Scoring pace ("matnor" method)

[silkyjohnson50]

I was surprised to see Ovechkin that high and especially above Jagr when it comes to the top-1-PPG pace. Obviously that changes significantly once you adjust it to a top-2/3/5-PPG pace, but that one still caught me off guard.

 

[Namba 17]

Great work, as usual.
Would it be interesting for you to make the same calculations for goals?

 

[authentic]

Very interesting method in general. For being created to give context to Forsberg, he doesn't look great.

Howe comes across very very strongly here.

Suprised how strongly Richard looks in the top 3 top 5 lists.

Jagr looks good in top 3, but nothing else.

Hull looks surprisingly poor.

I think something else that could be looked at along with this method is how many players scored at the pace of the half season player in a similar amount of games. For instance Lemieux gets propped up more than Jagr here for his 2001 season yet Jagr actually had more points per game in those same games with 77 in 43 and then 84 in 45 while Lemieux had 43 in 76 over the same time frame.

I was surprised to see Ovechkin that high and especially above Jagr when it comes to the top-1-PPG pace. Obviously that changes significantly once you adjust it to a top-2/3/5-PPG pace, but that one still caught me off guard.

That one seems odd to me, check my post above for why I think Jagr may be underrated here.

 

[tarheelhockey]

No, it's nothing to do with points-per-game (ppg). Goals, assists, points, ppg, they're all the same issue. They would all be the same problem if presented this way.

There's a whole thread here about the size of the talent pool in different eras.

The same guy who started that thread, also started this thread.

One common-sense way to judge players across eras is to standardize their statistical output (like he did in this thread) and then incorporate the talent pool issue (like he did in the other thread). @Hockey Outsider is working on both of those topics, just in separate threads. It's up to the rest of us to use those tools as we see fit.

 

[MadLuke]

Jagr seem to have lost the ppg title mostly (only ?) to Lemieux-Lindros.

 

[Staniowski]

There's a whole thread here about the size of the talent pool in different eras.

The same guy who started that thread, also started this thread.

One common-sense way to judge players across eras is to standardize their statistical output (like he did in this thread) and then incorporate the talent pool issue (like he did in the other thread). @Hockey Outsider is working on both of those topics, just in separate threads. It's up to the rest of us to use those tools as we see fit.

The thread you reference is terrible, because the numbers are entirely about Canada's population (of a certain age), which is one element out of a multitude of elements that make up hockey's talent pool.

The "talent pool" numbers that are posted are a group of people, the vast majority of whom have never picked up a hockey stick in their lives.

Why are we referring to people who don't play hockey as hockey's talent pool? It's so ridiculous.

 

[MadLuke]

because the numbers are entirely about Canada's population

The third post that start with :
ASSUMPTION 2: the size of the global talent pool relative to Canada's

make me doubt this very much, we can start to help make a better way to estimate the global talent pool, but it is not entierely about Canada population.

Why are we referring to people who don't play hockey as hockey's talent pool? It's so ridiculous.

Would we have good hockey junior participation numbers they would be used obviously, but there a reason we use Canadian born people here, assuming a similar level of hockey popularity, Canadian born population would be a good proxy and the most athletic people will disproportional be those who go in sports and how many athletic genetic gifted people you have will be linked to the population size.

Again everyone would be quite in the known of all the issues and I am sure if we read the thread they will even be explicitly mentioned, it is a best attemp with what is relatively easy to generate without making this a part time 6 month thesis jobs.

I imagine you get that it could be insulting to some to call it terrible (specially with the average quality of the internet talk) but insulting to think that every point you raised would have not been thought right away by the people that attempted this.

 

[JackSlater]

The third post that start with :
ASSUMPTION 2: the size of the global talent pool relative to Canada's

make me doubt this very much, we can start to help make a better way to estimate the global talent pool, but it is not entierely about Canada population.


Would we have good hockey junior participation numbers they would be used obviously, but there a reason we use Canadian born people here, assuming a similar level of hockey popularity, Canadian born population would be a good proxy and the most athletic people will disproportional be those who go in sports and how many athletic genetic gifted people you have will be linked to the population size.

Again everyone would be quite in the known of all the issues and I am sure if we read the thread they will even be explicitly mentioned, it is a best attemp with what is relatively easy to generate without making this a part time 6 month thesis jobs

I think we can assume that if an investigation doesn't produce a dumbed down answer that can be followed like a paint by numbers colouring sheet then it is destined to be derided as dumb/useless/terrible etc. But, at least we have all the statistics that are irrefutable and are not at all affected by teammates or scoring environment or other external factors, such as.... and also.... so that's great.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Why are we referring to people who don't play hockey as hockey's talent pool? It's so ridiculous.

Improve upon it, then.

