Has Anyone Not Named Gretzky, Lemieux or Orr ever dominated a year like Sakic?

[Rhiessan71]

People who are as resistant to dealing with adjusted stats as some are here seem to want to avoid context when comparing across eras for their own reasons and agendas. It's that simple. No one is saying we should change the record books to now display adjusted stats. It is a good way to add context if one is going to compare across eras though, especially ones with vastly different scoring rates.

And if all you're trying to do is add context then do so.
Here's 2 different statements...

A) Adjusted stats shows Jagr's 98/98 season at 144 points while Yzerman's 88/89 season is only 128. Obviously Jagr's season was more dominant.

or

B) Yzerman's 88/89 season was the highest scoring season by a player not name Gretzky or Lemieux and Yzerman won the Pearson over both of them to boot.
Adjusted stats assigns a value that season of 128 points. Jagr's 98/99 season has an AS's value of 144 and should get some consideration moving forward.

Statement A is what was used and it ignores any other information, comparison or situation.
Statement B uses AS's as part of the process while still acknowledging that there are even more factors to be considered such as team strength, support, role on the team ect, ect.

There really aren't that many people that are totally against Adjusted Stats. What there is is a a lot of people that are against how they are used and the amount of weight they are given in far too many conversations.
I really can't be any clearer.

Your O6 comparison trips up this crowd everytime and always will. How a relatively low scoring era of the NHL with basically only Canadians from the pre-baby boom generation is generally held in a higher regard than the current NHL by some blows my mind everytime. It's nonesense and will never pass the sniff test when one starts poking their nose around the subject.

According to you?
Smaller rosters and longer shifts, protective equipment, skates and straight sticks that weighed 10x what they do now. A unwillingness for coaches to allow Dmen to jump into the play. Playing each other a whopping 14 times a season.
Do I need to go on to show how narrow-minded and ignorant your rhetoric is on this?

Like did you know that the 18 skater/2 goalie roster has only been around since 1982?
That between WWII and 1971 roster size was 15 or 16 skaters and pre-WWII it was as low as 12 in uniform total including goalies.

 

[Rhiessan71]

I don't know, you'll have to take that up with someone who is utilizing this double standard. I haven't noticed it myself. To me it seems most who are open to adjusted stats are okay with them in any situation, otherwise why refer to them at all?

One clear point is that the NHL of the early 80's, when scoring was at it's highest, had mostly only Canadian goalies. There was Lindbergh early on then some American greats such as Barrasso and Vanbiesbrouck, along with a few mediocre starters and backups. More recently we have lots of American and Europeans starters to go along with the Canadians, which makes the available talent appear much better. Obviously the new equipment and goalie coaches just add to that even more.

Oh the double standard isn't just goaltender stats, it extends to defensive stats period.
No one has any trouble adjusting Bourque's offensive stats for playing in more offensive times but try to adjust Lidstrom's defensive stats for playing in more defensive times and it turns into a **** storm heh.
No double standard my ass!

 

[danincanada]

And if all you're trying to do is add context then do so.
Here's 2 different statements...

A) Adjusted stats shows Jagr's 98/98 season at 144 points while Yzerman's 88/89 season is only 128. Obviously Jagr's season was more dominant.

or

B) Yzerman's 88/89 season was the highest scoring season by a player not name Gretzky or Lemieux and Yzerman won the Pearson over both of them to boot.
Adjusted stats assigns a value that season of 128 points. Jagr's 98/99 season has an AS's value of 144 and should get some consideration moving forward.

Statement A is what was used and it ignores any other information, comparison or situation.
Statement B uses AS's as part of the process while still acknowledging that there are even more factors to be considered such as team strength, support, role on the team ect, ect.

There really aren't that many people that are totally against Adjusted Stats. What there is is a a lot of people that are against how they are used and the amount of weight they are given in far too many conversations.
I really can't be any clearer.

Agreed. Stop calling it adjusted craps then if you agree it adds context. In many cases it paints a clearer picture than raw stats, that's why people use them. No one has ever said it's the only context that can be added either. Raw stats in one season doesn't always display someone was actually more dominant either.

