away with a cup in 2010, Toews got MVP simply because he did enough to earn it having a whole 1 whole point ahead of Kane(29 vs 28). Toews should be thanking Kane for his Smythe.

2013? You mean the post season where he only scored 1 goal through 20 games and didn’t even have 10 points? Sure he showed his heroics in the finals, which again is funny because suddenly all was forgiven. He was a no show the first 3 game of the finals, but did you forget that Kane had 3 goals and 1 assists the last 3 games of the series, while Bolland had 2 goals and an assists, including the cup clinching goal? Oh ya but let’s give Toews more credit...

Toews is obviously a huge contributor and one of their key pieces to their cups, but let’s not forget that Kane’s offense was the difference maker a lot of the time as well. I mean you don’t lead your team in production for 2(nearly 3) cup wins with 100 points in 100 games, 10 GWG with 4 OTG(1st among team all 3) from 2010-15, and not be one of the most valuable members. Wherever you want to put him is debatable, but he still does have a Smythe, a cup winning goal in 2010, and had a goal and assists in the cup clinching game 6 in 2015.

Funny how narratives exist at the time but are limited, and people create new ones years later. And not having 10 pts? Not quite though 13 was a low scoring total playoffs. But also the story from those following the hawks market was pushing how Kane was nowhere and irrelevant until late in the Kings series. Though I found it harsh that ignored his production in losses to Detroit. But many hawks beat writers were pushing Crawford and Sharp for the Smythe because all postseason they were consistent which was my true of Kane or Toews. But that's a year the recent element won out.

But this is another post just talking about points. And again, why?

Its a matter of topic about what comes down to preventing goals against more than not. Theres no metric, stat, or reasonable persons eye test that can deny Toews did that more than Kane while in those seasons not scoring so far below his own.

 

[CokenoPepsi]

I'm not sure what limits you place upon the game because it only seems you care about point production.

I'm wondering if you likely think Bergeron & Kopitar were overpraised for years and thought.. idk, Carter or Krejci mattered clearly more.

Because you equate any praise of twoway Toews play to somehow just intangibles or leadership talk. However, it's the factual results that prevent goals against and simply taking the puck away better, preventing shots, keeping the puck in the ozone, etc.

Because until 2014 Toews had that major impact with the same 2way excellence and only in 15 on has Kane greatly separated himself point wise

Of course there is more to the game than simple point production however there comes a point that the gap becomes too large for it to ignore and Kane has that advantage despite Toews being sheltered in later years playing with hall of famers like Hossa and Keith everytime he is on the ice.

Meanwhile Kane always gets the short end of the stick playing whose centers recently have been Dave Bolland (out of the league) Michael Handzus (out of the league) washed up Brad Richards (out of the league) in fact when he finally got a linemate to play with he was very quickly traded to try and save Toews.

It is pretty clear to me they were fairly even pre lockout both having better years than the other at times but Kane has clearly stood out since 2013 on as the superior player