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

[86Habs]

I don't understand that argument.

Penalties called have ebbed and flowed over the history of the NHL, with PP opportunities spiking in certain seasons (for example, in the seasons immediately after the 2005 lockout). The argument may be that a goal scorer who's able to score at ES could be expected to score in any era, PP opportunities being held equal. That's how I read it, at least.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

How many Dmen had absurd longevity (a la Bourque and Lidstrom)? I mean - Chelios had a random peak at 40 but overall from 36 on he was a much different player than before. Those two might just be kind of random outliers, like Howe or Messier are for forwards.

Lidstrom has no longevity of prime argument over Shore.

 

[Michael Farkas]

As said in the Beliveau discussion...takes proper talent evaluation to decode power play "dependence" and power play excellence...let's not be so quick to confuse the two in this non-essential hypothetical...

 

[The Macho King]

Lidstrom has no longevity of prime argument over Shore.

I mean - Shore was finished as an impact player at 36 while Lidstrom was until 40. Admittedly that's an oversimplification considering era, but Lidstrom was an elite player for 15-17 seasons.

 

[ResilientBeast]

I mean - Shore was finished as an impact player at 36 while Lidstrom was until 40. Admittedly that's an oversimplification considering era, but Lidstrom was an elite player for 15-17 seasons.

Then your point isn't valid

 

[MXD]

Don't want to spend too much time on this- but fortunately, it shouldn't take too long to send the "a-goal-is-a-goal" canard off-to-bed without supper.

Two 60 goal scorers, one is 25% power-play dependent (15 Pwr Play G), and one is 40% power-play dependent (24 Pwr Play G). Now, you're going to The Playoffs, where you KNOW whistles are going to stay in the pockets more. Here, it's not really a close call which player's goal-scoring pattern counts for more.

I understand he was saying that - I just don't get why. A goal counts as much if you're a man up as it does if you're at evens.

Because, in all likelihood, it means one of these two things :
- Some other players got the PP points he didn't get.
- Crap ST coaching.

A guy going 40-50-90 (in actual environment, I might add) is probably a star and almost certainly not a bad power play player.

If his team performed as well on the PP as the guy in my other example, it just means that other players scored, and that this player was deployed differently... And, almost certainly, relied more on at ES, when the other team is actively looking to score (well, more than on the PK).

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I mean - Shore was finished as an impact player at 36 while Lidstrom was until 40. Admittedly that's an oversimplification considering era, but Lidstrom was an elite player for 15-17 seasons.

Lidstrom was absolutely not an elite player until his late 20s.

 

[MXD]

Penalties called have ebbed and flowed over the history of the NHL, with PP opportunities spiking in certain seasons (for example, in the seasons immediately after the 2005 lockout). The argument may be that a goal scorer who's able to score at ES could be expected to score in any era, PP opportunities being held equal. That's how I read it, at least.

Well, there's also this.

 

[The Macho King]

Lidstrom was absolutely not an elite player until his late 20s.

I don't think that's quite true. He's putting up 60+ points in '96 at the age of 25, and he starts garnering *some* Norris attention at that age. Unless your definition of elite is at the rarified air level of 1st/2nd team/finalist for a trophy, I think you could argue that his 24-26 seasons are elite.

And if you don't, you have probably 14 seasons (outside of a blip in 2004) where he is top 5 in Norris voting every season (but for the aforementioned blip) and a postseason All-Star in almost every one of those years.

Then your point isn't valid

Why not? How to adjust for era is an open question. Lidstrom has (at minimum) 14 elite seasons. Shore has what... 10? Lidstrom absolutely has a longevity argument over Shore. His peak isn't anywhere close though, and Shore's peak also lasted a pretty long stretch to boot.

 

[The Macho King]

Well, there's also this.

But if we're talking about Ovi, we are right now in one of the lowest PPO eras in history, so it seems like an odd thing to crack him for.

As said in the Beliveau discussion...takes proper talent evaluation to decode power play "dependence" and power play excellence...let's not be so quick to confuse the two in this non-essential hypothetical...