According to you?
Smaller rosters and longer shifts, protective equipment, skates and straight sticks that weighed 10x what they do now. A unwillingness for coaches to allow Dmen to jump into the play. Playing each other a whopping 14 times a season.
Do I need to go on to show how narrow-minded and ignorant your rhetoric is on this?

Like did you know that the 18 skater/2 goalie roster has only been around since 1982?
That between WWII and 1971 roster size was 15 or 16 skaters and pre-WWII it was as low as 12 in uniform total including goalies.

This doesn't explain away the precise point I made, sorry. From what we know a pre-baby boom Canadian only league would clearly not have the same amount of talent to pick from as the 90's NHL 'til present day. Not even close actually.

Many of the points you are displaying (smaller rosters, more ice-time) should have actually lead to better offensive numbers for the stars so as someone who doesn't appear to like adjusted stats that leaves you in a precarious position when the low scoring O6 era is brought up. League scoring was generally lower across the board for various reasons so AS give us a better picture.

 

[danincanada]

Oh the double standard isn't just goaltender stats, it extends to defensive stats period.
No one has any trouble adjusting Bourque's offensive stats for playing in more offensive times but try to adjust Lidstrom's defensive stats for playing in more defensive times and it turns into a **** storm heh.
No double standard my ass!

I've seen you post this several times and I'm finally going to ask...what defensive stats are you talking about? Did those debates ever veer into retro analytic debates? I don't remember this * storm you're talking about. You seem obsessed with it though so I must have missed that one. I'm all ears if there are some defensive stats for individual players I don't know about, especially if they go back to the 80's.

 

[livewell68]

The OP talks about regular season and playoffs combined, which basically disqualifies Fedorov's 1994 (also disqualifies Morenz' 1928 and Cowley's 1941)

Gordie Howe is the forgotten man as usual. A couple years in the early 50s when he dominated the league in the regular season and went on to play a key part of winning a Cup. I'll say 1951-52, not his best regular season, but he still led the league in goals 47-31 over 2nd place and in points 86-69 over second place, while finishing 3rd in assists, before leading the playoffs in points and winning the Cup.

Tough to find guys who dominated both the regular season and playoffs in the same year, though.

I'm not so sure that's what the OP was getting at. I think the OP was asking who was more dominant all-around. Sakic was great in the playoffs but did have one the best regular seasons ever from an all-around game perspective.

2nd in scoring, 2nd in goals, Hart trophy, Pearson, 2nd in Selke voting.

Similar seasons? Gilmour in 1992-93, Fedorov in 1993-94, Bourque, Messier, Potvin, Clarke, Trottier, Pronger in 1999-00.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Agreed. Stop calling it adjusted craps then if you agree it adds context. In many cases it paints a clearer picture than raw stats, that's why people use them. No one has ever said it's the only context that can be added either. Raw stats in one season doesn't always display someone was actually more dominant either.

I haven't called them adjusted craps in a long time and even when I did, it was only when they were being used as the be end all of an argument.
Stop dancing around it. When AS's are used as the only basis of an argument AND THERE IS NO OTHER CONTEXT USED, it's going to get called out, end of story.

This doesn't explain away the precise point I made, sorry. From what we know a pre-baby boom Canadian only league would clearly not have the same amount of talent to pick from as the 90's NHL 'til present day. Not even close actually.

Many of the points you are displaying (smaller rosters, more ice-time) should have actually lead to better offensive numbers for the stars so as someone who doesn't appear to like adjusted stats that leaves you in a precarious position when the low scoring O6 era is brought up. League scoring was generally lower across the board for various reasons so AS give us a better picture.

[MOD]

You just keep spouting your unsubstantiated and unproven rhetoric as truth and work your argument from that, ignoring any counter points made or any attempt to make you prove that there is 6 times the talent, let alone 6 times the Elite talent today than there was in the O6.

As far as lower scoring in the O6, aside from the points I mentioned that you once again ignored, there's the whole what happens when the best of the best play each other like say in the Olympics? According to you, all those games should've been 9-7 affairs.
I mean hey, that's what you say right, the more talent involved the higher the scores should be right
Opps, yet another one of your "theories" down the pooper heh

 

[tjcurrie]

How has no one named Sergei Fedorov yet?

