Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Preliminary Discussion Thread (Revenge of Michael Myers)

[Canadiens1958]

I suggest you reread TCG's post again about the data if you don't think it's cherrypicked data that tells us you end up with a higher save percentage because you had more shots against.

Not all inclusive definitely but not necessarily cherry picked.

My point is all inclusive and extensive beyond this decade or era.

 

[Canadiens1958]

I'm not saying this exact situation happens regularly, I'm saying that we've produced a system where it could, and we could easily prevent it by having appearance points, but we don't. In the end, the right 110 names are going to come up for discussion, so it's not a major deal. Just from a logic standpoint it's always been a pet peeve.

Thought could left when no one was hit by Skylab?

So why raise it at all?

 

[seventieslord]

Once a PPG was scored the penalty ended. So SOG volume should go down plus you no longer had an unchecked shooter.

Compare with 1955-56.
Player Season Finder | Hockey-Reference.com

Part of the total factors.

We're talking about completely different things here.

 

[seventieslord]

Thought could left when no one was hit by Skylab?

So why raise it at all?

I already explained why.

A better question is why not?

 

[seventieslord]

actually, a fun test would be to take that exact same data set that I used to determine correlation, and then also factor in what CG is saying about how you never get to 30 shots if you're having a bad night.. Which makes perfect sense. I could take every single performance, or at least the ones that are 5 minutes or longer, and simply normalize them each to a /60 basis. then I could compare everyone's shots against/60 to their save percentage in each individual game, and I wouldn't be surprised if the very very weak correlation that I found previously, disappears completely.

Alright, I went ahead and did this. I took every single goaltender appearance from last season that was at least 5 minutes long, and using their shots against and TOI I was able to calculate their SA/60. I then compared how heavy their workload was on that particular evening, to what percentage of shots they stopped.

As suspected, the very weak correlation I established earlier.... plummeted. 0.077. That's not a correlation.

 

[Canadiens1958]

I already explained why.

A better question is why not?

Bandwidth.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Yes. Leading the league in something >>>> coming second. It's calling "winning." Will to win, if you will.

Until the NHL starts giving out extra points in the standings to the team that had the leading goal/point/whatever scorer, leading the league in an individual statistical category is not "winning" in any sort of traditional sense.

That's correct. There is nothing whatsoever special about the 32-46-82 statline. Leading the league in goals for the EIGHTH TIME is pretty darn special. Unique, even. It demonstrates phenomenal, inhuman consistency, the like of which was never demonstrated by anybody else, including Gretzky (5 times league leader) and Lemieux (3 times). Especially the current 31 teams, 600+ players league.

Except this relies heavily on factors beyond an individual player's control. If Ovechkin scores 50 goals this season, he scores 50 goals. Whether Connor McDavid scores 51 or 49 is of no relevance whatsoever. Yet in a 1st>>>>2nd philosophy, how Ovechkin is rated depends entirely on the performance of another player.

 

[blogofmike]

Once a PPG was scored the penalty ended. So SOG volume should go down plus you no longer had an unchecked shooter.

Compare with 1955-56.
Player Season Finder | Hockey-Reference.com

Part of the total factors.

Oddly enough, this is how it happened:

1956	SA	GF	S%	1957	SA	GF	S%
DET	2361	183	7.8	MTL	2251	210	9.3
MTL	2233	222	9.9	BOS	2225	195	8.8
TOR	2159	153	7.1	TOR	2126	174	8.2
BOS	2082	147	7.1	DET	2112	198	9.4
CHI	1887	155	8.2	CHI	1917	169	8.8
NYR	1790	204	11.4	NYR	1847	184	10
	12512	1064	8.50%		12478	1130	9.06%

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Shots stayed the same overall, with most teams taking more and Detroit taking less, and Shooting percentages increased overall. They also seemed to take fewer penalties in 1957 compared to 1956.

I don't know what to make of it.

 

[Sentinel]

Until the NHL starts giving out extra points in the standings to the team that had the leading goal/point/whatever scorer, leading the league in an individual statistical category is not "winning" in any sort of traditional sense.

Except this relies heavily on factors beyond an individual player's control. If Ovechkin scores 50 goals this season, he scores 50 goals. Whether Connor McDavid scores 51 or 49 is of no relevance whatsoever. Yet in a 1st>>>>2nd philosophy, how Ovechkin is rated depends entirely on the performance of another player.

You seem to be discounting how much top players ACTUALLY WANT TO BE #1. In a close race between Ovechkin and McDavid, both will try extra hard to score that last goal to be the best. They are both very proud athletes. Do you think Gretzky would've retired one game before beating Howe's record? Not a chance.

And it's strange to hear about "factors beyond an individual player's control." When Bossy scored 50 goals in the 80s and Ovechkin 50 goals in the 00s, they both "scored 50 goals." But because of League-wide scoring averages, their "50 goals" are viewed differently.

 

[unknown33]

There was some discussions about him early on. Will you provide a list?