This is a good way of phrasing it. Some guys are basically replacement-level PP players, so they get their points just by being out there. Some guys are great on the PP and make the most of the extra space by creating more for their team. Ovechkin clearly is in the latter group.

 

[ResilientBeast]

Why not? How to adjust for era is an open question. Lidstrom has (at minimum) 14 elite seasons. Shore has what... 10? Lidstrom absolutely has a longevity argument over Shore. His peak isn't anywhere close though, and Shore's peak also lasted a pretty long stretch to boot.

Sure, but then you immediately ignore this and say well 14 > 10

 

[DannyGallivan]

So... any Plante champions? It looks like he'll be a little more relevant in the next round.

 

[MXD]

@The Macho Man , I was mostly keeping it on the abstract level.

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

I understand he was saying that - I just don't get why. A goal counts as much if you're a man up as it does if you're at evens.

Pretty much only top six players even get onto the power play, whereas at even strength teams generally run four lines, where lines 3 and 4 are significantly weaker at scoring. Therefore the impact of a top line offensive player at even strength is relatively more valuable. Aren't you the guy that downgraded modern goalies because they don't appear to make that much of a relative impact? It's the same logic for power play scoring: Everybody who steps on the ice for an NHL power play is at least competent offensively, so the difference is less significant between the absolute best and the floor.

Power play scoring is also much more affected by contextual factors than even strength scoring, so we can confidently put more trust in even strength scoring as being more reflective of an individual's talent level. Power play scoring is affected by a player's role on the team, by how much ice time the player gets, by how good the unit is, and by overall levels of penalties being called and how good a player's team is at drawing penalties.

The best example of all of these factors is what happened to the greatest power play scorer of all-time between 1995-96 and 1996-97. In 1995-96, Mario Lemieux scored 78 even strength points and 79 power play points, playing almost the entire power play on a great power play unit that had 420 power play opportunities since penalties were up league-wide. Then, over the course of one season, the following things happened:

1. Penalties went down by 19% league-wide.
2. Pittsburgh replaced Sergei Zubov with Kevin Hatcher.
3. Pittsburgh stopped letting Lemieux, Francis and Jagr play basically the entire power play (they went from being on the ice for 94%, 84% and 83% of the team's PPG to 73%, 68% and 55%).

The result? In 1996-97 Lemieux scored 79 even strength points and 37 power play points. Great illustration of how league rules, team factors and usage can cause huge variances from year to year even for good players (even while even strength numbers basically don't change at all).

If the question is who do you take going forward - sure. That could have some worth. But thats not the question were asking here.

Were looking at the past ONLY here. All goals have already been scored. ES or PP ones. They all count and are worth the same.

The fact that they all count the same is irrelevant to how much they are worth. Goals counted the same on the scoreboard in 1981-82 as they did in 2002-03, but if you think they are worth the same you are going to have a horribly skewed list in terms of era. Same logic applies for PP vs. ES scoring, the value is different and that should be taken into account.

 

[The Macho King]

Sure, but then you immediately ignore this and say well 14 > 10

Not to be a dick, but 14 > 10. I don't know how we should adjust longevity for era. I mean Howe came in 10 years after Shore retired and I think he is still playing to this day years after he died. It seems kind of lazy to say "well he's from an older era so that means 10 > 14."

Plenty of guys were impact players into their mid 30s back then. Nighbor, Cleghorn, and Clapper were all playing at a high level at 36-37.

 

[The Macho King]

So... any Plante champions? It looks like he'll be a little more relevant in the next round.

There's a couple of guys (Plante is one of them) that just seems a tier behind the guys in this round. Other than arguing to argue, I don't think we've really gone deep on anyone outside of the clear favorites to win this vote. Speaking for myself, there are a few players I'm hoping are available in the next vote because I imagine I have some fallers (where I didn't feel that way last vote).

Guys like Mikita, Lidstrom,Messier, and Jagr - I think there are better players that are hopefully available next round.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I don't think that's quite true. He's putting up 60+ points in '96 at the age of 25, and he starts garnering *some* Norris attention at that age. Unless your definition of elite is at the rarified air level of 1st/2nd team/finalist for a trophy, I think you could argue that his 24-26 seasons are elite.

