Top-200 Hockey Players of All-Time - Preliminary Discussion Thread

[Michael Farkas]

It's funny when you describe him like that he's seems similar to a one way goal scoring winger in value, just in the opposite way, perhaps those are the guys I should compare him to.

I'd be curious about his linemates as well over the time frame.

He was never used a lot on the PP during his time in Montreal though was he? Was he ever even consistently on the second unit?

No, sorry, he wasn't used a lot (or at all, really)...when he was used, it was not usually in "playmaking" spot is what I meant, but I was talking with a mouth full of billiard balls...my apologies.

Re: one-way goal scorers. Perhaps, that's your call. But you noted in your screen capture how much Carbonneau actually scored, at even strength (with very little PP time), with his responsibilities, and his linemates...I know there are some loosey goosey games in that time period and he was playing on a really good (albeit defensive) team...but he was productive at ES...

Expanding a year on each side, going from 82-83 to 89-90...Carbonneau is 32nd among NHL forwards in ES points. 46th in goals. He was also 6th in shorthanded points in that time as well - tied with Mario.

For some context in that time period, that's more ES production than Dave Taylor, Marcel Dionne, Bellows, Gilmour, Broten, Andreychuk...it doesn't suck. Whether that's enough to push him one way or another is up to the individual...

One might wonder what he could do with more power play time...one could also wonder if he would really be a power play asset or not on a really strong team...

 

[ted2019]

I went back and found what I said when I went back and watched him (naturally, your mileage may and will vary):

Prelim talk:

Round 20:

In vote 21, I said that I don't believe in quotas (which means someone must have suggested we didn't have enough Soviet players on our list...which may well be true, but I still don't believe in quotas) and that VV "wasn't good enough"...

Maybe the better play for me is instead of re-watching VV is I'll try to just find a non-NHL Euro d-man that I like better...maybe Suchy, maybe it's Bilyaletdinov, maybe it's no one...when I have the opportunity to pursue this, I'll report back...

For me, a player/players like the Chara's/Vasiliev's/Langway's of the world hold value due to the fact that not a lot of players could be a defenseman like them and effect the outcome just by playing a hard and demanding style like they did. I applaud and admire these types and award them a healthy spot on my list ( yours my vary). Chara was more offensive minded due to his missile of a slap shot and his ranking was/will be higher due to that fact. Langway won 2 Norris Trophies playing that style ( and it helped shorten his career because of it).

 

[Michael Farkas]

Sure. I like those guys too. And Chara's value-add is what makes him what he is...but it's important - and this isn't directed at you or anyone - that we don't glorify Rob Zamuner in the process either...we're looking at Carbonneau, we're looking at (looked at?) Chara, there's a value add there...

I don't think I'd put Vasilev over Housley, though, for instance...in a tie, it's just easier to destroy than it is to create. Defense isn't just the absence of offense. And it can be really tough to discern between those realms sometimes...I look at VV as more "the absence of offense", meanwhile, I look at, say, Victor Hedman and go, "he's kind of shutting things down in a similar manner, but he's also good for 50 and 60 points"

Like I said earlier, I know we're branching here...but at 200, 220, 240, we don't have to "settle" for anyone I don't think...I think we can avoid "flawed" players for a while still, and if a player is flawed, we'll take the overwhelming ability that he does have (Ovechkin, Hull, Kane, Leetch, etc.)...I'm not sold that a player like Vasiliev offers that...maybe he does, I'm just not sold...

For that matter, I'd like to know just how large the gap is between Rod Langway and Kevin Lowe...and if there is a gap, what does it represent...?

 

[Vilica]

Unlike most conspiracy theories, I'd be curious to know if you've done any video work on this...? It's just goals, so it would be, ahem, "easy" to do...I wonder what kind of numbers we'd need in each era to get a valid sample size of goals scored by "known" wingers...there's a bunch of math guys here that might be able to drum something up to at least get the size of the ask...

I feel like I should say "95% confidence interval" and then "z-score"...I don't want to sound like an idiot, so I'll just name drop those terms and let smart people take over...when whoever takes the bait says those terms, I'll nod emphatically and look for eye contact around the room for validation purposes...

I haven't done anything systemic on it, though I did watch a couple season's worth of Ovechkin's goals with an eye on it a couple weeks ago, if I remember correctly of his 32 goals in 12-13 he had like 1 assist go away, whereas in his 09-10 season it was somewhere between 10 and 15. If I had to guess, I'd say the average player has an assist disappear on 10% of their goals, +/- 10%. So thinking about it mathematically, if you have 2 identical 80 point players, one being 50+30, the other being 30+50, and 10% of each of their goals involve an invisible secondary assist, now that is 50+35 and 30+53. That's kinda why I called it a dumb conspiracy theory, because at best the gains are marginal, but it was the best explanation I could come up (beyond the faceoffs/centers thing) with why all the wingers who are primarily goal scorers had such low A2/G compared to the centers.



