Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 3

[ImporterExporter]

Do you have the chart for the special teams usage by chance?

Here you are sir.

Special teams roles - 1960-2017

 

[seventieslord]

Isn't there at least one defensive performance stat which also shows Bourque was at the very least close to effective (if not actually better) as Lidstrom in his own zone? Seems like I've seen it cited several times in the past few years. Something along the lines of goals against or adjusted goals against while on the ice. If someone has quick access to such a stat and could post it for these three, that might help complete the picture.

If I'm remembering the stat correctly it basically showed that Bourque was much closer to Lidstrom's level of defense than Lidstrom was to Bourque's level of offense. Which I think many already suspected, but this just gave some numerical credence to it.

Taking everything into consideration, I think Bourque is the clear best of this trio. He's not massively superior in any particular area, but it's one of those death by a thousand cuts situations, where his strengths are just a little bit stronger across the board, and his weaknesses just a little less weak. If you're a pure peak type of voter, you could go with Potvin over Bourque. Or if you're super high on comparing a player to his direct peers (e.g. Norris trophy counting) you could go with Lidstrom over Bourque. Finally, those super high on team success (Cup counters), you could go with both Potvin or Lidstrom over Bourque. But I suspect for most, Bourque should be a narrow, but decisive, choice for the highest placement amongst the three.

As between Potvin and Lidstrom, that would seem to depend entirely upon how much you weigh peak versus longevity. Potvin clearly has the peak, Lidstrom clearly has the longevity. The majority appears to believe that Lidstrom's peak is closer to Potvin's than Potvin's longevity is to Lidstrom's, so Lidstrom gets the nod. Not that I'm a voter, but that's where I'm currently at.

Actually, good point. This can be estimated. Overpass' adjusted stats sheet would show us each player's adjusted Esga total per season, and then from there we'd just have to divide by their estimated (or known) total even strength ice time. I'll get back to you guys.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Isn't there at least one defensive performance stat which also shows Bourque was at the very least close to effective (if not actually better) as Lidstrom in his own zone? Seems like I've seen it cited several times in the past few years. Something along the lines of goals against or adjusted goals against while on the ice. If someone has quick access to such a stat and could post it for these three, that might help complete the picture

I think you’re referring to one of my old posts. Adjusted for era, Bourque and Lidstrom were on the ice for almost exactly the same number of goals against per game, both at ES and on the PK. Will see if I can dig that up tomorrow.

 

[overg]

I think you’re referring to one of my old posts. Adjusted for era, Bourque and Lidstrom were on the ice for almost exactly the same number of goals against per game, both at ES and on the PK. Will see if I can dig that up tomorrow.

Thanks both Hockey Outsider and Seventieslord. This was one of those cases where I think the eye test (Lidstrom appeared more consistent or steady on defense) didn't quite reflect their actual effectiveness. Or at the very least, the gap wasn't quite as large as it might have appeared just from watching these particular players play. And least, that was my take when I saw the stats.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Don't forget Brad McCrimmon, who was there to influence Lidstrom at the start of his career. Or Paul Coffey, who I think had a massive influence on how Lidstrom ran a power play. Lidstrom just had an embarassment of riches of older great defensemen to to learn from. To his credit, he took those lessons to heart and surpassed them all.

lidstrom: mccrimmon, mark howe, coffey, later fetisov

bourque: brad park

potvin: [crickets]

that al arbour was a hell of a coach

 

[overg]

lidstrom: mccrimmon, mark howe, coffey, later fetisov

bourque: brad park

potvin: [crickets]

that al arbour was a hell of a coach

Park was actually on Detroit for Lidstrom's early years too. Old helmet-less had some staying power.

 

[Captain Bowie]

Park was actually on Detroit for Lidstrom's early years too. Old helmet-less had some staying power.

No he wasn't. Retired in '85.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Park was actually on Detroit for Lidstrom's early years too. Old helmet-less had some staying power.

Park retired in 1985:

Brad Park Stats | Hockey-Reference.com

 

[MXD]

Park was actually on Detroit for Lidstrom's early years too. Old helmet-less had some staying power.

No he wasn't. Retired in '85.

... @overg , did you just confuse Brad Park and Brad Marsh...?!?!?!

 

[overg]

Park retired in 1985:

Brad Park Stats | Hockey-Reference.com

So you're telling me Brad Park and Brad Marsh are two different players?

This folks, is why I don't vote on these things. Yikes, that one was rough. In my minisculey small defense, I was actually looking at Marsh's wiki page earlier today, so I had him on the brain. Admittedly, that's less of a defense than you'd find in a typical Phil Housley shift. Bed time for me.

 

[seventieslord]

My goodness, I thought he was joking. This is much better.

