Comparing Top 3, 5 or 10 scoring and Hart finishes from different eras

[daver]

It's typically the #2 scorer in order to elminate the effect of an extreme outlier.

I understand that a 10% gap of #1 over #2 is considered an extreme outlier, in the two periods I looked at (1947 to 1967 and 1997 to 2019) I only treated Howe's 1952/53 as an outlier.

What are your thought on using using the average of the Top 3 point totals as a base? For the Hull, Beliveau, Crosby trio this may be very apropos given they all have a substantial amount finishes in the Top 3.

 

[daver]

So I averaged out the #1 and #2 scorers (from 1947 to 1967 and from 1997 to 2019) then divided the #3, #5, #7 and #10 scorers into that average. Here are the numbers:

O6

#3 - on average had 86% of the #1 and #2 (i.e. if #1 had 105 points, #2 had 95 points, the #3 scorer had 86 points)

#5 - on average had 78% of the #1 and #2

#7 - on average had 72% of the #1 and #2

#10 - on average had 68% of the #1 and #2


Current era

#3 - on average had 92% of the #1 and #2

#5 - on average had 87% of the #1 and #2

#7 - on average had 81% of the #1 and #2

#10 - on average had 79% of the #1 and #2


Assuming that the # of players in both eras that could reasonably be expected to finish in the Top Ten is well above ten, there is a clear indication that it is more difficult to finish in the Top Ten or Top 7 in the current era vs. the O6.

It is very arguable to claim that, in general, a Top 3 or 5 in the current era is a bigger accomplishment. Looking at the #'s for Hull, Belliveau and Crosby seems to be in line with this claim.

I think it is not unreasonable to say, in general, a Top 5 from the current era is the same as a Top 3 from the O6 and a Top 10 from the current era is the same as a Top 5 in the O6.

 

[seventieslord]

I understand that a 10% gap of #1 over #2 is considered an extreme outlier, in the two periods I looked at (1947 to 1967 and 1997 to 2019) I only treated Howe's 1952/53 as an outlier.

What are your thought on using using the average of the Top 3 point totals as a base? For the Hull, Beliveau, Crosby trio this may be very apropos given they all have a substantial amount finishes in the Top 3.

I don't think it's better than what exists now.

There are definitely some seasons I can think of where the top-3 don't represent a fair standard (1989, 1993, 1996, most of the early 70s...)

 

[wetcoast]

I don't think it's better than what exists now.

There are definitely some seasons I can think of where the top-3 don't represent a fair standard (1989, 1993, 1996, most of the early 70s...)

89 was a really weird year when both Yzerman and Mario have extreme outlier years even for them and Wayne fell to earth (for him at least) in LA.

Bernie Nichols was a very good offensive player but has a larger outlier year than even Steve (18) and Mario (31) with 38 points above his next best season.

Both in the preceding and following season there were a larger amount of teams represented in the top 10 as well.

88-7 teams
89-4 teams
90-8 teams

 

[daver]

I don't think it's better than what exists now.

There are definitely some seasons I can think of where the top-3 don't represent a fair standard (1989, 1993, 1996, most of the early 70s...)

I am all for establishing a "pack" average for any given year as the divisor. The issue is that the size of pack would be different for different sized leagues. You could establish the average point total of the Top Ten as the divisor but then it seems to be clear that there is a significant difference in the scoring levels of the respective scorers from different eras as shown in Post #77.

Here is my main contention:

Crosby's PPG dominance over his peers in his 14 seasons is closer to Howe's PPG dominance over his peers in his best 14 season stretch than it is to Hull's and Beliveau's over their best 14 season stretches. PPG dominance is established by comparing the PPGs of the Top Five to Ten scorers in their respective best 14 year stretch of seasons

Looking at raw Art Ross and PPG finishes, which are very close between the three, doesn't seem to quite reflect this. When each of their points and PPG finishes are broken down in terms of how close each one was to the leader (s), it becomes clear that Crosby's best scoring and PPG finishes are distinctively better than Hull's and Beliveau's and his PPG finishes are a lot closer to Howe's.