This game is actually what started my curiosity into this hypothesis. If you think about situations where a player could receive two points on a single goal, there are only a few combinations. By definition, you cannot get both the primary and secondary assist on the same play. Getting the goal and a secondary assist is an easier lift, while getting a goal and a primary assist depends on how you handle rebounds.

You can see the secondary assist that Ovechkin should get on his first goal, and his second goal is an example of rebounds leading to a primary assist. If someone else scores on that rebound that Ovechkin's shot created, then he would have received a primary assist. Since he did, that assist disappears. You don't really want to give a player 3 points on a goal for whacking the puck 3 times in the goalmouth, but it is worth thinking about "giving" some primary assists on some rebounds.

 

[Michael Farkas]

By definition, you cannot get both the primary and secondary assist on the same play.

All interesting, of course. I'd really like the math guys (like, pro math guys) to weigh in on what kind of work would get us to a reasonable sample that we could consider conclusions from...but re: quoted. Self pass? Getting your own dump in? I mean, you can concoct a way to get these things if you really want to...not saying they're real, but I can find a way to get there that would have been awarded had it have been another player, tu sabes?

 

[wetcoast]

Out of those 9 players, I have one making my list.

Is it Goulet or Recchi?

 

[wetcoast]

I have a question about usage related to the more classic checking forward guys. Maybe I've just been influenced by reading Dryden's book about Scotty Bowman lately, but are we being to harsh on some of these guys when they played under different systems.

I think specifically about Carbonneau, the way he was deployed (and the way he was asked to play while deployed) was of course very different than a guy like Datsyuk or especially slightly more modern guys like Bergeron or Kopitar. I wonder how different Carbonneau would have looked statistically playing the 2010s. How depressed are his (especially 1980s-early 90s) offensive stats because he was asked to play a more "one-way" style. He always seemed to have stone hands around the net when I watched him, but he did produce some points and he did it with very little PP time.

Here are the stats for the Habs from 83/84 til 88/89, the Smith-Carbonneau (Carb being younger than Smith of course) Era if you will...

View attachment 375942

Carbonneau's the most valuable forward on this team right? Maybe? A team that was top flight over the time frame (granted with excellent goaltending and defense). If he'd scored 100-150 PP points over the time frame does it make him more valuable? He wouldn't have been used as the key PK guy if so (granted I don't know how good the PK was for the Habs over this time frame off the top of my head), is that more or less valuable?

Obviously we can only judge the guys on what they did, but I feel like we made a point on considering this on a guy like Henri Richard (deservedly I think), shouldn't we do the same on Carbonneau? He feels like a much more valuable player to me than a guy like Joe Nieuwendyk for example, but how far up the ladder can I move him?

I don't have any answers, just throwing it out there.

Hard to say if carbs was really the most valuable forward here.

I think it's really a moot point if the team didn't have Robinson, Chelios and some guy named Roy in net along with some other really good defensive forwards.

I love 2 way players but there is zero room on my list for guys like Carbs and Gainey.

They are clearly secondary players who look great on a perfect team setting but on a team like the LA Kings they don't make the list.

Yes that's a reference to Butch Goring and Bernie Nicholls (in another post I will expand upon with perfect line mate setting tomorrow as I'm drunk as a fish right now.)

 

[wetcoast]

It's funny when you describe him like that he's seems similar to a one way goal scoring winger in value, just in the opposite way, perhaps those are the guys I should compare him to.

I'd be curious about his linemates as well over the time frame.

He was never used a lot on the PP during his time in Montreal though was he? Was he ever even consistently on the second unit?

That would be a big no, Carbs was on the ice for exactly 50 PP goals for in his 912 GP with the Habs.

He was on the ice for 386 PPGA BTW so he was a very good ES player and PK guy.

Guy Carbonneau Stats | Hockey-Reference.com

 

[Vilica]

All interesting, of course. I'd really like the math guys (like, pro math guys) to weigh in on what kind of work would get us to a reasonable sample that we could consider conclusions from...but re: quoted. Self pass? Getting your own dump in? I mean, you can concoct a way to get these things if you really want to...not saying they're real, but I can find a way to get there that would have been awarded had it have been another player, tu sabes?

