Estimating the size of the NHL's talent pool (1950-2023)

[Midnight Judges]

That is not my assessment.

You support the idea that the 1950s put out 15 top 100 players while the Crosby/Ovechkin generation put out a paltry 6.

Have you changed your mind on that?

 

[WarriorofTime]

Ok, do you find this to be a new tactic relative to league(s) structures?

Not sure I understand the question.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Well that would be a silly thing to say about a player 65th all time in assists across a low scoring era. Slanted (even heavily) towards shooting is not the same as shoot “only”.

Right...of course...

Sometimes in conversation people say things to enhance a point, but they don't necessarily always, always, always mean everything 100% literally.

Like the time that you said this...

[QUOTE}The islanders always pass on the best player available who falls for no particular reason. Niederreiter over Fowler, Strome over Couturier. Passing on Grigs at 4 would be a similarly questionable move.[/QUOTE]

Do they always pass on this interpreted best player available? Do they really?

I told my wife last night that I was "over the moon" yesterday, so she doesn't expect me home in time for dinner...

 

[Michael Farkas]

You support the idea that the 1950s put out 15 top 100 players while the Crosby/Ovechkin generation put out a paltry 6.

Have you changed your mind on that?

The Crosby/Ovechkin generation isn't over, and was far less over at the time that your source material was composed. It will need to be re-evaluated on merit at the appropriate time. It's highly likely that I and many others will have fairly significant modifications to those numbers (if they're accurate) at that time...as is typically the case in these cases.

I'm sure someone in 1995 thought that the television was the best technological advance in their lifetime, and even though the internet existed, they probably couldn't fully grasp its power yet.

Regardless, you're barking up the wrong tree* on this one - I'm more on your side than you realize in this discussion.

Disclaimer: I don't believe that you are, in fact, barking like a dog. Nor do I identify as a tree. Ya know, for the record...wouldn't want anyone to get confused.

Not sure I understand the question.

Let's start simple. Is offering a higher end salary to retain NHL-adjacent talent within a farm system a new tactic in your estimation?

 

[WarriorofTime]

Right...of course...

Sometimes in conversation people say things to enhance a point, but they don't necessarily always, always, always mean everything 100% literally.

Like the time that you said this...

[QUOTE}The islanders always pass on the best player available who falls for no particular reason. Niederreiter over Fowler, Strome over Couturier. Passing on Grigs at 4 would be a similarly questionable move.

lol, did you go some 12 years deep into my post history to get my 2012 draft hot takes? I'm sure I had plenty of embarrassments in there. I'm wrong more than I'm right...

As it turns out, passing on Grigorenko was OK, the guy they did take though, big OOF. Would still say Fowler over Niederreiter and Couturier over Strome but I suppose not ultra egregious...

That's neither here nor there.

 

[Michael Farkas]

It's not a "hot take", all I did was look up "always" and posts by you...it came right up. It has nothing to do with the content. It has everything to do with...sometimes people are just regular...talkin'...humans. And that not every single word needs to be taken by its literal definition...unless you're trying to distract from the actual conversation.

"Well you said..."-isms to try to setup these "gotchas"...it's classic internet.

Ovechkin has at least once passed the puck. I've seen it.

Why didn't I say "shoot first" in that moment? Well, because shoot first doesn't do him justice and there wasn't an immediate way to go up the ladder with that expression. So I took it to the extreme and I said "shoot only". He has a very low assist output among the best players ever. He has poorer playmaking skills among the best players ever. But he has passed...

 

[Midnight Judges]

The Crosby/Ovechkin generation isn't over, and was far less over at the time that your source material was composed. It will need to be re-evaluated on merit at the appropriate time. It's highly likely that I and many others will have fairly significant modifications to those numbers (if they're accurate) at that time...as is typically the case in these cases.

That is fair and reasonable.

But I really don't know which players you think would potentially get in on this basis.

Patrice Bergeron is as good of a candidate as I can think of. He aged quite well and was a very effective player from 2018 to 2023 (after the most recent top 100 players list was created). There was a thread on Bergeron fairly recently and it was basically unanimous that he's still not a top 100 player.

Maybe that will evolve? I dunno.

 

[WarriorofTime]

It's not a "hot take", all I did was look up "always" and posts by you...it came right up. It has nothing to do with the content. It has everything to do with...sometimes people are just regular...talkin'...humans. And that not every single word needs to be taken by its literal definition...unless you're trying to distract from the actual conversation.