 

[Czech Your Math]

Regarding Jagr - yes he played well in 91 and 92 but this was all about Lemieux. Is Jagr the highest profile player in the history of the game without a truly heroic individual playoff run? He might be, and that matters imo. I agree we shouldn't discount 91 and 92 - they absolutely count for him. But how great were his contributions to those 2 cups vs say....Messier's contributions in a Gretzky-led edmonton? Lesser. Jagr was less important than Beliveau/Richard/Harvey in most of their cups too, I expect. So he should get merit for it but it was also great timing/fortune to be on such a good team (with Lemieux). Other players who are getting a bump for playing on dynasties so far contributed to those dynasties probably more than a rookie Jagr did in Pitt.

In Mario's first 6 seasons, the Pens made the playoffs once and won one playoff series. The 1991 Pens had no real track record of success. In the playoffs, they started at home and lost game 1 to New Jersey. Game 2 went to overtime, where Jagr scored to even the series. Who knows what happens if they go back to Jersey for three games down 0-2?

In 1992 it was Jagr, along with Francis, that carried them after Mario was injured vs. Messier's Rangers. Besides leading the playoffs with 9 ES goals, Jagr packed a lot of big moments into one playoff season (bolded are GWG, underlined are goals to give team lead that's never relinquished):

First round vs. Caps (tied for 2nd in NHL with 98 points) [Jagr 7-3-4-7]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Game 3 (down 0-2): Scored goal in middle of 2nd period to give Pens 3-2 lead they would never relinquish (won 6-4).
Game 5 (down 1-3): 1st assist on Errey's goal to tie game 2-2 in middle of 2nd. Scored unassisted goal to make it 4-2 early in 3rd (won 5-2).
Game 6 (down 2-3): 1st assist on Lemieux's goal to give Pens 5-4 lead late in 2nd (won 6-4).
Game 7: Scored goal in middle of 2nd period to give Pens 2-1 lead (won 3-1).

Second round vs. Rangers (led NHL with 105 points) [Jagr 6-3-4-7]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Game 1: 1st assist on Murphy's goal to give Pens 2-0 lead late in 1st period (won 4-2).
Game 4 (down 1-2): First assist on Loney's goal to tie game 4-4 in middle of 3rd period (won 5-4 in OT).
Game 5 (tied 2-2): Scored goal on penalty shot to give Pens 2-0 lead in 1st period. Scored goal to give Pens 3-2 lead late in 3rd period (won 3-2).
Game 6: Scored unassisted goal in middle of 2nd period to give Pens 2-1 lead they would never relinquish (won 5-1, 2 were EN goals).

ECF vs. Bowman's Bruins [Jagr 4-3-5-8]
------------------------------------------------
Game 1: Still without Lemieux, scored goal in OT for 4-3 Pens win.
Game 2: Assisted on Loney's goal to tie game 1-1 in 1st period. Scored goal late in 1st period to give Pens 2-1 lead they would never relinquish (won 5-2, one EN goal).
Game 3: Assisted on Steven's goal to give Pens 1-0 lead in 1st period they would never relinquish (won 5-1).
Game 4: Scored goal in 1st period to give Pens 1-0 lead they would never relinquish.

SCF vs. Chicago (had won 11 consecutive PO games entering SCF) [Jagr 4-2-0-2]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Game 1: Scored goal to tie game 4-4 late in 3rd period (won 5-4).
Game 4: Scored first goal of game in 1st period (won 6-5).

I believe Jagr's 1992 playoffs were actually great, especially given the circumstances (age 20, second NHL season, Lemieux missing for 6+ games) and competiton (top 2 teams in RS points, another team that won 11 straight PO games). He scored 4 GWG, including 3 consecutive, and these were all big games: Game 7 vs. Caps, games 5 & 6 vs. Rangers (tied 2-2 and clincher to avoid game 7), and game 1 vs. Bruins. Seven of his goals gave the team the lead for good, including the 4 GWGs and his goal in game 3 vs. Caps (to avoid going down 0-3).

I don't necessarily blame Jagr for the lag of a truly heroic individual playoff run - it's a team sport after all. But it's still net positive for those players who have those (and most in this round do).

Besides '92, which I believe was a heroic individual playoff run for Jagr, I agree he never had an epic run. However, that was due to his weak teams, not the strength of his playoff performances. I think Jagr's playoff greatness is somewhat obscured, not only by his consistently weak teams, but by him playing so many playoff games when he was before or after his prime. I'm not talking about his playoff peak from '95 to '00, but his playoff prime (which I would consider ~'92-'08).