Ya you're getting deep into esoteric territory there. The rebound stuff is on shakier ground, theoretically, than the secondaries that just disappear. I suppose if you wanted to fit it into a logical framework though, rebounds are different than self-passes because the goalie breaks the chain of custody. If you dump and retrieve, you might have given up possession, but there's no intermediary - once you retrieve it's still part of the original possession. Yes, if another player had retrieved it, the change of possession would have occurred, but it didn't.

With regards to sample size, I'd want to do at minimum 2 teams, maybe up to 5, for an adequate sample size for a year. The reason for that big of a sample is because you'd want to assess if the disappearing secondaries held across positions, or if it's mainly a winger thing, and how it differs between top 6/bottom 6 players. This is where player data tracking systems would be useful, allowing us to compile possession chains unrelated to point assignations.

I watched Ovechkin's 38 goal season in 11-12 earlier, and I think I counted 7 examples that year. Just doing Ovechkin goals because of that Youtube channel that has all of his goals by season, so you can just watch one video, as that person has done the work of compiling them. For a more scientific approach, I'll watch his 08-09 season linked below, and write down the timestamps and notes so you can watch along.

1:15 vs NJD - self-pass to himself, wouldn't count it
2:50 vs ATL - disappearing secondary (replay confirms, unclear initially)
7:00 vs NYI - maybe touches it to create turnover?
7:50 vs NYR - disappearing secondary (I think)
8:30 vs NSH - maybe another self-pass?
10:50 vs PIT - rebound goal
16:35 vs MTL - that self-pass goal vs Hamrlik that's on all his highlight reels

So definitely two, possibly up to 5 more depending on how liberally you apply the framework.



[Final addition to sample, watched Crosby's 35 goal season in 18-19, probably should have done timestamps and notes, but fairly certain I counted 7 disappearing secondaries and 3 rebounds. A couple of those were Crosby PP entries where he moved the puck to left point then headed for the far post for a return one-timer, so that raises the possibility of set plays where the secondary assist drops. Looking at Crosby's A2/G by season over his career, the 18-19 season was 0.20, the lowest of his career. If you add those 7 secondaries back, it jumps to 0.29, which is quite a bit closer to his career 0.31 average.]

 

[wetcoast]

For me, a player/players like the Chara's/Vasiliev's/Langway's of the world hold value due to the fact that not a lot of players could be a defenseman like them and effect the outcome just by playing a hard and demanding style like they did. I applaud and admire these types and award them a healthy spot on my list ( yours my vary). Chara was more offensive minded due to his missile of a slap shot and his ranking was/will be higher due to that fact. Langway won 2 Norris Trophies playing that style ( and it helped shorten his career because of it).

One of these things is not like the other two.

Langway gets alot of mileage out his 2 Norris trophies but in reality his wins were a backlash at Coffey and other offensive Dmen.

Vasliev is a hard guy to rank and the system really helps him.

Personally although the recent top 100 players of all time aggregate list has him at 107th I think that is really too high wehn one stops to think about it.

 

[Michael Farkas]

With regards to sample size, I'd want to do at minimum 2 teams, maybe up to 5, for an adequate sample size for a year.

See, this is where I don't think it would work. I think - and again because of the easy access to goal footage in particular - I think you'd be better served by a truly random sample. Take a random sample of actual wingers (I'm not sure who keeps that data, the NHL lists far too many players as centers who have never played center for one second in the NHL...but team fans know, well, ones that pay any attention) or even if you wanted to limit it to top-six wingers...because if you do a team or two or four, you're subject to the repetitive bias that is their system and their roster. Center-carry vs defense-carry teams, winger role in NZ transition (decoy vs transport vs speed/slash support, etc), things of that nature...I guess we might want to decide if we should limit it to just ES goals or not...much to consider, but I strongly believe that willfully using a set of very few teams will damage the results.

Even if we just expanded to the teams that are represented strongly here: Detroit, Pittsburgh, Chicago, Philadelphia, Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal, we have that newer Buffalo guy who seems on point, TDMM with the Devs, I think there's a couple Avs fans around, Boston, etc.
...even if you only got to about there, with confirmed wingers, I think you're way better off than just choosing a few teams.

And just throw it in there, I watched your three self passes...for me, at a glance: yes vs NJ; no vs Nsh; yes vs Mtl...

 

[buffalowing88]

Sure. I like those guys too. And Chara's value-add is what makes him what he is...but it's important - and this isn't directed at you or anyone - that we don't glorify Rob Zamuner in the process either...we're looking at Carbonneau, we're looking at (looked at?) Chara, there's a value add there...