"Well you said..."-isms to try to setup these "gotchas"...it's classic internet.

Ovechkin has at least once passed the puck. I've seen it.

Why didn't I say "shoot first" in that moment? Well, because shoot first doesn't do him justice and there wasn't an immediate way to go up the ladder with that expression. So I took it to the extreme and I said "shoot only". He has a very low assist output among the best players ever. He has poorer playmaking skills among the best players ever. But he has passed...

Well I don't think anyone was claiming you meant Ovechkin is a shoot-only player in the most literal of senses in that he has never done a thing other than shoot, I think even in the sense of how you meant it that it's just not a very well thought out statement done in an attempt (bad faith or just ill-informed, idk) to downplay his overall offensive contributions. Now a more grounded statement like "on an all-time level, Ovechkin doesn't stand up as an all-time great passer or playmaker compared to his peers on all time lists", that is of course a reasonable statement. To say "shoot-only" is of course a heavily exaggerated statement to be as reductive as possible. More career assists in less games than Jarome Iginla for instance. Never heard him referred to as a "shoot-only" player.

 

[Michael Farkas]

That is fair and reasonable.

But I really don't know which players you think would potentially get in on this basis.

Patrice Bergeron is as good of a candidate as I can think of. He aged quite well and was a very effective player from 2018 to 2023 (after the most recent top 100 players list was created). There was a thread on Bergeron fairly recently and it was basically unanimous that he's still not a top 100 player.

Maybe that will evolve? I dunno.

I did go bat (to varying degrees) for, obviously, Crosby, Ovechkin, Malkin. (I don't think Jagr qualifies for your intention here as the Crosby/Ovechkin era).

Then you got/gonna have: McDavid, Thornton, Doughty, Karlsson, Datsyuk, Bergeron...if you have Bergeron, you have Kopitar fairly close by. You have Hedman in here. You're gonna have Vasilevskiy and Lundqvist (does Luongo qualify for this generation?) in the discussion. Duncan Keith is gonna be around it.

Those are all guys that either added to their resume since the last time or had enough dust settle around them to enhance their status. Like, Keith might not have added anything relevant, per se...but we can start looking at, "ok, look at who replaced him..." or "let's look at what happened when he left" kinds of helpful hints. And that could be impactful.

Also, I don't get the sense that we're losing film...I feel like there are more games available from back in the day. Which - if anyone wants to go down that road - can either benefit or hurt those players. For instance, I don't like Norm Ullman at all...he has 5.2 zillion points and I don't think he's anything special.

And the better this current game gets, the more favor it has because of recency bias. A lot of people think that the game after the lockout is like that moment on Norwegian television where they purportedly got color TV for the first time (it's not true, but who cares)...no one just made a bunch of new rules and suddenly we had the game we have now. It was pretty herky jerky for a number of reasons. But the further we get from that, the more it just kind of gets smushed into the post-lockout era. Which will also lift up some players on the outside of this discussion that don't really belong...like Steven Stamkos, to name a name.

I don't know, if my bias is anything, it's that I think this kind of thing deserves the runway to evolve. It's far from immune to criticism...not one person thinks that list is "right", even the people that worked on it. But I don't think it needs to be the lightning rod for derision based on the concept...the concept is largely good, the content is ripe for debate.

 

[Midnight Judges]

McDavid is 12 years younger than Ovechkin and 17 years younger than Thornton. That's not the same generation in hockey terms. Jagr is also 13 years older than Ovie and 15 years older than Crosby. Again, different generation IMO. Karlsson, Bergeron, Hedman, Kopitar, Keith, Stamkos, and Doughty can be fit into a window with Ovie, but some of them can't fit with Thornton (11 year stretch of calling people same generation - which admittedly a threshold that I just created, but you gotta draw the line somewhere).

And Thornton didn't add anything meaningful to his resume post 2018. So if he's in the mix of being added, it's not due to an update to his accomplishments so much as due to reflection or a lag in evaluations - which I agree is reasonable to allow for.