I see Hockey Outsider presented some individual playoff season data for some players. It would be great to see that in more detail (all seasons, whether individually or combined in blocks of seasons), at least for the more recent skaters. In absence of that, for illustration purposes, I will use a ballpark measure of Team Plus-Minus Without/Off of TPM Without Y = [ (Sum of all individual plus-minus) - (5 * player Y plus-minus) ] / 5. For example, in 2017 playoffs Crosby was +4 and the team summed to +77, so Crosby Off = [ 77 - (4 * 5) ] / 5 = (77-20)/5 = 57/5 = 11.4

PLAYOFFS
--------------
PRIMES
Ovechkin career: 121-61-56-117 (0.97 PPG) +13 on teams that were +7 without him
Crosby career: 160-66-119-179 (1.16 PPG) +22 on teams that was +17 without him
Jagr 1992-2008: 145-74-94-168 (1.16 PPG) +36 on teams that were (-41) without him

What stands out to me are two things: First, Ovechkin's PPG is ~0.19 behind that of Crosby & Jagr. One could argue that Ovechkin's goal scoring bridges some of this gap, but not in the case of Jagr, who actually had a higher GPG. Second, while Crosby & Ovechkin's plus-minus data are somewhat above average in comparison to their teams (one would expect at least as much of superstars), Jagr has much stronger plus-minus data (before comparing to team) on much, much weaker teams. To put it in per-game terms: Ovechkin was ~ +0.11/game while his teams were ~ +0.06/game without him. Crosby was ~ +0.14/game while his teams were ~ +0.12/game without him. Jagr was +0.25/game while his teams were ~ (-0.28)/game without him. The difference in value was quite substantial.

Some give credence to media narratives and elections, but I give credence to substantive data, and the data speaks volumes in regards to these players' respective playoff performances.

 

[ted2019]

I don't know what you are trying to prove but I think that I know Larry Robinson very well since he is my all time favorite Montreal Canadiens defenseman by the way.

Learn how to read a bit before answering. I said that Robinson did everything above board while the other fella didn't.

 

[ted2019]

Here you are sir.

Special teams roles - 1960-2017

Kudos for posting this!!

 

[seventieslord]

Bourque vs. Lidstrom defensively - a numbers-based assessment

- Used the TOI estimates (1967-2006) sheet to get a "total ESTOI" number for Bourque and Lidstrom each season (using known numbers post-98, of course)
- Used historical PPO data to estimate to the best of my ability, total special teams time played by teams in each season, meaning the rest was ES time (used known post-2000 data as a guide)
- This number averaged 7.2 per special team from 1980-2011, with a high of 8.2 and a low of 6.2
- Using this information, was able to estimate the total ES minutes played by their teams in each season without them on the ice (including games they missed)
- Calculated the team's GA/60 and the player's GA/60.
- These numbers are just like R-on and R-off except they completely ignore goals for
- Divided player's GA-on by the team's GA-off... these are the yearly results. A lower ratio is better.

1980	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.28	3.16	0.72
1981	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.19	3.26	0.67
1982	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	3.29	3.74	0.88
1983	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.02	3.07	0.66
1984	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.49	3.71	0.67
1985	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.85	3.97	0.72
1986	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	3.12	3.02	1.03
1987	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.41	4.48	0.54
1988	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.84	2.99	0.95
1989	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.63	3.47	0.76
1990	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.39	3.34	0.71
1991	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.59	3.63	0.71
1992	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.57	3.70	0.70
1993	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.55	3.44	0.74
1994	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.50	3.23	0.77
1995	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.27	3.02	0.75
1996	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.68	3.44	0.78
1997	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	3.86	3.72	1.04
1998	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.07	2.54	0.81
1999	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.17	2.27	0.95
2000	k	COL	BOURQUE, RAY	2.48	2.15	0.75
2001	0	COL	BOURQUE, RAY	1.95	1.97	0.99
1992	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.34	3.20	0.73
1993	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	3.17	3.04	1.04
1994	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.98	3.04	0.98
1995	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.21	2.27	0.98
1996	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.08	2.00	1.04
1997	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.07	2.39	0.87
1998	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.10	2.24	0.94
1999	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.60	2.29	1.13
2000	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.61	2.53	1.03
2001	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.69	1.97	1.36
2002	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.37	1.99	1.19
2003	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.21	2.43	0.91
2004	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.05	2.48	0.83
2006	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.34	2.01	1.17
2007	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	1.70	2.10	0.81
2008	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	1.72	1.93	0.89
2009	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.19	2.81	0.78
2010	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.21	2.71	0.82
2011	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.86	2.64	1.08
2012	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	1.75	2.33	0.75

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Based on this, it appears that Bourque always lowered his team's goals against while on the ice. The exceptions were 1986 and 1997, when he was just barely higher than the team average. His best marks were 54%, 66%, 67%, 67% and 70%. Lidstrom had eight seasons where his personal GAA was higher than the team's, most notably 2001. His best marks are 73%, 75%, 78%, 81% and 82%. Interestingly, his best marks are in his first and last seasons, probably indicating that usage has something to do with it (i.e. less hard-matching against the opposition's best helps your GA stats).