As mentioned in Post #55, over Crosby's career, his average PPG finish, on average was within 2% of the leader (excludes 11/12).



Here is how the other three did:

Howe - (49/50 - 62/63) - 2%
Hull (59/60 to 71/71) - 9%
Beliveau - (54/55 - 67/68) - 10%


So we have numerous metrics that establish that comparing Top X scoring finishes, each Top 3 to Top 5 finishes without context from the O6 to the current era needs context.

We can then establish that context may be needed when comparing their respective best Hart finishes.

 

[BehindTheTimes]

I feel like Jagr belongs in this conversation tbh.

 

[daver]

I feel like Jagr belongs in this conversation tbh.

Jagr was somewhat comfortably rated behind Crosby in the HOH Top 100 before he added a Top 5 scoring finish and another Hart nod but I have added Jagr anyways. You can argue his Hart record is perhaps under representative (the Hasek affect) while his scoring finishes may be perhaps over representative (the Mario affect).

Here are their best Hart finishes:

Crosby - 1, 1, 2 ,2, 2, 2 or 3*, 3, 5, 6 (total of 9) *2018/19

Hull - 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3 (total of 8)

Beliveau - 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 4, 4 (total of 9)

Jagr - 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 4 (total of 7)


Take away the duplicates among the four players:

Crosby - 2, 2 or 3*, 5, 6

Hull - 3, 3, 3

Beliveau - 2, 2, 4, 4

Jagr - 2, 4


Here are their best Art Ross finishes:

Crosby - 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 5, 6, 10 (total of 11)

Hull - 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 (total of 12)

Beliveau - 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10 (total of 12)

Jagr - 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 6, 8, 10 (total of 10)


Take away the duplicates among the four players:

Crosby - 3, 3, 3, 5, 10

Hull - 2, 4, 5, 7, 9

Beliveau - 3, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10

Jagr - 1, 1, 8, 10


Not too much of a surprise. Jagr wins the Art Ross title competition but is lacking the length of prime of the other three.

He certainly has a case to be right there, or ahead, strictly on his scoring resume but is reasonably placed behind those three when other elements are introduced. His PPG dominance vs. his peers over his best 14 season stretch is closer Hull' s and Beliveau's than it is to Crosby's.

 

[daver]

A player's status in history is measured by his performance against other elite players. Are there more "elite" players today? There's literally no way of knowing that. That's why we rely on placings. The only argument that could be made is if one player was consistently placing high in an era where all of the other top scorers were all over the map in terms of scoring placings. As far as I know, that's never really been a thing.

Along this line of thinking, I counted the # of players who had Top 10 and Top 3 finishes from 1995 to 2019 and from 1948 to 1972 (Hull's last year). I included players who had significant Art Ross finishes in those timeframes but whose career extended beyond (e.g. Sakic, Kennedy). I also gave Top Tens for a few partial seasons.

From 1948 to 1972 there were sixteen players with five or more Top 10 Art Ross placings.

From 1995 to 2019 there were eleven players with five or more Top 10 Art Ross placings.

Howe - 20

Hull - 12
Beliveau - 12
Crosby - 12

M. Richard - 11

Sakic - 10
Jagr - 10

Mikita - 9
Lindsay – 9
Geoffrion – 9
Bathgate – 9
Delvecchio – 9

Ovechkin - 8

H. Richard - 7
Thornton - 7

Esposito - 6
Mahovlich – 6
Lauch - 6
Ullman - 6
Malkin - 6
Forsberg - 6
Selanne -6
Kariya - 6

St. Louis – 5
Lindros - 5
Moore – 5
Kennedy – 5


From 1948 to 1972 there were six players with five or more Top 3 Art Ross placings.

From 1995 to 2019 there were three players with five or more Top 3 Art Ross placings.