And "improving on it" doesn't mean repeatedly shitting down its throat. It means actually producing better content.

 

[tarheelhockey]

The thread you reference is terrible, because the numbers are entirely about Canada's population (of a certain age), which is one element out of a multitude of elements that make up hockey's talent pool.

The "talent pool" numbers that are posted are a group of people, the vast majority of whom have never picked up a hockey stick in their lives.

Why are we referring to people who don't play hockey as hockey's talent pool? It's so ridiculous.

Obviously not all Canadians are NHL players. You're right, that's a ridiculous idea. Do you not think everyone else realizes this? Let alone people who have been heavily engaged in the study of this topic for years?

The starting point of the talent pool conversation is to determine the overall population of NHL-aged males at a given point in time. Without that data, we can't get anywhere useful. Once the overall population is settled, then we can apply other lenses which help refine the numbers. One person is doing a lot of work to get that conversation started, so that we can continue to work at it in the future.

You seem to have an indefensibly uncharitable view of what people are trying to accomplish here, and how they're going about it.

 

[Staniowski]

Obviously not all Canadians are NHL players. You're right, that's a ridiculous idea. Do you not think everyone else realizes this? Let alone people who have been heavily engaged in the study of this topic for years?

The starting point of the talent pool conversation is to determine the overall population of NHL-aged males at a given point in time. Without that data, we can't get anywhere useful. Once the overall population is settled, then we can apply other lenses which help refine the numbers. One person is doing a lot of work to get that conversation started, so that we can continue to work at it in the future.

You seem to have an indefensibly uncharitable view of what people are trying to accomplish here, and how they're going about it.

You don't understand. The issue isn't that not all Canadian boys become NHL players. The issue is that Canada's population is one minor element (out of a whole bunch of elements) that determines Canada's hockey talent pool. Canada's population (of a certain age) means very little.

The vast majority of Canadian boys do not play hockey, and there is nothing new about this.

The "talent pool" numbers in the other thread don't mean anything because hardly any of those people play hockey at all. Those so-called talent pool numbers could be Canada's talent pool for any activity - baseball, whatever. It has nothing to do with hockey.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

You don't understand. The issue isn't that not all Canadian boys become NHL players. The issue is that Canada's population is one minor element (out of a whole bunch of elements) that determines Canada's hockey talent pool. Canada's population (of a certain age) means very little.

The vast majority of Canadian boys do not play hockey, and there is nothing new about this.

The "talent pool" numbers in the other thread don't mean anything because hardly any of those people play hockey at all. The so-called talent pool could be Canada's talent pool for any activity - baseball, whatever. It has nothing to do with hockey.

Did you just respond to @tarheelhockey's "yes, everyone in this thread is aware of X already" with another more detailed round of "YOU FORGOT ABOUT X!"?

With a new "you don't understand" tossed in there. "WHY IS NO ONE TALKING ABOUT X!"

 

[Staniowski]

Did you just respond to @tarheelhockey's "yes, everyone in this thread is aware of X already" with another more detailed round of "YOU FORGOT ABOUT X!"?

With a new "you don't understand" tossed in there. "WHY IS NO ONE TALKING ABOUT X!"

Can u translate this? I don't know what you're referring to.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Can u translate this? I don't know what you're referring to.

Let me try to be more clear.

The "I'm smarter than everyone in the room, but I'm going to sit in the back and heckle instead of picking up a shovel" shtick was never particularly inventive. You're deliberately being obtuse.

 

[Staniowski]

Let me try to be more clear.

The "I'm smarter than everyone in the room, but I'm going to sit in the back and heckle instead of picking up a shovel" shtick was never particularly inventive. You're deliberately being obtuse.

I'm not being obtuse at all, in fact.

I've stated exactly what my criticism is of the "talent pool" thread.....

The quick summary is that the vast majority of people being referred as Canada's hockey "talent pool" do not even play hockey at all (because the vast majority of Canada's boys do not play hockey). People who don't play hockey aren't part of hockey's talent pool....

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Yes, and there’s the translation you asked for. You’re willfully conflating “folks acknowledge X” with “I’m the only one brave enough to discuss X”.

 

[Staniowski]

The third post that start with :
ASSUMPTION 2: the size of the global talent pool relative to Canada's

make me doubt this very much, we can start to help make a better way to estimate the global talent pool, but it is not entierely about Canada population.


Would we have good hockey junior participation numbers they would be used obviously, but there a reason we use Canadian born people here, assuming a similar level of hockey popularity, Canadian born population would be a good proxy and the most athletic people will disproportional be those who go in sports and how many athletic genetic gifted people you have will be linked to the population size.

Again everyone would be quite in the known of all the issues and I am sure if we read the thread they will even be explicitly mentioned, it is a best attemp with what is relatively easy to generate without making this a part time 6 month thesis jobs.