However, it is harder to beat Detroit's off-ice results than Boston's, typically. So if we just go by era-adjusted numbers, this is what we get:

1980	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	1.87
1981	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	1.74
1982	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.42
1983	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	1.55
1984	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	1.90
1985	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.19
1986	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.44
1987	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.01
1988	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.54
1989	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.28
1990	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.02
1991	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.34
1992	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.38
1993	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.30
1994	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.50
1995	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.37
1996	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.80
1997	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	3.99
1998	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.50
1999	0	BOS	BOURQUE, RAY	2.58
2000	k	COL	BOURQUE, RAY	2.72
2001	0	COL	BOURQUE, RAY	2.27
1992	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.17
1993	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.85
1994	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.97
1995	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.31
1996	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.18
1997	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.14
1998	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.53
1999	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	3.10
2000	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.87
2001	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	3.14
2002	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.77
2003	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.64
2004	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.54
2006	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.76
2007	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	1.94
2008	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.02
2009	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.44
2010	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	2.41
2011	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	3.12
2012	0	DET	LIDSTROM, NICKLAS	1.90

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Bourque's career average is roughly 2.35. Lidstrom's is roughly 2.54.

Bourque's best are 1.55, 1.74, 1.87, 1.90 and 2.01. Lidstrom's best are 1.90, 1.94, 2.02, 2.14 and 2.17.

If there are any glaring issues with these calculations as described, please bring them to my attention. I will do my best to account for them.

One thing that does bother me a little, is that overpass' adjusted numbers apparently inflate post-93 numbers (relative to 80-92) a little more than anyone is completely comfortable with. This would mean that Lidstrom's goals against figures are inflated more than they need to be. While overpass' adjustments are mathematically sound, IIRC there has been some talk in the past about why they come out looking the way they do and what kind of mental adjustments may need to be made to these kinds of numbers. I estimate it to be as much as 10%, which could put Lidstrom ever-so-slightly ahead of Bourque by this metric, though they'd be within the margin of error. Note that this concern does not apply to the first table (which uses raw numbers in each individual season), only the second table (which uses era-adjusted numbers).

 

[Canadiens1958]

In Mario's first 6 seasons, the Pens made the playoffs once and won one playoff series. The 1991 Pens had no real track record of success. In the playoffs, they started at home and lost game 1 to New Jersey. Game 2 went to overtime, where Jagr scored to even the series. Who knows what happens if they go back to Jersey for three games down 0-2?

In 1992 it was Jagr, along with Francis, that carried them after Mario was injured vs. Messier's Rangers. Besides leading the playoffs with 9 ES goals, Jagr packed a lot of big moments into one playoff season (bolded are GWG, underlined are goals to give team lead that's never relinquished):

First round vs. Caps (tied for 2nd in NHL with 98 points) [Jagr 7-3-4-7]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Game 3 (down 0-2): Scored goal in middle of 2nd period to give Pens 3-2 lead they would never relinquish (won 6-4).
Game 5 (down 1-3): 1st assist on Errey's goal to tie game 2-2 in middle of 2nd. Scored unassisted goal to make it 4-2 early in 3rd (won 5-2).
Game 6 (down 2-3): 1st assist on Lemieux's goal to give Pens 5-4 lead late in 2nd (won 6-4).
Game 7: Scored goal in middle of 2nd period to give Pens 2-1 lead (won 3-1).

Second round vs. Rangers (led NHL with 105 points) [Jagr 6-3-4-7]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Game 1: 1st assist on Murphy's goal to give Pens 2-0 lead late in 1st period (won 4-2).
Game 4 (down 1-2): First assist on Loney's goal to tie game 4-4 in middle of 3rd period (won 5-4 in OT).
Game 5 (tied 2-2): Scored goal on penalty shot to give Pens 2-0 lead in 1st period. Scored goal to give Pens 3-2 lead late in 3rd period (won 3-2).
Game 6: Scored unassisted goal in middle of 2nd period to give Pens 2-1 lead they would never relinquish (won 5-1, 2 were EN goals).

ECF vs. Bowman's Bruins [Jagr 4-3-5-8]
------------------------------------------------
Game 1: Still without Lemieux, scored goal in OT for 4-3 Pens win.
Game 2: Assisted on Loney's goal to tie game 1-1 in 1st period. Scored goal late in 1st period to give Pens 2-1 lead they would never relinquish (won 5-2, one EN goal).
Game 3: Assisted on Steven's goal to give Pens 1-0 lead in 1st period they would never relinquish (won 5-1).
Game 4: Scored goal in 1st period to give Pens 1-0 lead they would never relinquish.