Howe - 12
Beliveau - 7
Mikita - 7
Hull - 6
M. Richard - 6
Esposito - 5

Crosby - 9
Jagr - 7
Ovechkin - 5


Not surprisingly, there are more Top 10 and Top 3 quality players from the league when it was five times smaller. This backs up the premise that Crosby was more dominant than Hull and Beliveau once context is added to their best scoring finishes. Crosby is farther ahead of his peers from his era than Hull and Beliveau were.

 

[Cursed Lemon]

...You got the argument literally backwards. Less elite players means less competition at the top.

 

[VanIslander]

Martin St. Louis won in 2004.
Al Rollins won in 1954.
Chuck Rayner won in 1954.
Buddy O'Connor in 1948.

 

[daver]

...You got the argument literally backwards. Less elite players means less competition at the top.

Nope, when you are up against a larger pool of similar talent, that means it is harder to separate yourself from the pack. This really shouldn't be too hard of a mathematical concept to understand.

Let me ask you a question, what is more of an accomplishment? Finishing in the Top Ten in a group of 30 or 150, assuming the opportunity of each player to finish in the Top Ten is the same ( Top 6 minutes plus PP time) and that the talent level is relatively the same.

 

[bobholly39]

Jagr was somewhat comfortably rated behind Crosby in the HOH Top 100 before he added a Top 5 scoring finish and another Hart nod but I have added Jagr anyways. You can argue his Hart record is perhaps under representative (the Hasek affect) while his scoring finishes may be perhaps over representative (the Mario affect).

Don't think that's the case at all tbh, to the bolded.

Jagr loses out the 2001 Ross without Lemieux - but he wins the 1996 one without him, so it cancels each other out.

Obviously growing up playing with Mario had a tremendous effect on Jagr's career (a bit akin to Messier with Gretzky) - but strictly in terms of scoring finishes, i don't think there's any impact. Now if you were to consider by how much he outscored others in years he played with Lemieux - sure, there's an effect there.

 

[daver]

Don't think that's the case at all tbh, to the bolded.

Jagr loses out the 2001 Ross without Lemieux - but he wins the 1996 one without him, so it cancels each other out.

Obviously growing up playing with Mario had a tremendous effect on Jagr's career (a bit akin to Messier with Gretzky) - but strictly in terms of scoring finishes, i don't think there's any impact. Now if you were to consider by how much he outscored others in years he played with Lemieux - sure, there's an effect there.

This is more of what I meant. This needs some context, as does his Hart record. He likely wins at least one more Hart if Hasek isn't around.

 

[bobholly39]

This is more of what I meant. This needs some context, as does his Hart record. He likely wins at least one more Hart if Hasek isn't around.

I think Hasek/Jagr is a question of timing too. If you insert both of them and their respective domination in a different era - not sure the hart voting ends up as lopsided as it did for Hasek.

But Jagr was winning Art Rosses after Gretzky and Lemieux had just come in and broken every record imaginable - in contrast Jagr didn't seem that special. And Hasek - a goalie legitimately winning the hart and being in contention for best player hadn't happened in a long time (ever?).

I think if Hasek/Jagr had had their successes in the late 2000s instead for example - hart voters may have given the offensive winger a bit more love vs the goalie.

 

[daver]

I think Hasek/Jagr is a question of timing too. If you insert both of them and their respective domination in a different era - not sure the hart voting ends up as lopsided as it did for Hasek.

But Jagr was winning Art Rosses after Gretzky and Lemieux had just come in and broken every record imaginable - in contrast Jagr didn't seem that special. And Hasek - a goalie legitimately winning the hart and being in contention for best player hadn't happened in a long time (ever?).

I think if Hasek/Jagr had had their successes in the late 2000s instead for example - hart voters may have given the offensive winger a bit more love vs the goalie.

In any event, it should not affect how each player is rated.

 

[Cursed Lemon]

Nope, when you are up against a larger pool of similar talent, that means it is harder to separate yourself from the pack. This really shouldn't be too hard of a mathematical concept to understand.

Oh, so you personally settled the debate about larger talent pool vs. more concentrated talent pool yourself, huh?