His 93-94 season was one of the most dominant seasons of all time.

Hart Memorial Trophy (MVP) (first Euro to win the Hart)
Lester B. Pearson Award
Frank J. Selke Trophy
2nd in points (behind Wayne Gretzky)
2nd in goals (behind Pavel Bure)

Great answer. Comparable to Sakic as they were both high scoring two-way centers, same era, but I would place Fedorov's season ahead. Checkmate sir.

As for adjusted stats, they're not an exact science at all. They're based on theory and assumption. In general, it's true that you have to take era in to account, you just have to, but there's no way you can throw out exact numbers and go by them like they're actual and factual.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I'm not so sure that's what the OP was getting at. I think the OP was asking who was more dominant all-around. Sakic was great in the playoffs but did have one the best regular seasons ever from an all-around game perspective.

2nd in scoring, 2nd in goals, Hart trophy, Pearson, 2nd in Selke voting.

Similar seasons? Gilmour in 1992-93, Fedorov in 1993-94, Bourque, Messier, Potvin, Clarke, Trottier, Pronger in 1999-00.

You're right. Sorry, I should have read the OP more closely. I just assumed that it was talking about regular season + playoffs combined because of the prominence of Joe Sakic's 2000-01 in the title. Regular season only, Sakic's season was great, but not historically great by any means. Regular season only, in addition to the guys you listed, Howie Morenz in 1927-28 is easily there (led the league in goals, assists, and points while playing a two-way game). So is Bill Cowley in 1940-41 (his number of assists alone was enough to win the scoring title). And of course, every season from Gordie Howe between 1950-51 and 1953-54 blows most of these guys away.

 

[danincanada]

I haven't called them adjusted craps in a long time and even when I did, it was only when they were being used as the be end all of an argument.
Stop dancing around it. When AS's are used as the only basis of an argument AND THERE IS NO OTHER CONTEXT USED, it's going to get called out, end of story.

Great, I'm glad you learned to have an appreciation for them, even if it's slight.

You're arguing with yourself again. I never said they should be used as the be all end all. I don't even think raw stats in a particular season should always be used that way because statistics don't always tell the whole story.

My first post here was actually addressing post 185 but I should have made that more clear. Now you've jumped in and assumed a bunch of stuff and put words in my mouth.

You just keep spouting your unsubstantiated and unproven rhetoric as truth and work your argument from that, ignoring any counter points made or any attempt to make you prove that there is 6 times the talent, let alone 6 times the Elite talent today than there was in the O6.

It's unproven that the O6 was essentially an all-Canadian league of pre-baby boomers? I don't have specific numbers but neither do you. I'm not willing to say it's an apples to apples comparison of talent for this very reason but some here do want to run with that. It's utter nonsense, of course.

As far as lower scoring in the O6, aside from the points I mentioned that you once again ignored, there's the whole what happens when the best of the best play each other like say in the Olympics? According to you, all those games should've been 9-7 affairs.
I mean hey, that's what you say right, the more talent involved the higher the scores should be right
Opps, yet another one of your "theories" down the pooper heh

Again you create a straw man argument and pretend I said, or implied, something I didn't. Let me know where I mentioned this "theory", heh. I never said this so it's not worth a response. I don't feel like dealing with someone who makes things up.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Great, I'm glad you learned to have an appreciation for them, even if it's slight.

You're arguing with yourself again. I never said they should be used as the be all end all. I don't even think raw stats in a particular season should always be used that way because statistics don't always tell the whole story.

My first post here was actually addressing post 185 but I should have made that more clear. Now you've jumped in and assumed a bunch of stuff and put words in my mouth.

I didn't put any words in anyone's mouth about AS's. I laid out a very reasonable context and proper use of AS's and for some unknown reason you have tried to debate that, only what you say is basically what I said, only said a lot less eloquently heh.

It's unproven that the O6 was essentially an all-Canadian league of pre-baby boomers? I don't have specific numbers but neither do you. I'm not willing to say it's an apples to apples comparison of talent for this very reason but some here do want to run with that. It's utter nonsense, of course.