SCF vs. Chicago (had won 11 consecutive PO games entering SCF) [Jagr 4-2-0-2]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Game 1: Scored goal to tie game 4-4 late in 3rd period (won 5-4).
Game 4: Scored first goal of game in 1st period (won 6-5).

I believe Jagr's 1992 playoffs were actually great, especially given the circumstances (age 20, second NHL season, Lemieux missing for 6+ games) and competiton (top 2 teams in RS points, another team that won 11 straight PO games). He scored 4 GWG, including 3 consecutive, and these were all big games: Game 7 vs. Caps, games 5 & 6 vs. Rangers (tied 2-2 and clincher to avoid game 7), and game 1 vs. Bruins. Seven of his goals gave the team the lead for good, including the 4 GWGs and his goal in game 3 vs. Caps (to avoid going down 0-3).



Besides '92, which I believe was a heroic individual playoff run for Jagr, I agree he never had an epic run. However, that was due to his weak teams, not the strength of his playoff performances. I think Jagr's playoff greatness is somewhat obscured, not only by his consistently weak teams, but by him playing so many playoff games when he was before or after his prime. I'm not talking about his playoff peak from '95 to '00, but his playoff prime (which I would consider ~'92-'08).

I see Hockey Outsider presented some individual playoff season data for some players. It would be great to see that in more detail (all seasons, whether individually or combined in blocks of seasons), at least for the more recent skaters. In absence of that, for illustration purposes, I will use a ballpark measure of Team Plus-Minus Without/Off of TPM Without Y = [ (Sum of all individual plus-minus) - (5 * player Y plus-minus) ] / 5. For example, in 2017 playoffs Crosby was +4 and the team summed to +77, so Crosby Off = [ 77 - (4 * 5) ] / 5 = (77-20)/5 = 57/5 = 11.4

PLAYOFFS
--------------
PRIMES
Ovechkin career: 121-61-56-117 (0.97 PPG) +13 on teams that were +7 without him
Crosby career: 160-66-119-179 (1.16 PPG) +22 on teams that was +17 without him
Jagr 1992-2008: 145-74-94-168 (1.16 PPG) +36 on teams that were (-41) without him

What stands out to me are two things: First, Ovechkin's PPG is ~0.19 behind that of Crosby & Jagr. One could argue that Ovechkin's goal scoring bridges some of this gap, but not in the case of Jagr, who actually had a higher GPG. Second, while Crosby & Ovechkin's plus-minus data are somewhat above average in comparison to their teams (one would expect at least as much of superstars), Jagr has much stronger plus-minus data (before comparing to team) on much, much weaker teams. To put it in per-game terms: Ovechkin was ~ +0.11/game while his teams were ~ +0.06/game without him. Crosby was ~ +0.14/game while his teams were ~ +0.12/game without him. Jagr was +0.25/game while his teams were ~ (-0.28)/game without him. The difference in value was quite substantial.

Some give credence to media narratives and elections, but I give credence to substantive data, and the data speaks volumes in regards to these players' respective playoff performances.

Check the two bolded. 1991 playoffs count for Jagr or they do not. Cannot have it both ways.

 

[Czech Your Math]

uhhh, yeah, and it's not by a small margin, either. He was 32% better than an average superstar (let's say the rest of the top-10 are average superstars). Jagr was 23% better. That's not insignificant.

I believe there is limited value in both running a query report over X (esp. where X is relatively large) number of seasons and using PPG as the metric. If one wants to give Crosby credit for his high PPG in 3 consecutive seasons of 41 or fewer games played, then there are other methods. One could use VsX data, although I find that to be a rather arbitrary metric (I think it's best use may be comparing scorers of pre-expansion and immediate post-expansion to those scorers from the mid-70s to present).

I will use an objective metric, let's call it Vs1N, where N is the number of teams in the league. 1N is the average number of points scored by the top 1N scorers of that season (so if 30 teams, the top 30 scorers). While I don't favor strictly PPG metrics for the regular season, we will adjust for injury in this study. So if 1N is 80 and player Y scores 56 points in 40 games, he will have score of 0.70 or 70% Vs1N in 40 games (but still a 1.75 or 175% "pace" of Vs1N). We then sum each of Vs1N and games, then divide the sum of Vs1N by games to get the cumulative PPG Vs1N.

Here is what I calculated for Crosby, Ovechkin and Jagr:

PRIME
Ovechkin 2006-2018: 1,003 games 1.13 (113%)
Crosby 2006-2018: 864 games 1.31 (131%)
Jagr 1994-2007: 961 games 1.32 (132%)

Ovechkin trails by a large margin by this metric in prime. Jagr and Crosby are neck and neck, but Jagr played 97 more games and also lost '04-'05 season due to lockout (all 3 each had one shortened season due to lockout).