I don't think I'd put Vasilev over Housley, though, for instance...in a tie, it's just easier to destroy than it is to create. Defense isn't just the absence of offense. And it can be really tough to discern between those realms sometimes...I look at VV as more "the absence of offense", meanwhile, I look at, say, Victor Hedman and go, "he's kind of shutting things down in a similar manner, but he's also good for 50 and 60 points"

Like I said earlier, I know we're branching here...but at 200, 220, 240, we don't have to "settle" for anyone I don't think...I think we can avoid "flawed" players for a while still, and if a player is flawed, we'll take the overwhelming ability that he does have (Ovechkin, Hull, Kane, Leetch, etc.)...I'm not sold that a player like Vasiliev offers that...maybe he does, I'm just not sold...

For that matter, I'd like to know just how large the gap is between Rod Langway and Kevin Lowe...and if there is a gap, what does it represent...?

Incredible post. I think you covered this all really well and I don’t feel “shy” about considering Housley these past few days, now.

The only gap between Langway and Lowe that I would emphasize is the sacrifice that Langway made to become a different player, whereas I don’t think Lowe ever had a trajectory that could have been better than what it was.

Lowe isn’t getting in until I hear some more stories about how he impacted games. I’m probably biased since my parents lived in DC throughout the 80s before moving back to Buffalo when I was born in 88. They talk about Langway in high regard. I think that influences me, so I admit I’m biased.

 

[buffalowing88]

See, this is where I don't think it would work. I think - and again because of the easy access to goal footage in particular - I think you'd be better served by a truly random sample. Take a random sample of actual wingers (I'm not sure who keeps that data, the NHL lists far too many players as centers who have never played center for one second in the NHL...but team fans know, well, ones that pay any attention) or even if you wanted to limit it to top-six wingers...because if you do a team or two or four, you're subject to the repetitive bias that is their system and their roster. Center-carry vs defense-carry teams, winger role in NZ transition (decoy vs transport vs speed/slash support, etc), things of that nature...I guess we might want to decide if we should limit it to just ES goals or not...much to consider, but I strongly believe that willfully using a set of very few teams will damage the results.

Even if we just expanded to the teams that are represented strongly here: Detroit, Pittsburgh, Chicago, Philadelphia, Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal, we have that newer Buffalo guy who seems on point, TDMM with the Devs, I think there's a couple Avs fans around, Boston, etc.
...even if you only got to about there, with confirmed wingers, I think you're way better off than just choosing a few teams.

And just throw it in there, I watched your three self passes...for me, at a glance: yes vs NJ; no vs Nsh; yes vs Mtl...

Am I that newer “Buffalo guy”? I’m blushing.

I’ve always been following since 08, I just never had much time to contribute. A divorce and a change of job plus Covid changed that haha. I’m here for it.

But yes, I’m here for diversifying the outlook of the analyses that are being conducted. I have a few I will post tomorrow that are mainly focused on highlighting why I think a couple pre-expansion players have to be thrown out now that we are getting to the nitty gritty. At the same time, I’m a novice with a lot of these guys and I need insight, which this thread has been full of thus far and I appreciate it.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Yeah haha, sorry I forgot what number you had on your username off the top of my head...but yeah, you've been on the money. Sorry about the covid thing, congrats on the divorce...

And yeah, keep it coming...I don't think anyone would disagree with me when I say that you've been a good addition to this board...and that doesn't necessarily even mean translating 1920's Finnish newspaper articles or making videos or whatever, it can be just asking the right questions...the list is a list, it's the conversation and the process of making the list that's really important...

Because I got news for ya, there isn't gonna be one bit of difference between player 168 and player 181. I got news for me to: I'm gonna resent those numbers I bet, as I'm sure I'll rail against one of them and pump the tires of the other and they'll just happen to land there haha

 

[buffalowing88]

Ya you're getting deep into esoteric territory there. The rebound stuff is on shakier ground, theoretically, than the secondaries that just disappear. I suppose if you wanted to fit it into a logical framework though, rebounds are different than self-passes because the goalie breaks the chain of custody. If you dump and retrieve, you might have given up possession, but there's no intermediary - once you retrieve it's still part of the original possession. Yes, if another player had retrieved it, the change of possession would have occurred, but it didn't.

With regards to sample size, I'd want to do at minimum 2 teams, maybe up to 5, for an adequate sample size for a year. The reason for that big of a sample is because you'd want to assess if the disappearing secondaries held across positions, or if it's mainly a winger thing, and how it differs between top 6/bottom 6 players. This is where player data tracking systems would be useful, allowing us to compile possession chains unrelated to point assignations.