Maybe Karlsson is another good candidate although IMO his recent Norris was somewhat of a fraud. If he really was the most effective defenseman in the NHL, the Penguins are likely in a better position right now. Hedman has meaningfully added to his career big time. He's with or perhaps even above Bergeron in this respect. Doughty, not so much although IMO he's been underrated in some recent seasons due to having some crappy teams. Personally, I think you can win with a player like that. Duncan Keith hasn't added anything meaningful since 2018.

I am being consistent here - there are more than 6 top 100 players from every 11 year slice of history, except for the modern generation. This includes the 1884-1894 slice, 1892-1902, 1901-1911, etc. Every slice in history had more top 100 players than the modern international generation? Eh, I think that's unlikely.

 

[jigglysquishy]

Bergeron was 142nd in the last list. He might not be top 100 now, but he absolutely moved up.

Karlsson was 109 in the last list. Pretty easy inclusion in the top 100 now. Doughty was 110 and while he hasn't added a ton, 5 years of being a top 15 top 25 defenseman isn't worthless.

Ultimately, the 1975-1984 generation will likely end up behind the 1985-1994 generation. The former dealt with the fall of Soviet and Czechoslovakian hockey, a significant one year rule/style change that a third of players couldn't adapt to, and the loss of an entire season. Not to mention playing in the most injury afflicted era (97-04). The only real benefit they got was full access to international tournaments.

That the 1965-1975 generation still largely ruled the league from 2000-2004 hurts the 1975-1980 generation.

I suspect a list done in 2035 will have more 1990s births than 1980s births.

The 1980s produced 4 forwards in the top 100, but maybe only 1 defenseman. The 1990s will have 5 forwards (McDavid, Kucherov, Mackinnon, Matthews, Draisaitl), and at least 2 defensemen (Karlsson, Makar). Fox and Hughes could absolutely join that list too.

Doughty (80s) and Hedman (90s) could both end up top 100.

Hellebucyk is about to win his second Vezina in addition to two more top 3 finishes. Does he end up top 100?

 

[Midnight Judges]

The 1990s will have 5 forwards (McDavid, Kucherov, Mackinnon, Matthews, Draisaitl), and at least 2 defensemen (Karlsson, Makar). Fox and Hughes could absolutely join that list too.

At 7 players, that would still constitute the weakest generation in history, competing only with the Ovechkin/Crosby generation in terms of weakness. Hedman would make 8 for the 90s - tying them for the weakest aside from the 80s (unless one of the other weak generations was getting bumped more than once or twice).

So are we just in a weak era for the past 25 years?

 

[Michael Farkas]

I am being consistent here - there are more than 6 top 100 players from every 11 year slice of history, except for the modern generation. This includes the 1884-1894 slice, 1892-1902, 1901-1911, etc. Every slice in history had more top 100 players than the modern international generation? Eh, I think that's unlikely.

I don't think that's wrong. I don't think - as I've said here - that they've gotten the chance to get on that spreadsheet. And you admit to that too, to whatever degree.

I'm very suspicious of players that I didn't see or didn't see a lot of. I try to read between the lines of what's going on in newspaper articles and game reports. When I read stuff like, "he made a brilliant save and then goaler sprinted ahead, a leapt over five flaming school buses, to deposit his hat trick goal past a man wearing a Groucho Marx mask for facial protection..." it's like, maybe the WCHL wasn't that serious...

But you use the data points to make some inferences so that you don't just cut off a whole generation or two or ten of players that ought to be recognized in such a way. I think there's Olympic film going back to the 20's, there's NHL film going back to the 20's...it doesn't take a lot to figure what's going on in my opinion.

I've walked into a lot of rinks in my life as a player, official, coach, scout, and fan...within three shifts, I can more or less tell you the league quality. It's not some great mystery. But that doesn't mean that everyone in that league is bad because the quality is bad. Gretzky came into a bad league, but he's a great player. He has skill that transcended generations.

So you use these little data points and the film and whatever we have and you weave some reasonable webs. Maybe next time around Sprague Cleghorn doesn't make it. I mean, you're talking to the guy that attacked Eddie Shore and Maurice Richard - that's treasonous almost. I pride myself on wanting to get it right, I don't pride myself on how it was or how I did it yesterday as a matter of principle.