PEAK
Ovechkin 2008-2010: 233 games 1.39 (139%)
Crosby 2007-2014: 469 games 1.41 (141%)
Jagr 1995-2001: 496 games 1.49 (149%)

Crosby edges Ovechkin while his span is over twice as many games. Jagr has a significant edge over Crosby while playing more games (in one fewer season).

Enough PPG and "pace", let's look at actual full seasons of production. These are the best seasons among the 3:

1999 Jagr 154%
1996 Jagr 143%
2001 Jagr 140%
2014 Crosby 139%
2006 Jagr 134%
2008 Ovechkin 133%
2007 Crosby 132%
1995 Jagr 132%
2010 Ovechkin 131%
2010 Crosby 131%
2009 Ovechkin 131%
1998 Jagr 131%
2000 Jagr 123%
2009 Crosby 122%
2016 Crosby 117%
2013 Ovechkin 117%
2013 Crosby 117%
2015 Crosby 116%
2006 Ovechkin 116%
2015 Ovechkin 112%

Best 3Yr 5Yr 7Yr 10Yr 12Yr
------------------------------------------------
Cros 1.34 1.29 1.25 1.21 1.15
Jagr 1.45 1.40 1.37 1.28 1.23
Ovy 1.31 1.25 1.21 1.16 1.12

Jagr was clearly the best offensive player, whether looking at peak or prime, although Crosby almost salvages a draw in prime PPG. Before we bid adieu to pure offense, we should address Jagr winning the Ross 5 times and finishing second twice. First, the two times he finished second were by 29 (Sakic in '96) and 17 (Ovechkin in '06) over third place. Also, the winners those years were Lemieux in '96 and Thornton in '06 (at time of trade, Sharks had two more games remaining than Bruins). I wouldn't exactly put those second place finishes on par with finishing second or third behind Sedin, Benn or Tavares, with the likes of Voracek, Marchand, Karlsson or age 36 Thornton breathing down your neck. Let's be reality and recognize that peak Jagr would leave those players behind like Usain Bolt did in the second half of a race.

It's not only about offense, but that's generally where the discussion starts when comparing superstar forwards.
However, Jagr also fares well in just about every area besides pure offense:

* I believe he's the career leader among forwards in adjusted plus-minus, a testament to his incredible offensive skills and possession work. Some don't understand adjusted plus-minus or will scoff at data with remarks like "that's easy to do on a bad team." Well, for one, Lemieux played on a lot of bad teams before Jagr arrive and after he left (along with some of the same teams of varying quality which they played on together), and I don't see his name anywhere near the top. Also, you will sometimes find players consistently on really bad teams with really good adjusted plus-minus, but those players will tend to have rather poor playoff production (in large part, because they are always on such bad teams that almost always face much better teams in the playoffs). See players like Thornton, Selanne/Kariya, Dionne, etc. as examples. What you very rarely see is a forward with great adjusted plus-minus and great playoff numbers. How many forwards were elite offensively and in terms of adjusted plus-minus in both the regular season and playoffs? Very, very few. Gretzky, Jagr, Forsberg... not many, if any, others.

* Clutch performance. I previously detailed the many big goals Jagr scored in '92 playoffs, and most should remember his huge games 6 & 7 coming back from major injury to knock off #1 seed New Jersey in '99. Jagr stands out in just about every metric of important goals: first goal of game, GWG, OT goals, playoff GWG, playoff OT goals. I'm sure he would do well in third period goals as well. It's difficult to define "clutch," but he definitely wasn't a player just padding big leads or scoring meaningless goals in lopsided losses.

* Impact on team performance. One way this was shown was when he missed 19 games in each of '97 & '99. His teams had points %s of .512 & .537 with him, and .342 & .447 without him. That sort of stark contrast is not common. I've looked at some other players and the only skaters with impacts in that range were Messier & Mario. Obviously, a lot of players didn't miss enough time during their prime for a meaningful sample (Gretzky, Bourque, Lidstrom, Ovechkin, etc.), but players like Yzerman, Lindros, Sakic, Forsberg, Crosby, Malkin, etc. had nothing near that difference in team performance with vs. without them playing. And while I'm not attributing it all to Jagr, it's not pure coincidence that the Pens made the playoffs once in Mario's first 6 seasons, each of Jagr's 11 seasons as a Pen, and then as soon as he left became a league doormat. The Caps continued their woes during and immediately after Jagr's brief stay there, but he led a Rangers team that hadn't made the playoffs since '97 to three consecutive playoffs and won two series. The three years after his departure, they made the playoffs twice and failed to win a single playoff series.