 

[daver]

Oh, so you personally settled the debate about larger talent pool vs. more concentrated talent pool yourself, huh?

I am simply showing that it is statistically disingenuous to compare Top 5, Top 10 scoring finishes from significantly different league sizes.

The numbers clearly show that the #10 scorer in the O6 was closer to the average than they were to the top scorer despite having the same opportunity to win the Art Ross.

I noticed you didn't answer this question:

Let me ask you a question, what is more of an accomplishment? Finishing in the Top Ten in a group of 30 or 150, assuming the opportunity of each player to finish in the Top Ten is the same ( Top 6 minutes plus PP time) and that the talent level is relatively the same.

 

[daver]

Here is how each of these players was rated in the HOH Top 100 (* still active) :

(1) Howe - 20

(5) Hull - 12
(6) Beliveau - 12
(9) M. Richard - 11
(12) Crosby - 12*

(16) Jagr - 10
(22) Ovechkin - 8*
(24) Mikita - 9
(27) Esposito - 6 (9 total)
(32) Sakic - 10
(38) Lindsay – 9
(49) H. Richard - 7
(51) Malkin - 6*
(52) Forsberg - 6
(58) Kennedy – 5
(60) Geoffrion – 9
(62) Bathgate – 9
(68) Moore – 5
(69) Selanne -7
(71) Mahovlich – 6
(81)Lach - 6
(91) Thornton - 7*
(97) St. Louis – 5
(96) Lindros - 5


(NR) Delvecchio – 9
(NR) Ullman - 6
(NR) Kariya - 6

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Crosby has added another top 10 finish thus year so 12 overall tied for third most all time with beliveau

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Nope, when you are up against a larger pool of similar talent, that means it is harder to separate yourself from the pack. This really shouldn't be too hard of a mathematical concept to understand.

Let me ask you a question, what is more of an accomplishment? Finishing in the Top Ten in a group of 30 or 150, assuming the opportunity of each player to finish in the Top Ten is the same ( Top 6 minutes plus PP time) and that the talent level is relatively the same.

Lets say its a race (marathon maybe).

First race is the top 150 in the world.

Next one is just the top 30 from the first race.

What's more of an accomplishment: Top 10 in the first race or top ten in the second race?

 

[daver]

Lets say its a race (marathon maybe).

First race is the top 150 in the world.

Next one is just the top 30 from the first race.

What's more of an accomplishment: Top 10 in the first race or top ten in the second race?

The Top Ten from the 2nd race.

Pardon my presumptuousness but all this shows is that if you made six teams out of the current league, the level of play would be considerably higher. No argument there.

We have absolutely no way of knowing how the Top Ten players from 1960 would do in the current league, other than looking at the statistical evidence that shows the average #3 scorer in the O6 is closer to the average #5 scorer in today's league, the average #5 scorer in the O6 is closer to the average #10 scorer in today's league. Not surprisingly, Crosby's Top 10 Art Rosses finishes are more impressive than Hull and Beliveau's when % behind the #1 or #2 scorer is factored in.

Other than subjective opinion that the level of talent in the O6 is superior to the talent level in today's league, this should be viewed as an advantage to Crosby.

It appears he is adding another Top Ten placement to his resume and possibly another Hart nomination, both of which, IMO, are creating a gap in longevity of prime. I.e. Crosby has been closer to the elite, if not at the very top, of the league for a longer period of time. I think he reached a higher offensive ceiling than those two when reasonable consideration is given to partial seasons. If he played literally 40 - 50 more games at certain times of his career , he has multiple more Art Rosses, and two more Hart trophies at least; a resume that would clearly place him above Hull and Beliveau.

