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

[ImporterExporter]

..TBH, my call here is that there was probably a shift in the amount of power plays awarded. I mean, if you take out Henri Richard, who didn't play much PP, the two lowest players were the first to hit their prime.

@ImporterExporter , because you're already on this, where do, say, Elmer Lach and Doug Bentley stand? Just to put names who had a clear path to PP minutes (so as to compare apples with apples...), as opposed to players like Max Bentley and Milt Schmidt who were not always necessarily the first option?

I agree there almost surely were fewer PP chances, although Doug Harvey had a pretty damn high number at 43% which is probably on the higher end for Dmen who's prime was in the 50's. Pierre Pilote who's career overlapped Harvey's a decent amount came in at 33.9%.

 

[ImporterExporter]

@MXD

Oh, I have Lach at 100 exactly. He is at 26.3% btw. Really strong 2 way player. Henri Richard lite IMO.

 

[MXD]

@MXD

Oh, I have Lach at 100 exactly. He is at 26.3% btw. Really strong 2 way player. Henri Richard lite IMO.

Actually, I was more asking for the PP% than for where you had him in your rankings

... But it does align with my supposition that Richard and Lindsay being so low isn't so much about because how little PP mattered in their respective production, but also about the era in which they played.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Has to be viewed in the light of PP personnel as well...Detroit ran 5 forwards on the power play often in the early to mid 60's to compensate for the lack of d-men they had that were talented with the puck (Marcel Pronovost was not...Bill Gadsby was pretty good and he had a cannon...) and because they had a wealth of more talented forwards - if you go back and watch games, you often see Alex Delvecchio play the point and I believe Norm Ullman spends a bunch of time back there as well...

Rather than make two reasonably effective or better units...they just loaded up with bazooka.

I'd bet that's reflected in power play distribution forwards vs defense on those Detroit teams...

Seemed effective...1960 to 1965 (the span where I saw this most on film), the Red Wings had the 2nd most power play goals in the NHL in that span (Montreal) and the least amount of shorthanded goals allowed...

 

[ImporterExporter]

Has to be viewed in the light of PP personnel as well...Detroit ran 5 forwards on the power play often in the early to mid 60's to compensate for the lack of d-men they had that were talented with the puck (Marcel Pronovost was not...Bill Gadsby was pretty good and he had a cannon...) and because they had a wealth of more talented forwards - if you go back and watch games, you often see Alex Delvecchio play the point and I believe Norm Ullman spends a bunch of time back there as well...

I'd bet that's reflected in power play distribution forwards vs defense on those Detroit teams...

Absolutely true.

I think we have to also look into what the traditional attack and killing tactcs were among the teams. Some of the strategies we see today or in post expansion weren't hardened schems yet. How long were guys on the ice? Today you don't see players spending more than 35-40 seconds on the kill, at least in regards to F's.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Varies, exactly. Today even. PK is based on rules, not so much time. Some teams, like the Flyers or the Blues or the Canucks...they put out a lot of bangers and they change on clears...they don't hang around a look for rushes...they want to kill the penalty...some teams put out a lot of speed, even at the cost of defensive acumen (Michael Grabner is a great example of this) and hang out and around for a little and try to play it straight up from their own blueline out and take a chance for a shorthanded goal...

The clear-and-change automatic teams, should see shorter shift lengths and more shifts per kill...sometimes 20 and 25 seconds...some teams that hang around, like Winnipeg, their guys haaaaannnnnggggg around...a little bit longer shift lengths, fewer shifts...

 

[Sentinel]

You are supposing Ovechkin and McDavid are not trying their hardest the rest of the time. Also, you are supposing by simply wanting to be consider the best they can score more, by sheer effort. I think these supposition are questionable.

And you are supposing they don't want be #1. I find this assertion a lot more dubious than mine.

 

[Sentinel]

I'm sure they want to be #1. But I would really hope they want to win games, first and foremost. Whether or not one scored a goal in the 82nd regular season game might be personally important to them, but regardless, that one goal has no value beyond helping their team win the 82nd game. If they enter game 82 tied at 49 goals and Ovechkin goes scoreless but the Capitals win and clinch a playoff spot, while McDavid gets a goal but the Oilers lose 4-3 a miss the playoffs by one point, the Rocket Richard trophy is of little consolation. And surely Ovechkin's runner-up season will be held in higher esteem than, oh let's say, his 1st place season where he went -35 on a 90-point team and missed the playoffs.

Sure, team results matter to them. At least they sell this viewpoint in every interview and press release. But they also want to be the best. Individually. Pride.