And if you don't, you have probably 14 seasons (outside of a blip in 2004) where he is top 5 in Norris voting every season (but for the aforementioned blip) and a postseason All-Star in almost every one of those years.


Why not? How to adjust for era is an open question. Lidstrom has (at minimum) 14 elite seasons. Shore has what... 10? Lidstrom absolutely has a longevity argument over Shore. His peak isn't anywhere close though, and Shore's peak also lasted a pretty long stretch to boot.

At age 25, Shore was 3rd in Hart voting, 1st among defensemen... That's a lot better than Lidstrom finishing 6th in Norris voting in 95-96.

 

[The Macho King]

At age 25, Shore was 3rd in Hart voting, 1st among defensemen... That's a lot better than Lidstrom finishing 6th in Norris voting in 95-96.

And at age 40, Lidstrom won the Norris while Shore was coaching in the minor leagues. I don't really understand how that addresses my point.

Edit: I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here. I have Shore comfortably ahead of Lidstrom but here I am arguing for Lidstrom just to be contentious.

 

[bobholly39]

Pretty much only top six players even get onto the power play, whereas at even strength teams generally run four lines, where lines 3 and 4 are significantly weaker at scoring. Therefore the impact of a top line offensive player at even strength is relatively more valuable. Aren't you the guy that downgraded modern goalies because they don't appear to make that much of a relative impact? It's the same logic for power play scoring: Everybody who steps on the ice for an NHL power play is at least competent offensively, so the difference is less significant between the absolute best and the floor.

Power play scoring is also much more affected by contextual factors than even strength scoring, so we can confidently put more trust in even strength scoring as being more reflective of an individual's talent level. Power play scoring is affected by a player's role on the team, by how much ice time the player gets, by how good the unit is, and by overall levels of penalties being called and how good a player's team is at drawing penalties.

The best example of all of these factors is what happened to the greatest power play scorer of all-time between 1995-96 and 1996-97. In 1995-96, Mario Lemieux scored 78 even strength points and 79 power play points, playing almost the entire power play on a great power play unit that had 420 power play opportunities since penalties were up league-wide. Then, over the course of one season, the following things happened:

1. Penalties went down by 19% league-wide.
2. Pittsburgh replaced Sergei Zubov with Kevin Hatcher.
3. Pittsburgh stopped letting Lemieux, Francis and Jagr play basically the entire power play (they went from being on the ice for 94%, 84% and 83% of the team's PPG to 73%, 68% and 55%).

The result? In 1996-97 Lemieux scored 79 even strength points and 37 power play points. Great illustration of how league rules, team factors and usage can cause huge variances from year to year even for good players (even while even strength numbers basically don't change at all).



The fact that they all count the same is irrelevant to how much they are worth. Goals counted the same on the scoreboard in 1981-82 as they did in 2002-03, but if you think they are worth the same you are going to have a horribly skewed list in terms of era. Same logic applies for PP vs. ES scoring, the value is different and that should be taken into account.

Look no further than your Lemieux example.

It makes no sense whatsoever to differentiate between power play points and ES points. Because otherwise you're double dipping. You're already accounting the fact that Lemieux went from 161 total points to 122 total points the next year from 96 to 97.
Further taking into account power play vs ES points (or goals) just is doubly penalizing Lemieux.

So it goes back to my initial comment. If the year was 1996 and we were about to begin the 1997 season and you asked me to pick between two players going forward - Lemieux, or Lemieux's clone who also scored 161 points but 90% of those at ES - maybe I take the ES champion because relying on PP in the future is more risky.

But none of this matters in the context of this project (not even for active players since projections have no bearing) where we're only judging on past accomplishments. 161 points in 1996 is 161 points in 1996, regardless of the PP vs ES breakdown.

A goal is a goal. Period. If you think player A is more reliant on power play goals than player B - well than his overall goal results will have gone down anyways in a season with less PP. Somehow awarding less value to a pp goal or point than an ES goal or point makes no sense for me.

I'm happy to be convinced otherwise - but i don't see the logic in it at all.