So, again, I don't think we're at some impasse in terms of not seeing this similarly...now, for the group at large, I don't know, maybe...I'm not their spokesperson. But it keeps coming back at me (seemingly) like I'm this Canadian Canadiens fan from 1940 that would let Howie Morenz kick my cat. I'm none of those things haha

I just think you're being a little impatient. And I think you're spending a lot of time on talent pool math which will never resolve. You simply cannot get there. You'd be better off putting video together that examines league quality, in my opinion. You'll never prove anything with some sort of correlation coefficient that makes sense beyond a reasonable doubt. Again, just my opinion...but the science just isn't there.

 

[WarriorofTime]

I did go bat (to varying degrees) for, obviously, Crosby, Ovechkin, Malkin. (I don't think Jagr qualifies for your intention here as the Crosby/Ovechkin era).

Then you got/gonna have: McDavid, Thornton, Doughty, Karlsson, Datsyuk, Bergeron...if you have Bergeron, you have Kopitar fairly close by. You have Hedman in here. You're gonna have Vasilevskiy and Lundqvist (does Luongo qualify for this generation?) in the discussion. Duncan Keith is gonna be around it.

Patrick Kane leads the entire 2010s in scoring and doesn't so much as warrant a "to be given some consideration"? Post WW2 era decade scoring leaders.

1950s - Gordie Howe
1960s - Stan Mikita
1970s - Phil Esposito
1980s - Wayne Gretzky
1990s - Jaromir Jagr
2000s - Joe Thornton
2010s - Patrick Kane
2020s - not yet complete, but Connor McDavid a huge lead that we assume won't get passed given his age

Isn't that perhaps a symptom of an Anti-"second DPE" bias (that I think many may be guilty of)? 2007-08 through 2016-17 is hard to just discount entirely as 10-year period given how wide the NHL talent pool was then. You just had really high save percentages due to whatever you want to attribute to, system goaltending, big pads, defensive systems, etc.

Crazy how for that 10-year stretch you only get 7 PPG players with a reasonable filter. NHL Stats

Perhaps I am biased towards that era because it was my team's "golden age" (aren't we all a bit biased towards eras we got to see where our team was at its peak?) but it feels very incorrect to me to just outright dismiss that era as a bad generation given the systems in place that lead to it. Especially when one of the 3 "acceptable potential All Time list worthy forwards" is often pretty derisively written off as "only had a good shot" and the other two were injured a good bit.

Filter it down to the 7-year stretch where GPG was 2.71-2.79 (2010-11 through 2016-17) and you're down to just 4 PPG+ players.

NHL Stats

The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.

www.nhl.com

 

[Michael Farkas]

I just forgot about Kane...certainly he's in the conversation. Good call.

I don't think it's bias, I just think that the proper time didn't elapse yet.

Like, if you think Obama is the greatest president ever, fine...but should you really be saying that on June 12, 2016...? Shouldn't you just see....first...let it settle...?

I guess I just don't need to rush. My first couple months of a scouting season, I don't even order my list...it's just a mess of players that I'm hoping to pare down to less players...by creating an order in October or November, all I'm doing is just biasing myself against myself.

"Well, you did have this guy at 8...now he's 24?"

It's like...yeah, he is because he isn't good and he isn't getting better. But the "8" makes me hesitate. It's a waste of time. It's hard enough to place a player. But now, I've introduced the "place", "try to justify a significant move", and then "re-place". When I could have just waited until December or January and did one more-informed placement. What's the hurry? There's no draft on December 3rd.

Patrick Kane and Cale Makar aren't going anywhere. This list isn't a C-form. We're gonna keep the rights to watching these guys forever. So I don't need to hustle McDavid into the 8th spot right now because I don't know what's gonna happen with him on the down side of his career, and I don't know all the information that's part of my process. So...I'm just gonna wait...until I'm ready.

 

[jigglysquishy]

At 7 players, that would still constitute the weakest generation in history, competing only with the Ovechkin/Crosby generation in terms of weakness. Hedman would make 8 for the 90s - tying them for the weakest aside from the 80s (unless one of the other weak generations was getting bumped more than once or twice).

So are we just in a weak era for the past 25 years?

The oldest player born in the 90s is only 34. Youngest only 24. They all have lots to add to their legacies.

If Hughes and Fox turn out the way we expect. If Pastrnak keeps it up. If Vasilevsky and Hellebucyk keep it up. 7 90s born players in the top 100 is kind of the floor. There are several more players who could end up there.

10 years ago Kane wasn't even of the radar of the top 100. But a Hart/Art Ross, and a 2nd/3rd in points and there he is as an easy top 100.