Would McD trade his Art Ross for a chance to compete in playoffs? Most likely. But if five years from now he wins the Cup, you bet that Art Ross in hindsight will feel a lot sweeter than another playoffs when his team was bounced in the first round.

League-wide scoring averages are not influenced by one player's goal total to any meaningful degree. If Ovechkin gets 50 and a dozen other players get 50+, then it will probably be viewed differently. One other player getting either 49 or 51 doesn't reveal any clues about the scoring environment.

That's exactly my point. Player's individual achievements have almost no bearings on the league averages (which are, of course, beyond their control), yet we judge them fully taking those averages into account.

 

[Canadiens1958]

I would wager (haven't looked that far into the league totals) that there were fewer penalties. Players got away with a ton more on the ice.

@Canadiens1958 can probably chime in on this before I even get the league averages.

50-70 games schedule produces fewer PIMs than 82 game schedules.

Coincidental penalties are a second half 1960s innovation.

The introduction of the center Red Line opened up the game and changed refereeing from two to three man crews. Also produced more obstruction and getting beat penalties. Elbowing and kneeing known as the Ted Lindsay penalties were introduced in the late 1940s.

Accounting of ejection PIMs changed over the years.

 

[MXD]

So winning the Art Ross is... very important?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Missing a shot in the shootout is caused by the goaltender's postioning (or bad ice).

Missed shots in regulation are often caused by defensive player's postioning.

Time to take a shot is the difference. No shooter is rushed in the shoot-out.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Makes you wonder how coaches ran their power plays back then. If anything, I would expect the 50's Habs to have higher percentages. When was the rule introduced where a penalized player left the box after a goal was scored? The Habs often scored two or three times during a two-minute power play leading up to that rule change.

1956-57 season.

Often as under 10 times a season. Red Wings about the same.

Canadiens PP scoring went up after the rule change as did other teams most of the time.

 

[Michael Farkas]

So winning the Art Ross is... very important?

Yes, but finishing 2nd means jack squat...

"If you're not first, you're last" to piggy back on seventies point...

 

[seventieslord]

Power Play Points by Percentage:

All numbers taken from NHL.com

Name	PPP	TP	PP%
Gretzky	890	2857	31.1
Orr	324	915	35.4
Howe	564	1850	30.5
Lemieux	701	1723	40.7
Bo. Hull	324	1170	27.7
D. Harvey	232	540	43.0
Beliveau	442	1219	36.3
M. Richard	254	966	26.3
Bourque	761	1579	48.2
Lidstrom	590	1142	51.7
Crosby	415	1123	37.0
Messier	581	1887	30.8
Kelly*	232	823	28.2
Mikita	462	1467	31.5
Potvin	459	1052	43.6
Esposito	549	1590	34.5
Ovechkin	443	1135	39.0
Robinson	309	958	32.2
Lafleur	420	1353	31.0
Jagr	610	1921	31.8
Trottier	423	1425	29.7
Clarke	333	1210	27.5
Lindsay	218	851	25.6
Sakic	631	1641	38.4
Bossy	378	1126	33.6
Yzerman	595	1755	33.9
H. Richard	162	1046	15.5

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Working my way down the old all time lists. I have more, just haven't transferred them yet. Will hopefully have 100 names by the end of the week uploaded.

I'd just like to say....anyone who doesn't have Henri Richard in your top 50. Over 1000 career points and only 15% came on the PP. I haven't seen anyone come remotely close to that thus far. Another gentlemen I hope gets his due with this project!

Edit: BTW, power play stats go back to the 33-34 season. So anyone who had playing time before that will not be included for obvious reasons.

I think this is useful to consider, because I think primarily we should value players who are able to perform at a high level at even-strength, but I believe that what constitutes low, average, and high ratio of power-play points has probably changed over the years, so we would not be able to just compare Bobby Hull's percentage to ovechkin's percentage without some sort of era adjustment.

 

[ImporterExporter]

I think this is useful to consider, because I think primarily we should value players who are able to perform at a high level at even-strength, but I believe that what constitutes low, average, and high ratio of power-play points has probably changed over the years, so we would not be able to just compare Bobby Hull's percentage to ovechkin's percentage without some sort of era adjustment.

Agreed.

And that's where folks like HO, overpass and others may come in....I actually enjoy doing the data collection, but advanced math is not my forte haha. I think once I have the final list we can at least see how groups of players from each decade (40's to present day) fared. It would still be cool to have some sort of formula drawn up that adjusts for era, depending on the information available of course.