You sure about that? I would say he's the been the best player since Lemieux, and without a doubt best player of his generation, but if we're talking about literal star power then there's one player who probably has him beat. Let's be real here, what gives Maurice Richard star power over Jean Beliveau is exactly what gives Ovechkin star power over Crosby.

I find is strange that "star power" is a consideration, let alone a major factor, to the participants. At least I can understand why many put much importance on team success and the voting of inebriated, unfocused media, even if I don't, but "star power"?!? I would expect the opposite of such a project.

 

[A Higher League]

Adjusted plus/minus per game*100

1. Orr 76.86. 7. Bourque 31.51
2. Lindros 39.21 8. G Howe 30.8
3. Bossy 36.33. 9. Jagr 30.9
4. M Howe 35.52 10. Datsyuk 27.97
5. Mario 34.86 11. Clarke 27.37
6. Crosby 33.75 12. Robinson 26.01

Some others:
Trottier 24.69, Gretzky 24.3, Lafleur 23.44, Mikita 23.18, Lidstrom 21.99, Bobby Hull 19.6, Potvin 22.8, Ovechkin 18.56, Sakic 12.26, Yzerman 8.6, Esposito 9.4, Beliveau 10.1, Messier 6.2,
Crosby looks much better on a per game basis than raw numbers. Clarke blows Messier away, Bourque beats Lidstrom and Potvin handily.

 

[daver]

Let's take a basic look at the most prolific goal and assist getters (no double dipping - this is not a look at Art Ross totals but the two subcomponent performances). It's a glance at the forwards' best individual seasons in goals or assists.

Messier
Assists 2nd, 3rd

Morenz
Goals 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd
Assists 1st, 3rd, 3rd*

Crosby
Goals 1st, 1st
Assists 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd

Mikita
Goals 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd
Assists 1st, 1st, 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd

Ovechkin
Goals 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 3rd, 3rd
Assists zilch elite (best: 6th, 6th)

Jagr
Goals 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd
Assists 1st, 1st, 1st, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd

* please let's ignore 6ths in such a small league when looking at best of the best marginal top 10 all time candidates - heck let's ignore non-top3 for every era even though in bigger leagues a 6th is significant.

CONCLUSION:

Jagr has had the most dominant offensive seasons, Ovechkin goal seasons, Mikita better than Morenz and Crosby, Messier not to be scaled by these metrics in terms of his value, not to any degree.

You obviously feel goals and assists are important, why not include their respective Art Ross placements? Not sure how listing that is double dipping?

All you have done is indicate which players were goalscorers, playmakers or all around offensive forces.

 

[daver]

Thanks for sharing - good, thoughtful comments. One question - how much responsibility does any one player have for the on-ice shooting percentage and save percentage? My guess, given the small samples sizes, is probably not a whole lot - but fundamentally your point is true - a player can play well (or poorly) and have bad luck.

The eye test would show that Crosby was clearly the driver of that line. I think it is not appreciated that in 2016, the HBK line was given the scoring role, not Crosby's line. It was just as important that Crosby's line keep the other team's #1 line from scoring as it was for his line to score. This allowed the Pens to take advantage of their superior depth against the other team's 2nd and 3rd best defensive pairings. Crosby was carrying a line of a 2nd/3rd liner and an AHL callup. Like his performance, and the whole team's for that matter, at the 2014 Olympics, puck possession was the key as the underlying stats show. He also noticeably came up big in key games and moments.

IMO, there seems to to much fixation on Crosby winning this Smythe while it ranks as his 4th best Cup run.

 

[BenchBrawl]

I find is strange that "star power" is a consideration, let alone a major factor, to the participants. At least I can understand why many put much importance on team success and the voting of inebriated, unfocused media, even if I don't, but "star power"?!? I would expect the opposite of such a project.

When I'm talking about "star power", I'm not talking about a player being popular for being funny in interviews, hanging out with Hollywood stars or being a sex symbol.Goons have more of this sort of cheap "star power" than your usual 3rd liners, "star power" which is basically just a popularity contest among drunktards in the crowd.The star power I'm talking about is also about the buzz around the player but it has to come with some substance; how much the media will talk about them and how their peers or managers or coaches or retired players (and the crowd too) will view them and rate them.This sort of constellation of factors wrapped up into one concept of star power.

As an additional note, I believe star power can be attributed retroactively, because time can reveal just how grand someone was, but obviously the seed must have been present in the player's era for it to grow into anything.

Gilbert Perreault is a good example of someone with more star power than a disincarnated and soulless analysis of his numbers would reveal.So eye-witness accounts are always related to star power to some extent.This doesn't mean that the soulless analysis is worthless, but it does mean that there's more to Gilbert Perreault than his numbers.