Oh missed TDMM message in the old thread.... Cool, yeah I will.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Alright, I went ahead and did this. I took every single goaltender appearance from last season that was at least 5 minutes long, and using their shots against and TOI I was able to calculate their SA/60. I then compared how heavy their workload was on that particular evening, to what percentage of shots they stopped.

As suspected, the very weak correlation I established earlier.... plummeted. 0.077. That's not a correlation.

Not that I don’t trust it, but is there an easy, presentable and interpretable manner by which we can see the data? Like a scatter plot of the individual games where SA/60-is-X and SPCT-is-Y?

 

[DannyGallivan]

An attempt to understand the experienced and visual with the statistical.

Compounded by the statistical featuring fluid definitions.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Cursory glance at the aggregate under 10-players-plus-99% that we’re using puts us at this:

#1-4: 10 Players
#5-9: 10 Players
#10-14: 12 Players
#15-19: 11 Players
#20-24: 11 Players
#25-29: 11 Players
#30-34: 11 Players
#35-39: 10 Players
#40-44: 13 Players
#45-49: 11 Players
#50-54: 10 Players
#55-59: 11 Players
#60-64: 10 Players
#65-69: 11 Players
#70-74: 10 Players
#75-79: 10 Players
#80-84: 10 Players
#85-89: 11 Players
#90-94: 10 Players
#95-99: 10 Players
#100: 10 Players

But if we want to arbitrarily open it up in #100, here’s what we’re looking at:

Five carryovers from the previous voting block plus...

	Lists	Points
#105	24	574	Eligible
#106	23	568	Eligible
#107	23	562	Eligible
#108	19	552	Eligible
#109	21	541	Eligible
#110	18	512
#111	23	506
#112	20	502
#113	13	475
#114	18	470
#115	17	444
#116	15	410
#117	16	400
#118	14	350
#119	12	334

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

So without more details than that, do we keep the cutoff at #109 (the 10th eligible player), or do we extend it beyond 10 names?

 

[VanIslander]

109 or... 112 looks like a gap

 

[Michael Farkas]

What's the number if a player is on 8 (of 31?) lists...roughly a quarter of lists?

I am much less inclined to make a hard cut off when you get this far down the bell curve...it really starts to open up and I feel like there's more room for movement and learning than there is between 17 and 20, for instance, as opposed to 103 vs 138...

 

[ImporterExporter]

Bandwidth.

 

[MXD]

109, 112 and 114 seems to be the three options.

I prefer the first two, because it's only one spot.

 

[VanIslander]

Only 13 voters had 113 ... please don't go that far... 13 of 30+ lists is a terribly low percentage.

 

[Michael Farkas]

But those 13 also thought pretty highly of that player...

Vague analogy...

Defensemen A gets a Norris ballot of 3-4-1-0-0

Defensemen B gets 0-0-7-4-2

Which one do you prefer...? Would you recall cut out one of them over the other...

I think we should be more inclusive as the end...people forgot players, tossed on "token" votes with pre-consolidation players, or international players or even current players that deserve a harder look than we think...

It's an opportunity to learn and really move some players while we have the horsepower to do the research...

 

[MXD]

But those 13 also thought pretty highly of that player...

Vague analogy...

Defensemen A gets a Norris ballot of 3-4-1-0-0

Defensemen B gets 0-0-7-4-2

Which one do you prefer...? Would you recall cut out one of them over the other...

I think we should be more inclusive as the end...people forgot players, tossed on "token" votes with pre-consolidation players, or international players or even current players that deserve a harder look than we think...

It's an opportunity to learn and really move some players while we have the horsepower to do the research...

It's only for one spot.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Only 13 GMs had 113 ... please don't go that far... 13 of 30+ lists is a terribly low percentage.

GMs?

Not the ATD.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Here’s the distribution of votes for #113 in case it makes a difference:

45, 49, 56, 72, 79, 86, 86, 86, 104, 104, 107, 111 113

 

[Michael Farkas]

It's only for one spot.

It's about the process though. Even though maybe only one spot gets filled as a result of this...you can't quantify the amount of information that might get uncovered...track other situations of major risers: Nighbor, Seth Martin, etc.

Like I say about the current NHL...there's a more tangible difference between the 2nd best d-man in the league and 9th best than there is between the 144th and 191st...the latter is a result of preference, handedness, if-they-were-yesterday-ism, etc. The 2nd best player is just flat out better than the 9th best...

Give the list so room to breathe, and maybe next project, someone is on our radar that wasn't before as a result of this...(see: Seth Martin going 1st overall in the MLD after the goalie project [if my timeline is right])

 

[VanIslander]

Here’s the distribution of votes for #113 in case it makes a difference:

45, 49, 56, 72, 79, 86, 86, 86, 104, 104, 107, 111 113

And the other votes:

0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 and 0.

 

[seventieslord]

Not that I don’t trust it, but is there an easy, presentable and interpretable manner by which we can see the data? Like a scatter plot of the individual games where SA/60-is-X and SPCT-is-Y?

I think I can do that. If I can't, I can just share the spreadsheet.