And it was also only a 6 team league with only 15-16 roster spots, essentially 5 teams by today's rosters, made up of THE very best players in the world that played each other upwards of 14 times a year.

Again you create a straw man argument and pretend I said, or implied, something I didn't. Let me know where I mentioned this "theory", heh. I never said this so it's not worth a response. I don't feel like dealing with someone who makes things up.

No sir, you equated scoring levels with talent levels. You tried to imply that scoring was lower in the O6 due to lack of talent. There's no strawman, I simply want you to qualify that statement.
Except I already mentioned the Olympics, which kinda screws you from qualifying it so now you are going to deflect and try to go to your bread and butter run the topic in circles until hopefully they give up routine heh.

 

[livewell68]

I didn't put any words in anyone's mouth about AS's. I laid out a very reasonable context and proper use of AS's and for some unknown reason you have tried to debate that, only what you say is basically what I said, only said a lot less eloquently heh.



And it was also only a 6 team league with only 15-16 roster spots, essentially 5 teams by today's rosters, made up of THE very best players in the world that played each other upwards of 14 times a year.



No sir, you equated scoring levels with talent levels. You tried to imply that scoring was lower in the O6 due to lack of talent. There's no strawman, I simply want you to qualify that statement.
Except I already mentioned the Olympics, which kinda screws you from qualifying it so now you are going to deflect and try to go to your bread and butter run the topic in circles until hopefully they give up routine heh.

Well you did attack me to the point it came off sounding very disrespectful. I simply tried to show that context is key in these discussions. AS are a part of a contextual narrative.

Also in 1988-89 Yzerman was far from being the defensive sound center you painted him out to be.

The NHL back then was one of the very few leagues in the world that had adults playing any type of organized competitive hockey at a high level. Europe was far behind in their development of hockey leagues. So of course Canada was going to dominate at the Olympics.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

They are rough averages based on the overall scoring rate. They are not very accurate. Almost every O6 season is underestimated.

This is not a criticism of Adjusted Stats. O6-era seasons are underestimated by Adjusted Stats because they are also underestimated by the raw stats, because no adjustment is made for league quality.

Gordie Howe in 1952/53 scored 95 points in 70 games. Glenn Anderson in 1982/83 scored 104 points in 72 games. It's not just the scoring environment that makes Anderson look better, it's also the relative quality of the opposition they faced. Adjusted Stats does not account for this, but neither do the raw stats.

 

[Hammer Time]

The OP talks about regular season and playoffs combined, which basically disqualifies Fedorov's 1994 (also disqualifies Morenz' 1928 and Cowley's 1941)

Gordie Howe is the forgotten man as usual. A couple years in the early 50s when he dominated the league in the regular season and went on to play a key part of winning a Cup. I'll say 1951-52, not his best regular season, but he still led the league in goals 47-31 over 2nd place and in points 86-69 over second place, while finishing 3rd in assists, before leading the playoffs in points and winning the Cup.

Tough to find guys who dominated both the regular season and playoffs in the same year, though.

Jean Béliveau, 1955-56

 

[danincanada]

I didn't put any words in anyone's mouth about AS's. I laid out a very reasonable context and proper use of AS's and for some unknown reason you have tried to debate that, only what you say is basically what I said, only said a lot less eloquently heh.

I tried to debate it? Look at the first word I posted. "AGREED"

If you've stopped with your hard stance against AS then good for you.

No sir, you equated scoring levels with talent levels. You tried to imply that scoring was lower in the O6 due to lack of talent. There's no strawman, I simply want you to qualify that statement.
Except I already mentioned the Olympics, which kinda screws you from qualifying it so now you are going to deflect and try to go to your bread and butter run the topic in circles until hopefully they give up routine heh.

I already told you this is not what I was saying but you pull that straw man out a second time and you still haven't shown me where I stated this. After all, if I don't mind using AS as context in any case or era then why would I equate scoring levels with talent levels? I think adjusted stats are just fine to help provide context and that's why I was pointing at the O6. When you were anti-AS, which you've flip-flopped on now, this screwed you up when praising both the high scoring 80's players and O6 stars so it's hilarious that you're trying to spin that on me now.