Also - i don't see at all the correlation between this and the idea of adjusting stats across eras to adjust for different scoring levels (ie your 1982 vs 2003 comment).

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

And at age 40, Lidstrom won the Norris while Shore was coaching in the minor leagues. I don't really understand how that addresses my point.

YOU are the one who chose to focus exclusively on the end of their careers, while ignoring the beginnings of them.

To be honest, when compared to other players of their eras, the length of Shore's reign as the top defenseman in the league impresses me more than Lidstrom's does. And I say that as someone leaning towards voting Lidstrom 1-2 spots ahead of Shore, based on playoffs.

 

[ResilientBeast]

Not to be a dick, but 14 > 10. I don't know how we should adjust longevity for era. I mean Howe came in 10 years after Shore retired and I think he is still playing to this day years after he died. It seems kind of lazy to say "well he's from an older era so that means 10 > 14."

Plenty of guys were impact players into their mid 30s back then. Nighbor, Cleghorn, and Clapper were all playing at a high level at 36-37.

Cleghorn at 35 was second in hart voting (after that nothing)
Shore at 36 1st team AST and 5th in Hart (highest among D)
Nighbor at 36 scored 4 points
Clapper at 35 (won nothing) and at 36 was 2nd AST

So no they weren't playing at a high level at age 36/37. They all dropped off after their 34/35 year old seasons except Shore who had another elite season in him.

 

[daver]

Penalties called have ebbed and flowed over the history of the NHL, with PP opportunities spiking in certain seasons (for example, in the seasons immediately after the 2005 lockout). The argument may be that a goal scorer who's able to score at ES could be expected to score in any era, PP opportunities being held equal. That's how I read it, at least.

From 1990 to 2006, Jagr's ESG per game rate was 0.37, 2nd was Hull was at 0.34

OV's career ESG per game is 0.37, 2nd is Crosby as 0.34

 

[MXD]

Not to be a dick, but 14 > 10. I don't know how we should adjust longevity for era. I mean Howe came in 10 years after Shore retired and I think he is still playing to this day years after he died. It seems kind of lazy to say "well he's from an older era so that means 10 > 14."

Plenty of guys were impact players into their mid 30s back then. Nighbor, Cleghorn, and Clapper were all playing at a high level at 36-37.

The last two were D's, and Nighbor wasn't anything special offensively past 25-26; also, for 25-26, there are good reasons to believe his assists numbers would've been lower had he been playing for any other team.

 

[bobholly39]

I just realized something ....

We all know, or should be knowing at least, that longevity comparisons can't exactly be made on a 1-for-1 basis, and that some kind of adjustments have to be made in order to account for a ton of factors. In other words, while Mikita arguably has some kind of advantage of Howie Morenz in terms of "raw seasons" when it comes to longevity, it's good practice to give Howie Morenz some kind of mulligan, due to playing in an earlier era. Or else, we aren't comparing apples to apples.

But would it be fair to say that D-Men have an intrinsical advantage when it comes to longevity?

In other words, Niklas Lidstrom has an advantage over Jaromir Jagr when it comes to longevity as an elite player, but how much of that is directly related to the fact he is a D-Men? If the answer to this question is other than "None", should we even bother, considering forwards and goalies have built-in advantages of their own?

Should it? We're already ignoring length of seasons (70+ games to half of that). I don't know that i believe in discounting qty of seasons too.

The way I read your post, it sounds like you're saying "If in Morenz's era 12 seasons was a lot and in Mikita's season 15 was a lot - 12 = 15". I think # of seasons can absolutely be compared at face value. More seasons = better and it can be used to differentiate.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Should it? We're already ignoring length of seasons (70+ games to half of that). I don't know that i believe in discounting qty of seasons too.

The way I read your post, it sounds like you're saying "If in Morenz's era 12 seasons was a lot and in Mikita's season 15 was a lot - 12 = 15". I think # of seasons can absolutely be compared at face value. More seasons = better and it can be used to differentiate.

Its as if some posters dont believe there were medical advances since the 1930s that helped players play longer. (Not just you).