Hughes is having his break out season now. It's way too early to slot him into the top 100, but he's also way too young to dismiss the possibility.

The 90s births still has many more Harts/Norrises/Vezinas to win. Maybe we still get 5 more 90s born Conn Smythes.

 

[WarriorofTime]

I just forgot about Kane...certainly he's in the conversation. Good call.

I don't think it's bias, I just think that the proper time didn't elapse yet.

Like, if you think Obama is the greatest president ever, fine...but should you really be saying that on June 12, 2016...? Shouldn't you just see....first...let it settle...?

I guess I just don't need to rush. My first couple months of a scouting season, I don't even order my list...it's just a mess of players that I'm hoping to pare down to less players...by creating an order in October or November, all I'm doing is just biasing myself against myself.

"Well, you did have this guy at 8...now he's 24?"

It's like...yeah, he is because he isn't good and he isn't getting better. But the "8" makes me hesitate. It's a waste of time. It's hard enough to place a player. But now, I've introduced the "place", "try to justify a significant move", and then "re-place". When I could have just waited until December or January and did one more-informed placement. What's the hurry? There's no draft on December 3rd.

Patrick Kane and Cale Makar aren't going anywhere. This list isn't a C-form. We're gonna keep the rights to watching these guys forever. So I don't need to hustle McDavid into the 8th spot right now because I don't know what's gonna happen with him on the down side of his career, and I don't know all the information that's part of my process. So...I'm just gonna wait...until I'm ready.

Are you asking for a 10-year (or so) moratorium on ranking players until after they've been retired? That's probably fine.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I'm not asking for anything...but the fact is, is this a free place and there's a bunch of free people and they can feel how they want. But my process would be to wait - categorically similarly - in a way kind of like how you suggested there (moratorium).

The HOF waits...almost every single time. I'm gonna wait, generally speaking...because I can, and that's a better way in my mind haha

 

[wetcoast]

This isn't what happens though. If I can't say that Ovechkin is a shoot only player, you can't keep saying these obvious falsehoods. Once you go 'lawyer mode', you ought to be consistent...

This is a fair point but sometimes one needs to seperate the post from the poster and he mad a fairer point than the accusation made by the other poster as if there are sides here or something.

 

[Midnight Judges]

I thought Kane was already included in the previous top 100 list.

 

[wetcoast]

Yes, it is. It doesn't jive with your assessment that the modern generation is pathetic while the legends of hockey's past are untouchable Gods.

Man this isn't helping the discussion at all.

It's not a black and white thing there is shade to explore.

 

[wetcoast]

McDavid is 12 years younger than Ovechkin and 17 years younger than Thornton. That's not the same generation in hockey terms. Jagr is also 13 years older than Ovie and 15 years older than Crosby. Again, different generation IMO. Karlsson, Bergeron, Hedman, Kopitar, Keith, Stamkos, and Doughty can be fit into a window with Ovie, but some of them can't fit with Thornton (11 year stretch of calling people same generation - which admittedly a threshold that I just created, but you gotta draw the line somewhere).

And Thornton didn't add anything meaningful to his resume post 2018. So if he's in the mix of being added, it's not due to an update to his accomplishments so much as due to reflection or a lag in evaluations - which I agree is reasonable to allow for.

Maybe Karlsson is another good candidate although IMO his recent Norris was somewhat of a fraud. If he really was the most effective defenseman in the NHL, the Penguins are likely in a better position right now. Hedman has meaningfully added to his career big time. He's with or perhaps even above Bergeron in this respect. Doughty, not so much although IMO he's been underrated in some recent seasons due to having some crappy teams. Personally, I think you can win with a player like that. Duncan Keith hasn't added anything meaningful since 2018.

I am being consistent here - there are more than 6 top 100 players from every 11 year slice of history, except for the modern generation. This includes the 1884-1894 slice, 1892-1902, 1901-1911, etc. Every slice in history had more top 100 players than the modern international generation? Eh, I think that's unlikely.

View attachment 813903

I was thinking something along these lines from the Bill James Politcs of Glory on the baseball Hall of Fame and he had a rough guide that baseball Hall of Famers had a certain % of AB's during their time in baseball.i can't remember the exact details but it was around 10%.

If we subscribed to that idea I'm pretty sure the 50s are over represented by quite a bit on this sections top 100 list.