If you're talking about this then read it again, understand it, and apologize for either misunderstanding, or making this up and putting words in my mouth:

Post 203 "Many of the points you are displaying (smaller rosters, more ice-time) should have actually lead to better offensive numbers for the stars so as someone who doesn't appear to like adjusted stats that leaves you in a precarious position when the low scoring O6 era is brought up. League scoring was generally lower across the board for various reasons so AS give us a better picture."

Thanks.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

This is not a criticism of Adjusted Stats. O6-era seasons are underestimated by Adjusted Stats because they are also underestimated by the raw stats, because no adjustment is made for league quality.

Gordie Howe in 1952/53 scored 95 points in 70 games. Glenn Anderson in 1982/83 scored 104 points in 72 games. It's not just the scoring environment that makes Anderson look better, it's also the relative quality of the opposition they faced. Adjusted Stats does not account for this, but neither do the raw stats.

It's a valid criticism of adjusted stats (and let's be clear, we are talking about adjustments based off league average scoring), when they exist in order to compare offense across eras in a way that raw stats do not. Raw stats are just that - raw data. If a formula created to compare that data across eras does not work, it absolutely should be open to criticism.

Let's try to get back to the topic of the thread, though, okay? Not directed at anyone in particular.

 

[tony d]

Sakic was amazing in 2000-2001 but I'll take Gretzky's 200 point seasons over Sakic's 2000-2001 season any day.

 

[Hardyvan123]

This is not a criticism of Adjusted Stats. O6-era seasons are underestimated by Adjusted Stats because they are also underestimated by the raw stats, because no adjustment is made for league quality.

Gordie Howe in 1952/53 scored 95 points in 70 games. Glenn Anderson in 1982/83 scored 104 points in 72 games. It's not just the scoring environment that makes Anderson look better, it's also the relative quality of the opposition they faced. Adjusted Stats does not account for this, but neither do the raw stats.

You are right adjusted stats do work better in comparing seasons closer together than farther apart.

We also know that Anderson wasn't driving the bus in Edmonton and Howe was.

But what exactly do you mean for adjusting to the quality of the 06 league.

This has been mentioned before yet there seems to be very little effort to quantify this.

One example is the early 50's where the league has 2 elite Dmen in their prime then the 60's when the quality of elite Dmen goes down quite a bit before Orr.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

But what exactly do you mean for adjusting to the quality of the 06 league.

This has been mentioned before yet there seems to be very little effort to quantify this.

Last comment on this, so as to not keep going off-topic:

Quality of league in this context refers essentially to the supply and demand of hockey players of a certain calibre. In the O6 era, there were far fewer teams than in the 1980s, so even though the pool of quality hockey players had expanded by that later time, it's clear it was not enough to make up for the dilution created by the greatly increased number of NHL jobs, so the average quality of player was higher in the O6 era.

There had been work to quantify this, but Adjusted Stats is not a system that does so.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Sakic was amazing in 2000-2001 but I'll take Gretzky's 200 point seasons over Sakic's 2000-2001 season any day.

we all would but the OP is asking for the most dominant season by guys not named Orr, Wayne or Mario.

 

[Cyborg LeClair]

This is not a criticism of Adjusted Stats. O6-era seasons are underestimated by Adjusted Stats because they are also underestimated by the raw stats, because no adjustment is made for league quality.

Gordie Howe in 1952/53 scored 95 points in 70 games. Glenn Anderson in 1982/83 scored 104 points in 72 games. It's not just the scoring environment that makes Anderson look better, it's also the relative quality of the opposition they faced. Adjusted Stats does not account for this, but neither do the raw stats.

This is an excellent post which I should bookmark because this needs to be explained constantly on HFBoards

 

[livewell68]

This is an excellent post which I should bookmark because this needs to be explained constantly on HFBoards

The History section has an amplitude of posters who know this and have quite a bit of knowledge on the history of the posrt.