I watched Ovechkin's 38 goal season in 11-12 earlier, and I think I counted 7 examples that year. Just doing Ovechkin goals because of that Youtube channel that has all of his goals by season, so you can just watch one video, as that person has done the work of compiling them. For a more scientific approach, I'll watch his 08-09 season linked below, and write down the timestamps and notes so you can watch along.

1:15 vs NJD - self-pass to himself, wouldn't count it
2:50 vs ATL - disappearing secondary (replay confirms, unclear initially)
7:00 vs NYI - maybe touches it to create turnover?
7:50 vs NYR - disappearing secondary (I think)
8:30 vs NSH - maybe another self-pass?
10:50 vs PIT - rebound goal
16:35 vs MTL - that self-pass goal vs Hamrlik that's on all his highlight reels

So definitely two, possibly up to 5 more depending on how liberally you apply the framework.



[Final addition to sample, watched Crosby's 35 goal season in 18-19, probably should have done timestamps and notes, but fairly certain I counted 7 disappearing secondaries and 3 rebounds. A couple of those were Crosby PP entries where he moved the puck to left point then headed for the far post for a return one-timer, so that raises the possibility of set plays where the secondary assist drops. Looking at Crosby's A2/G by season over his career, the 18-19 season was 0.20, the lowest of his career. If you add those 7 secondaries back, it jumps to 0.29, which is quite a bit closer to his career 0.31 average.]

This just feels like semantics in a way. You're diving deep into the analytics, and I love the insights, but creating a "framework" for judging this is doing math simply to do math. I understand that you're pointing out the fallacy in doing this, but I don't think this would be much more than a wormhole to keep going down, when we probably need to start actually coming to some definitive conclusions.

But now I'm obsessed with these samples, so you made the rest of my evening at least

 

[buffalowing88]

Yeah haha, sorry I forgot what number you had on your username off the top of my head...but yeah, you've been on the money. Sorry about the covid thing, congrats on the divorce...

And yeah, keep it coming...I don't think anyone would disagree with me when I say that you've been a good addition to this board...and that doesn't necessarily even mean translating 1920's Finnish newspaper articles or making videos or whatever, it can be just asking the right questions...the list is a list, it's the conversation and the process of making the list that's really important...

Because I got news for ya, there isn't gonna be one bit of difference between player 168 and player 181. I got news for me to: I'm gonna resent those numbers I bet, as I'm sure I'll rail against one of them and pump the tires of the other and they'll just happen to land there haha

I love it! I really appreciate all the regular posters making this thread something that has been much more inclusive than any of the prior ones. I think this will benefit in the long run. Arguments are meant to be fun and picked apart. The more people can tell me where I'm wrong, the better my list will be. It's all subjective, but there are also resources, such as yourself and all the posters on here, that I can only stand to gain from.

 

[Vilica]

This just feels like semantics in a way. You're diving deep into the analytics, and I love the insights, but creating a "framework" for judging this is doing math simply to do math. I understand that you're pointing out the fallacy in doing this, but I don't think this would be much more than a wormhole to keep going down, when we probably need to start actually coming to some definitive conclusions.

But now I'm obsessed with these samples, so you made the rest of my evening at least

There's a reason why I did most of the work on this a couple months ago and never got around to posting it. You can waste way too much time looking at this stuff.

Let's get back to something more relevant to discussion: Why did Jean Ratelle win the Pearson in 71-72?

Using my +GD/-GD team framework, BOS, CHI, MNS, MTL, NYR and TOR are the +GD teams, and BUF, CGS, DET, LAK, PHL, PIT, STL and VAN are the -GD teams. Let's look at Orr, Esposito, Ratelle, and Hull's individual and team performances versus each of those sides and compare them. First, the +GD teams:

+GD	GP	TGF	TGA	GF/G	GA/G	GP	G	A	Pts	+/-	Sh	Sh%	G%	P%
Ratelle	22	65	65	2.955	2.955	22	12	12	24	5	68	0.176	0.185	0.369
Hull	30	84	76	2.800	2.533	30	17	15	32	15	116	0.147	0.202	0.381
Esposito	28	108	66	3.857	2.357	28	21	16	37	13	132	0.159	0.194	0.343
Orr	28	108	66	3.857	2.357	28	11	32	43	32	125	0.088	0.102	0.398

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Nothing untoward in those numbers, all strong performers. Now, the -GD teams:

-GD	GP	TGF	TGA	GF/G	GA/G	GP	G	A	Pts	+/-	Sh	Sh%	G%	P%
Ratelle	41	207	79	5.049	1.927	41	34	51	85	56	115	0.296	0.164	0.411
Hull	48	172	90	3.583	1.875	48	33	28	61	38	220	0.150	0.192	0.355
Esposito	48	214	128	4.458	2.667	48	45	51	96	41	294	0.153	0.210	0.449
Orr	48	214	128	4.458	2.667	48	26	48	74	51	228	0.114	0.121	0.346

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

There's the outlier - Ratelle shot 30% in 41 games against a bunch of AHL-level teams to boost his production. When people talk about weakened competition during expansion, this is what it looks like statistically. But when players and writers voted back then, this sort of information wasn't readily available. They just saw the top line data, and not that Ratelle shot 58% on 12 shots against California and 55% on 9 shots against Vancouver.

 

[buffalowing88]

There's a reason why I did most of the work on this a couple months ago and never got around to posting it. You can waste way too much time looking at this stuff.

Let's get back to something more relevant to discussion: Why did Jean Ratelle win the Pearson in 71-72?

Using my +GD/-GD team framework, BOS, CHI, MNS, MTL, NYR and TOR are the +GD teams, and BUF, CGS, DET, LAK, PHL, PIT, STL and VAN are the -GD teams. Let's look at Orr, Esposito, Ratelle, and Hull's individual and team performances versus each of those sides and compare them. First, the +GD teams:

+GD	GP	TGF	TGA	GF/G	GA/G	GP	G	A	Pts	+/-	Sh	Sh%	G%	P%
Ratelle	22	65	65	2.955	2.955	22	12	12	24	5	68	0.176	0.185	0.369
Hull	30	84	76	2.800	2.533	30	17	15	32	15	116	0.147	0.202	0.381
Esposito	28	108	66	3.857	2.357	28	21	16	37	13	132	0.159	0.194	0.343
Orr	28	108	66	3.857	2.357	28	11	32	43	32	125	0.088	0.102	0.398

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Nothing untoward in those numbers, all strong performers. Now, the -GD teams:

-GD	GP	TGF	TGA	GF/G	GA/G	GP	G	A	Pts	+/-	Sh	Sh%	G%	P%
Ratelle	41	207	79	5.049	1.927	41	34	51	85	56	115	0.296	0.164	0.411
Hull	48	172	90	3.583	1.875	48	33	28	61	38	220	0.150	0.192	0.355
Esposito	48	214	128	4.458	2.667	48	45	51	96	41	294	0.153	0.210	0.449
Orr	48	214	128	4.458	2.667	48	26	48	74	51	228	0.114	0.121	0.346

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

There's the outlier - Ratelle shot 30% in 41 games against a bunch of AHL-level teams to boost his production. When people talk about weakened competition during expansion, this is what it looks like statistically. But when players and writers voted back then, this sort of information wasn't readily available. They just saw the top line data, and not that Ratelle shot 58% on 12 shots against California and 55% on 9 shots against Vancouver.

Wow. I had Ratelle very high in my 200. Like way too high apparently. This is such an incredible comp. I think I'm going to lose the remainder of my evening/morning on this. That's such an inventive way to approach this and I love it.

I have the strangest feeling it will work against Gilmour, and now I want to know more...

 

[quoipourquoi]

Because I got news for ya, there isn't gonna be one bit of difference between player 168 and player 181.

That more than anything is holding me back from being terribly enthusiastic about making a list. We’ll be well out of the range of distinguishable talent and dipping into interchangeable parts on this one.

Knowing that if I don’t make one, you monsters are going to exclude Tuukka Rask to make room for Carl Brewer or something is the only thing that keeps me going.

 

[Vilica]

Wow. I had Ratelle very high in my 200. Like way too high apparently. This is such an incredible comp. I think I'm going to lose the remainder of my evening/morning on this. That's such an inventive way to approach this and I love it.

I have the strangest feeling it will work against Gilmour, and now I want to know more...

I really should automate it more, but I'm not a good enough programmer/can't work scraping. Luckily I've built enough of the infrastructure to do a season manually in about 10 minutes. So Gilmour's 92-93 season breaks down into these two lines:
+GD: 50 games, 18+48=66, +18, TOR 152 GF (3.04/G), so 0.118, 0.434 on G%/P%
-GD: 33 games, 14+47=61, +14, TOR 136 GF (4.00/G - Gilmour missed 1 Hartford game), so 0.102, 0.448 on G%/P%

Just to prevent you from duplicating work, this post contains the career +GD/-GD splits of a bunch of T100 forwards - Ovechkin or Lafleur - who was better?