In a nutshell, star power is a mean to capture what the stats don't, but that the smart and not-so-smart crowd intuitively understands and sees with their eyes."This player has something about him", "this player controls the play more", "this player has more talent", "this player is amazing, been a while since I saw something like this", "this player is clearly better than the rest", "our faith is tied to this player's performance, we need him to win", "this player's performance has me on the edge of my seat", "when the stakes are high, I see that this player tends to deliver more than the rest, so in my soul I have more confidence in him to perform regardless of what happens when the stakes are smaller", etc.

This is not a perfect or exhaustive definition of star power, but those concepts are hard to define satisfactorily.I just wanted to make sure people understood I'm not talking about the cheap preferences of a drunk crowd.

Just as the stats can lie, so can star power.This is why using both is my preferred way to get closer to the "truth".

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

Lidström vs. Crosby- The Largest Possible Stage

It's not too long ago- about a decade, in fact, that two of our nominees, Sidney Crosby & Nicklas Lidström, faced off- back-to-back, on the same sheet of ice, in many cases at the same time, on the largest possible stage- the 2007-2008 & 2008-2009 Stanley Cup Final. From the standpoint of Team Success, they battled to a stalemate... they split. But I was thinking... how often are we going to have nominees where we can make a comparison as direct as this one?!

They were at different points in their careers, those two: Crosby was the 20-21 year-old wunderkind who helped turn everything around for Pittsburgh. Lidström the 37-38 year-old... not exactly at the peak of his powers, but still a highly effective veteran who remained arguably the best in the game at what he did. I don't think it would be too controversial to say they were the best players for their respective teams.

The first series, Crosby (the 20 year old) and his Penguins lost to the better team. Absolutely no shame in that. The very next year, like Yzerman before him, he immediately rinsed the taste out of his mouth with a 4-3 series win. Curiously, Detroit outscored Pittsburgh in that Final, too-- but (as they say) that's not what they pay off on.

Highlights for Crosby in '08: tied for second in the Final in scoring (6 pts, even with Zetterberg and 1 point behind teammate Hossa), +1 with a power-play goal. For Lidström: he was good for 3 points, was a -1 (no PP points) but averaged a freakish 29.75 minutes a game [one of the games was 3-OT]. He played more than a quarter-hour more than the next closest man. [178:27 vs. teammate Rafalski's 162:49.]

The seeds of that victory appear to have been based on that most reliable of formulas, possession and shot-suppression. I have little doubt that, for all of what we might read on the stat-line, Lidström contributed significantly to both.

Now, in the follow-up series, Lidström's stat-line looks better, Crosby's looks worse-- but Crosby prevailed in that stat that counts most. His team won. 2009 Cup final highlights for Lidström: 3 assists, +4, and again lapped the field in ice-time [175:40, well ahead of Gonchar's 158:43]. Crosby, by comparison, was even more "scoreboard-neutralized" than peak Lindros was a dozen years earlier- 3 points in 7 games, -3. Crosby did score a game-winning goal, he was NOT a non-contributor... but one could have reasonably expected more.

I'll say this about Crosby, though- he added some value here, even though it looks he was stymied. Detroit was very effective at snuffing out Plan A, but that allowed Pittsburgh to launch Plan B- a coming-of-age Malkin, who wound up leading everybody in scoring. A dozen years before, when Lidström and Detroit held the Legion of Doom to two goals, total, there was no Plan B, as the Flyers scored NO even-strength goals outside that paltry pair.

And (anachronistically enough), that allows me to circle back to a point I'd like to make about our old-time-Hockey nominee: Howie Morenz. In his back-to-back Cup runs, Morenz was outscored by teammates in the Final... but it's easy for me to see the likelihood of extra attention to him opening up opportunities for said teammates.

 

[sr edler]

I find is strange that "star power" is a consideration, let alone a major factor, to the participants. At least I can understand why many put much importance on team success and the voting of inebriated, unfocused media, even if I don't, but "star power"?!? I would expect the opposite of such a project.

It isn't to me, a major factor. Or even an average factor. I don't even know what it's supposed to mean, honestly. Or, I think it can mean different things. I get what it means in the case of M. Richard, for instance. But if it just means a sexy game and aura/mystique, then I guess I have to be even extra higher on my homeboy.

I think what TDMM and Company are looking for though with "star power" is historical recollections as means to decipher importance in a single player, both in relation to teammates and players on other teams. I think you have to be a bit careful when you do that stuff though because press is press and press can have agendas/favorites too – even over the board.

 

[daver]

I'm not engaging people that come to shill for one or two players. I've addressed this already.

I have made many comments on many other players so far and have not indicated I hate any of the candidates.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I gotta ask that everyone limit their Larry Robinson talk going forward. I know he was in the video intimidating a teenager, but we have 12 candidates and he isn’t one of them.