Also with this question of amateurs versus professionals, dint this come up for the early 1900s and pretty much everyone here agreed that post 1810 players were significantly better than pre 1910 ones?

On the surface the same situation would mark the difference between amateurs and professionals in the 06 era right?

 

[sr edler]

Man, these threads....

Maurice Richard worked as a machinist. Jean Beliveau worked for Molson. Gordie Howe maintained a golf course. I'm not sure how those jobs are supposed to have diminished them as hockey players.

It comes across as class snobbery. As if you can't be a real athlete if you work a real job.

Senior hockey was featured in the sports pages across Canada. Players moved from senior hockey to pro hockey back then in the same way as players of today move from the AHL to the NHL. There's no reason to believe it was low quality hockey.

This is a very good point. IMO, too many people on this board have too much of a fantasy view on hockey in general. As if someone being paid money for something somehow transform him into a superhero or a superman. I remember reading sub-parts of HOH some years back where Dick Irvin was downplayed because apparently he spent too much time in "minor" leagues, whereas in reality he played some years in a Saskatchewan senior league.

For instance, IMO you can't understand 1910s hockey if you don't fully grasp the pro vs amateur dynamic of that time, that not all and everyone of the best players spent all their time in the top pro leagues.

 

[overpass]

Has anyone looked into the number of serious junior and AAA/equivalent (feeders into junior hockey) teams? That’s your real talent pool and heavily geographically based. Not every white Canadian or whatever.

It's difficult to use junior hockey participation as a metric for the Original Six era, because major junior hockey was so heavily filtered already to include the best players from across Canada as scouted by NHL teams. And the players who joined major junior joined from all across Canada.

For example, in the 1960-61 NHL, 87 of the 157 players played in the OHA junior league on their way up. But most of those players came from outside the geographical area covered by the OHA junior league! The teams were located in southern and southwestern Ontario. Of those 87 players, 30 had grown up in southern or southwestern Ontario. 22 grew up in Northern Ontario and moved south to play junior hockey. 6 grew up in Eastern Ontario, and 2 in Northwestern Ontario (Thunder Bay region). 12 were from Quebec, 5 were from Saskatchewan, 4 from Manitoba, 3 from Alberta, 1 from each of British Columbia, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick.

For example, the Leafs did a great job scouting Northern Ontario. All of Al Arbour, George Armstrong, Dick Duff, Larry Hillman, Tim Horton, Frank Mahovlich, Bob Nevin, and Eddie Shack came through the OHA Jr league, and I think all came through St Mike's.

So you can go one level down to the leagues the players came from before the OHA. I don't think that information has been collected anywhere for the majority of players. And what do you count? The Bruins sponsored the Parry Sound hockey league when they signed Bobby Orr, and Orr went straight from the Parry Sound bantam team to the Oshawa Generals in the OHA Jr. So was the Parry Sound bantam team part of the talent pool before they signed Orr? Or only after Orr signed and the Bruins sponsored them?

 

[Hockey Outsider]

There could be value in a GPG/GPG method. It's just the HRef method is awful and comes from a deep unfamiliarity with hockey. The ice time distribution assumptions are demonstrably false. Fixing it would be fairly easy and would remove the biggest problem with the formula: that it's fundamentally broken for 1927-1967 hockey.

It would benefit from accounting for EV/PP scoring ratios. But then you will end up with seasons where the adjusted order isn't preserved.

There's some benefit in separately adjusting scoring at ES and PP. The amount of powerplays significantly affects the scoring distribution, especially at the top of the list.

On the other hand, as you noted, it can shuffle around the order of the scoring race, and that feels wrong.

For example, in 1993, there were a ton of powerplays. Adam Oates finished ahead of Steve Yzerman in the scoring race. Based on my rough calculation, if we normalize for ES/PP scoring separately, Yzerman moves ahead. It's a strange result. On the one hand, it's legitimate to recognize that Oates, who was excellent on the PP that season, had an advantage by playing in a season with a ton of powerplays (and that, in a normal year, he wouldn't have scored quite as much with the man advantage). On the other hand, in reality, Oates finished ahead of Yzerman, and it feels like manipulation of the historical results to pretend otherwise.

It's an interesting question. There isn't an obvious answer - both approaches seem to have advantages and drawbacks.