 

[seventieslord]

As per wikipedia

"
In hockey's formative years, teams were shorthanded for the entire length of a minor penalty. The NHL changed this rule following the 1955–56 season where the Montreal Canadiens frequently scored multiple goals on one power play. Most famous was a game on November 5, 1955, when Jean Béliveau scored three goals in 44 seconds, all on the same power play, in a 4–2 victory over the Boston Bruins.[5]"

They had 66 power-play goals that year, a lot, but not even one per game, in a time when they would have had multiple power plays per game. So although I'm sure it happened a few times, it was clearly not that common

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

Ranking point system reflects the way the game is played.

Your Doug Bentley abstraction does not reflect voting patterns in reality. Combine the various projects to date and find a similar voting pattern as your abstraction. Skeptical that you will.

Sequitur=non. I was able to absorb that "70s" was referring to the initial lists and not the subsequent phases of balloting.

Let's see, how can I phrase this in a more syntactically familiar manner...

Nomination process vs. voting process dichotomy.
Round 1 as opposed to Round 2 distinction should have been made, but wasn't.

[But seriously, folks]- one would have to be behind the GameMaster screen to see if the nomination process is apt to run into real-life difficulties similar to the hypothetical one used in seventieslord's illustration.

Probably an issue for future projects, but (for the record) I agree with the idea of a fixed baseline of points in Round One.

 

[seventieslord]

Actually, I was more asking for the PP% than for where you had him in your rankings

... But it does align with my supposition that Richard and Lindsay being so low isn't so much about because how little PP mattered in their respective production, but also about the era in which they played.

...I see you were well ahead of me here

 

[seventieslord]

Yes, but finishing 2nd means jack squat...

"If you're not first, you're last" to piggy back on seventies point...

So, I guess, buckle up when Ovechkin wins his 8th goal title...?

 

[seventieslord]

Agreed.

And that's where folks like HO, overpass and others may come in....I actually enjoy doing the data collection, but advanced math is not my forte haha. I think once I have the final list we can at least see how groups of players from each decade (40's to present day) fared. It would still be cool to have some sort of formula drawn up that adjusts for era, depending on the information available of course.

it may be as simple as tallying up all the power Play goals and looking at what percentage of total goals were scored on the power play, but even better, we should probably go deeper and maybe look at the top five players on each team and see what percentage of power-play goals were scored by those players.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Has to be viewed in the light of PP personnel as well...Detroit ran 5 forwards on the power play often in the early to mid 60's to compensate for the lack of d-men they had that were talented with the puck (Marcel Pronovost was not...Bill Gadsby was pretty good and he had a cannon...) and because they had a wealth of more talented forwards - if you go back and watch games, you often see Alex Delvecchio play the point and I believe Norm Ullman spends a bunch of time back there as well...

Rather than make two reasonably effective or better units...they just loaded up with bazooka.

I'd bet that's reflected in power play distribution forwards vs defense on those Detroit teams...

Seemed effective...1960 to 1965 (the span where I saw this most on film), the Red Wings had the 2nd most power play goals in the NHL in that span (Montreal) and the least amount of shorthanded goals allowed...

As a player Sid Abel joined the Red Wings during the1938-39 season when the team favoured the five forward PP.

1960s as coach he had a top heavy forward roster with poor forward depth.

Running a 5 forward PP allowed him to prop his depth forwards, possible next two post PP shifts with solid pairings.

 

[Canadiens1958]

And you are supposing they don't want be #1. I find this assertion a lot more dubious than mine.

Ovi celebrations through the summer post his first SC surpassed his celebrations for all his individual honours.

Actions speak louder than words or opinions.

 

[MXD]

Agreed.

And that's where folks like HO, overpass and others may come in....I actually enjoy doing the data collection, but advanced math is not my forte haha. I think once I have the final list we can at least see how groups of players from each decade (40's to present day) fared. It would still be cool to have some sort of formula drawn up that adjusts for era, depending on the information available of course.

To be honest... Your table is extremely useful, both for general knowledge (because I didn't know beforehand what I figured out by looking at your numbers) and for the topic at hand; I mean, it is absolutely useful to know that Sakic was quite a bit more PP reliant than Jagr.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Yes, but finishing 2nd means jack squat...

"If you're not first, you're last" to piggy back on seventies point...

2nd means best loser.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Yes, but finishing 2nd means jack squat...

"If you're not first, you're last" to piggy back on seventies point...

Which may be why I value a few very high peak seasons a bit more that a lot of very-good-but-not-the-best seasons.