I imagine you get that it could be insulting to some to call it terrible (specially with the average quality of the internet talk) but insulting to think that every point you raised would have not been thought right away by the people that attempted this.

The problem with that thread is that it (i.e. the Canada part) has nothing to do with hockey.

What's being referred to as Canada's hockey talent pool is a bunch of people most of whom do not play hockey at any level.

It could just as easily be called Canada's baseball talent pool, or basketball talent pool, or motor bike talent pool, etc.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Right, exactly. The constant derailing of the thread with “no one can talk about anything except X”.

 

[Staniowski]

Yes, and there’s the translation you asked for. You’re willfully conflating “folks acknowledge X” with “I’m the only one brave enough to discuss X”.

Let's get to the "talent pool" issue....

You don't find it strange (or interesting, or something) that hockey's talent pool is being referred to a group of people the vast majority of whom don't play hockey at all, at any level?

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Let's get to the "talent pool" issue....

You don't find it strange (or interesting, or something) that hockey's talent pool is being referred to a group of people the vast majority of whom don't play hockey at all, at any level?

Yes, exactly! This is a perfect example of your insistence upon derailing the thread with a topic that the rest of us have acknowledged and moved on from. Kudos!

 

[tarheelhockey]

You don't understand. The issue isn't that not all Canadian boys become NHL players. The issue is that Canada's population is one minor element (out of a whole bunch of elements) that determines Canada's hockey talent pool. Canada's population (of a certain age) means very little.

The vast majority of Canadian boys do not play hockey, and there is nothing new about this.

The "talent pool" numbers in the other thread don't mean anything because hardly any of those people play hockey at all. Those so-called talent pool numbers could be Canada's talent pool for any activity - baseball, whatever. It has nothing to do with hockey.

You’re right, and everyone else in the room understands this already.

The point of that thread isn’t to find the exact number of people in the NHL talent pool. It’s to track the proportionate size of the talent pool over time. Because the actual size of the talent pool isn’t really what we’re after… we are using it as a measure of competitiveness from one era to the other.

In the context of these conversations, it doesn’t matter if the NHL talent pool is 100,000 or 1,000,000 or 10,000,000 in a given year. Without context, those are just figures on a page. What matters is that the pool is 75% or 60% or 130% of what it was in 1990. That gives us the perspective we need to be able to determine relative competitiveness, and therefore determine the relative value of achievements in both years.

And yes, we all realize that there are factors other than just the population. Those have been discussed in other threads and at the end of the day, we’re just doing the best we can with imperfect data.

 

[MadLuke]

What's being referred to as Canada's hockey talent pool is a bunch of people most of whom do not play hockey at any level.

Now think about the percentage of Canadian boys born with Orr-Gretzky-Lindros-Lemieux genetic in years when hockey was far and above the most popular sport for the most ambitious athlete, would the number still by a tiny small ?

Think when you were too school, the people that were obviously in top 1% best athlete and quite tall, was a significant percentage played hockey ? Almost all of them in mine.

 

[Staniowski]

You’re right, and everyone else in the room understands this already.

The point of that thread isn’t to find the exact number of people in the NHL talent pool. It’s to track the proportionate size of the talent pool over time. Because the actual size of the talent pool isn’t really what we’re after… we are using it as a measure of competitiveness from one era to the other.

In the context of these conversations, it doesn’t matter if the NHL talent pool is 100,000 or 1,000,000 or 10,000,000 in a given year. Without context, those are just figures on a page. What matters is that the pool is 75% or 60% or 130% of what it was in 1990. That gives us the perspective we need to be able to determine relative competitiveness, and therefore determine the relative value of achievements in both years.

And yes, we all realize that there are factors other than just the population. Those have been discussed in other threads and at the end of the day, we’re just doing the best we can with imperfect data.

The thread doesn't track the proportionate size of the talent pool over time. It doesn't do that at all.

 

[MasterofGrond]

The thread doesn't track the proportionate size of the talent pool over time. It doesn't do that at all.

It does. It's not perfect, as you and I and everyone else in that thread acknowledges, but to insist it's useless is to essentially contend that no statistic can ever be valuable because there will always be other factors that we can't totally address.

It's capitulation, not insight.

 

[tarheelhockey]

The thread doesn't track the proportionate size of the talent pool over time. It doesn't do that at all.

It tracks the proportionate size of the Canadian male population, which is one of the major fundamental factors in the talent pool.

You are not bringing anything new to the table by pointing out that the population size is only one of many factors. Posts #2 and #3 talk extensively about other factors, and problems in the methodology are explicitly pointed out.

If you want to add something useful to the conversation, perhaps suggest a list of other major factors — and how to calculate them.