I cannot see a reason that he is not right there with those two all-time. Arguments for Hull or Beliveau over Crosby such as Art Rosses, goalscoring or Cups, can also be used to place Crosby ahead of Hull or Beliveau.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

The Top Ten from the 2nd race.
We have absolutely no way of knowing how the Top Ten players from 1960 would do in the current league, other than looking at the statistical evidence that shows the average #3 scorer in the O6 is closer to the average #5 scorer in today's league, the average #5 scorer in the O6 is closer to the average #10 scorer in today's league. Not surprisingly, Crosby's Top 10 Art Rosses finishes are more impressive than Hull and Beliveau's when % behind the #1 or #2 scorer is factored in.
It appears he is adding another Top Ten placement to his resume and possibly another Hart nomination, both of which, IMO, are creating a gap in longevity of prime. I.e. Crosby has been closer to the elite, if not at the very top, of the league for a longer period of time. I think he reached a higher offensive ceiling than those two when reasonable consideration is given to partial seasons. If he played literally 40 - 50 more games at certain times of his career , he has multiple more Art Rosses, and two more Hart trophies at least; a resume that would clearly place him above Hull and Beliveau.

I cannot see a reason that he is not right there with those two all-time. Arguments for Hull or Beliveau over Crosby such as Art Rosses, goalscoring or Cups, can also be used to place Crosby ahead of Hull or Beliveau.

You don't seriously think Crosby will get a Hart nomination this year, do you?

 

[The Macho King]

Statistical realities are not subject to subjectivity. Finishing in the 99th percentile (Top 5 in today's league) > finishing in the 96th percentile (Top 5 in the O6).

That is the statistical reality and the numbers back it up. 5th place in today's league will usually be statistically superior to 5th place in the O6.

IMO, this argument should hold a lot more value than debating which eras were more competitive as that can never come close to being proven one way or the other.

I am not sure why this concept would not be common sense frankly.

Not really? If the top 120 players are in the NHL right now (which is almost assuredly the case), and the top 120 players were in the NHL in the O6 era (which aside from maybe one or two players from CSSR/USSR was the case), finishing top 5 among them is the same thing. Adding players 121-600 to the NHL of the O6 doesn't change who the best players were.

 

[daver]

Not really? If the top 120 players are in the NHL right now (which is almost assuredly the case), and the top 120 players were in the NHL in the O6 era (which aside from maybe one or two players from CSSR/USSR was the case), finishing top 5 among them is the same thing. Adding players 121-600 to the NHL of the O6 doesn't change who the best players were.

This presumes that the pool of potential talent has not changed in the last 60 to 70 years. It is a larger pool of talent leading to more potential Top Ten level players in the league. This isn't rocket science. The numbers clearly show it was easier to finish Top 3, 5, 10 in the O6 era, and to accumulate multiple Art Ross finishes.

The best measure of a player is how they performed vs. their direct peers. Based on % behind 1st or 2nd place, Crosby has a superior Art finish resume than Hull and Beliveau once you get past their top 8 placings or so, and is adding more. His PPG finishes are closer to Howe than they are to Hull and Beliveau, which obviously needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

From 1949/50 to 1969/70 there were:

68 different players who had a Top Ten finish in scoring

38 (56%) of those players had multiple Top Ten finishes

28 (41%) of those players had three or more Top Ten finishes

11 (16%) of those players had five or more Top Ten finishes

2 (3%) of those players had ten or more Top Ten finishes

From 1998/99 to 2019/20 there were

85 different players who had a Top Ten finish in scoring

49 (58%) of those players had multiple Top Ten finishes

30 (35%) of those players had three or more Top Ten finishes

9 (11%) of those players had five or more Top Ten finishes

1 (1%) of those players had ten or more Top Ten finishes

In the current era, it is more of an accomplishment to finish in the Top Ten and an even bigger relative accomplishment to have five or more Top 10 Art Ross finishes. Crosby's stands apart more from his direct peers with over ten Top Ten Art Ross finishes than Hull and Beliveau did.

 

[Johnny Engine]

Lets say its a race (marathon maybe).

First race is the top 150 in the world.

Next one is just the top 30 from the first race.

What's more of an accomplishment: Top 10 in the first race or top ten in the second race?

You might have fewer opportunities to draft in the early stages of the second scenario.
I'll leave it open ended as to whether that has any bearing on your question, or whether there's an appropriate analogy in hockey.