I still haven't figured out exactly how to thread that needle in assigning the reasoning behind the PPG differential. One thing I do need to do is go back and generate G%/P% for both sides of the split. I started with team splits, spent waaaaaaay too much time manually going through game logs and inputting seasons into a spreadsheet, then one day hit upon using goal differential as splits, and have used it since. The biggest adjustment I've added is using G%/P% to help account for scoring levels, because of how robust it is across eras.

 

[buffalowing88]

Thank you! You don’t need to keep doing this, but I’m not gonna say no. This is all incredibly helpful and sorta gives me some nuanced perspective. Thank you again.

 

[buffalowing88]

I really should automate it more, but I'm not a good enough programmer/can't work scraping. Luckily I've built enough of the infrastructure to do a season manually in about 10 minutes. So Gilmour's 92-93 season breaks down into these two lines:
+GD: 50 games, 18+48=66, +18, TOR 152 GF (3.04/G), so 0.118, 0.434 on G%/P%
-GD: 33 games, 14+47=61, +14, TOR 136 GF (4.00/G - Gilmour missed 1 Hartford game), so 0.102, 0.448 on G%/P%

Just to prevent you from duplicating work, this post contains the career +GD/-GD splits of a bunch of T100 forwards - Ovechkin or Lafleur - who was better?

I still haven't figured out exactly how to thread that needle in assigning the reasoning behind the PPG differential. One thing I do need to do is go back and generate G%/P% for both sides of the split. I started with team splits, spent waaaaaaay too much time manually going through game logs and inputting seasons into a spreadsheet, then one day hit upon using goal differential as splits, and have used it since. The biggest adjustment I've added is using G%/P% to help account for scoring levels, because of how robust it is across eras.

I love that you did it manually too, initially. I wore out my wrist trying to give some analytics to Gartner.

Anyways, I think I’m gonna follow your lead if you don’t mind and take the same approach. You’re really good at this.

 

[VMBM]

Boris Mikhailov is player I've come to rank lower in recent years. Although he did make the cut and finished 86th in the final list, it became more or less clear from the discussion that Mikhailov was rarely even the best European RW. Maltsev, Vikulov, Martinec and once even Nedomanský who played off of his normal center position were all repeatedly voted over Mikhailov for RW international awards. Furthermore, Mikhailov did little something of note before the Summit Series and his prime seasons happened strictly in 1973-1980, despite otherwise playing for USSR National team since late 60s. Still, Mikhailov consistently put up excellent scoring numbers on domestic and international level and he was gritty, agitating, defensively competent forward with lauded leadership abilities. His playing style in combination with reliable scoring productivity makes him a worthy top 100 player.

I have long wondered what would have happened to Mikhailov's career and legacy if he, along with Petrov, hadn't been rejoined with Kharlamov on CSKA's and the Soviet national team's top line in the fall of 1972. Like you indicated, before 1972/73, Mikhailov hadn't achieved that much individual glory, and especially in the 1971-72 season when he was playing with Petrov and Yuri Blinov on CSKA's/ntl team's 2nd line, he seemed to have a very mediocre season. And he was already approaching 30 at this point. In contrast, Kharlamov, who played with Firsov (although Maltsev replaced him for the 1972 WHC) and Vikulov on the top line, had a huge season, as did his linemates. I don't think many would have bet back then that Mikhailov was still going to have a legendary domestic and international career...
However, Mikhailov did play on CSKA's/USSR's top line in 1972/3-1980 and he really made the most of it. Did he become a better player in his late-20s/30s or what happened there? It is obvious that he was a late bloomer, but did he also start working even harder than he had before? Whether one played on the Soviets' top or some other line obviously made some difference, but I don't think that's the only explanation for Mikhailov's clear 'step up in class'. (I'm probably overthinking here a bit!)

Whatever the case, I think it's fair to say that in 1977/78-79, Mikhailov was generally the best player on his line/team and one of the very best players in the world, with definitely only Guy Lafleur ranking ahead of him. It could even be claimed that around the Challenge Cup and the 1979 World Championship, Mikhailov actually was the best player in the world (and certainly the best player in Europe), if only for a short period of time; I don't think this had happened before, unless it was Kharlamov around 1976 (just before his accident, and before Lafleur's absolute peak).
.