 

[Big Phil]

Beliveau in 1956, Howe in 1953, Hull in 1966.

Esposito in 1969. Lafleur in 1977. Jagr in 1999.

Hasek in 1998. Parent in 1975.

 

[The Panther]

This is an excellent post which I should bookmark because this needs to be explained constantly on HFBoards

Actually, it doesn't. I doubt there is a single person the History board who needs this explained. (I also doubt there is a long-term hockey fan in North America who needs this explained.)

Here's my theory on stats: They are what they are! You know what, instead of quantifying, adjusting, and debating what variables to add to the quadratic formula to figure out how many points so-and-so's point total is worth in whatever imagined statistical variable someone has decided is valid, WE COULD JUST STICK WITH REAL STATS. After all, if Yzerman put the puck into the net 65 times in 1988-89, then Yzerman should actually be credited with 65 goals.

Now, here's the important part you may be missing: The above does NOT mean that I think Anderson's 105 points in '83 is more impressive than Howe's 95 points in '53. How can that be? Am I not a disturbed fool if I don't employ adjusted stats to form my opinion on comparisons?? Why, no! As a fan who's watched NHL hockey for more than a handful of years, I'm well aware that scoring levels and styles of play change over eras, sometimes even noticeably within five or ten years. Therefore, I don't need to adjust stats to decide whose seasons have been as impressive as Sakic's in 2000-01.

The problem with adjusting stats is not the people who don't like it. The problem with adjusting stats is the philosophy of the 'adjuster' that stats require adjusting in order to form comparisons. They don't.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Beliveau in 1956, Howe in 1953, Hull in 1966.

Esposito in 1969. Lafleur in 1977. Jagr in 1999.

Hasek in 1998. Parent in 1975.

Lafleur in 77 stands out but was his season really that dominant compared to what Marcel Dionne did in LA that year and with the type of support Marcel had?

Gary Sargent and bob Murdoch are a bit less offensively gifted as Larry Robinson and Guy Lapointe were for instance, never mind his wingers.

Dido the Espostio win in 69 as I noticed it's a year where Orr missed time but then again our differences on Phil and Orr are about as far apart as the Leafs and SC are these days.

Goalies I wouldn't include because it is an apples to oranges comp, no position player has the ability to play 60 MPG and potentially have the type of influence a goalie could.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Actually, it doesn't. I doubt there is a single person the History board who needs this explained. (I also doubt there is a long-term hockey fan in North America who needs this explained.)

Here's my theory on stats: They are what they are! You know what, instead of quantifying, adjusting, and debating what variables to add to the quadratic formula to figure out how many points so-and-so's point total is worth in whatever imagined statistical variable someone has decided is valid, WE COULD JUST STICK WITH REAL STATS. After all, if Yzerman put the puck into the net 65 times in 1988-89, then Yzerman should actually be credited with 65 goals.

Now, here's the important part you may be missing: The above does NOT mean that I think Anderson's 105 points in '83 is more impressive than Howe's 95 points in '53. How can that be? Am I not a disturbed fool if I don't employ adjusted stats to form my opinion on comparisons?? Why, no! As a fan who's watched NHL hockey for more than a handful of years, I'm well aware that scoring levels and styles of play change over eras, sometimes even noticeably within five or ten years. Therefore, I don't need to adjust stats to decide whose seasons have been as impressive as Sakic's in 2000-01.

The problem with adjusting stats is not the people who don't like it. The problem with adjusting stats is the philosophy of the 'adjuster' that stats require adjusting in order to form comparisons. They don't.

you need to do a better job explaining what you mean here.

In the first part you are quite adamant that stats are stats then in the 2nd part acknowledge what we all know that 102 points or Anderson and 95 for Howe need a lot more context to see what ehy really mean.

Then you finish off by dissing adjusted stats which tries to put some framework or template to reasonably compare stats from different eras (make adjustments just like we all do when we look at the example of Howe and an Anderson given) then throw it out because it isn't perfect.

the thing is that we need to acknowledge that scoring x number of points more than the next guy means more or less in some seasons than others and this isn't the best measure to (subjectively, because there is no other way) answer the OP's question.