Valeri Vasiliev. Great 70s and early 80s Soviet d-man whom we discussed in 2019 but ultimately reached - I think - a consensus that he's just below that magic 100 threshold. During previous project, I made two detailed posts (1st part, 2nd part) outlining how would Vasiliev's career likely played out in a global league which would had fully integrated all the world's top talent. I think Vasiliev came short of winning some notable awards primarily because of his less-varied game. My current read on Vasiliev is that he was a very one-way, stay-at-home d-man who didn't mind getting more physical with forwards (very important quality in 1970s..). But Vasiliev was not able (or willing?) to contribute offensively to even half a degree of other notable non-NHL Euro d-men such as Fetisov, Suchý, Pospíšil, Kasatonov or Sologubov. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Vasiliev never won any defensemen scoring on either domestic (USSR league) or international (WHCs, OGs, CCs) level. A top 110 player.

I've usually considered Vasiliev somewhat overrated, but sometimes I feel that I tend to underrate defensemen in general.

But yeah, I've never been very impressed by his offensive contributions, with some lone exceptions (e.g. there are some rare solo goals and nice offensive rushes that he showed when he played behing the top line on Team USSR), and I think his work on power plays was not always that convincing (sometimes erratic shooting, bad decision-making etc). The only bigger exception for me is the 1979 Challenge Cup, where his all-around play was quite excellent in my opinion. I was thinking that maybe he became more versatile later on, but on the other hand, his statistics don't really support that, neither domestically nor internationally, so I don't know. In any case, it's his toughness, strength (his bodychecks are notorious around the world, of course!), defensive skills and maybe leadership qualities that his case rests on.

 

[DN28]

I have long wondered what would have happened to Mikhailov's career and legacy if he, along with Petrov, hadn't been rejoined with Kharlamov on CSKA's and the Soviet national team's top line in the fall of 1972. Like you indicated, before 1972/73, Mikhailov hadn't achieved that much individual glory, and especially in the 1971-72 season when he was playing with Petrov and Yuri Blinov on CSKA's/ntl team's 2nd line, he seemed to have a very mediocre season. And he was already approaching 30 at this point. In contrast, Kharlamov, who played with Firsov (although Maltsev replaced him for the 1972 WHC) and Vikulov on the top line, had a huge season, as did his linemates. I don't think many would have bet back then that Mikhailov was still going to have a legendary domestic and international career...
However, Mikhailov did play on CSKA's/USSR's top line in 1972/3-1980 and he really made the most of it. Did he become a better player in his late-20s/30s or what happened there? It is obvious that he was a late bloomer, but did he also start working even harder than he had before? Whether one played on the Soviets' top or some other line obviously made some difference, but I don't think that's the only explanation for Mikhailov's clear 'step up in class'. (I'm probably overthinking here a bit!)

Whatever the case, I think it's fair to say that in 1977/78-79, Mikhailov was generally the best player on his line/team and one of the very best players in the world, with definitely only Guy Lafleur ranking ahead of him. It could even be claimed that around the Challenge Cup and the 1979 World Championship, Mikhailov actually was the best player in the world (and certainly the best player in Europe), if only for a short period of time; I don't think this had happened before, unless it was Kharlamov around 1976 (just before his accident, and before Lafleur's absolute peak).
.


I've usually considered Vasiliev somewhat overrated, but sometimes I feel that I tend to underrate defensemen in general.

But yeah, I've never been very impressed by his offensive contributions, with some lone exceptions (e.g. there are some rare solo goals and nice offensive rushes that he showed when he played behing the top line on Team USSR), and I think his work on power plays was not always that convincing (sometimes erratic shooting, bad decision-making etc). The only bigger exception for me is the 1979 Challenge Cup, where his all-around play was quite excellent in my opinion. I was thinking that maybe he became more versatile later on, but on the other hand, his statistics don't really support that, neither domestically nor internationally, so I don't know. In any case, it's his toughness, strength (his bodychecks are notorious around the world, of course!), defensive skills and maybe leadership qualities that his case rests on.

That's a good point and a strong reason why Mikhailov still belongs in the top 100 somewhere. How many European players could claim that they were legitimately best players in hockey for a span of at least one season? Not many, and Mikhailov is one of them.

Agree with you on Vasiliev as well. He too, just like Mikhailov, peaked in that 78/79 season where everything just clicked for them and for the Soviet team (Challenge Cup + one of the most dominating WHC win at the end of that season).

Yeah, Vasiliev didn't become more versatile later on. For example, he was an All-Star D at '81 Championship along with Robinson and he was voted there despite his 0 points in 8 games.

I ask myself the same question whether I underrated d-men or not. But I just think there were quite a few forwards (at least those I listed) who had clearly bigger impact (on-ice impact, but also - say - name recognition) than Vasiliev...

 

[ted2019]

Is it Goulet or Recchi?

Recchi, but Goulet might join the fray.