Fair enough.
Just to clarify, "best in the world" thing is just a one argument in favor of defensemen I prefer this vote - nothing conclusive yet.
Top-200 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 4
- Thread starter quoipourquoi
- Start date
-
Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
- Status
Fair enough.
Just to clarify, "best in the world" thing is just a one argument in favor of defensemen I prefer this vote - nothing conclusive yet.
tarheelhockey
Offside Review Specialist
This is an extremely small, marginal note in Langway’s career and I don’t mean to overplay it, but just putting it out there for consideration.
In his mid-late 30s, Langway pursued a coaching career by gradually working his way down the pro hockey ladder in search of player-coach opportunities in the minors. I bring this up because I saw a little bit of it in person, and it gives a sense of how he compared to 1990s competition offensively:
1992 Washington (age 34) - 64 games, 0-13-13
1992 playoffs - 7 games, 0-1-1
1993 Washington (age 35) - 21 games, 0-0-0
1995 ECHL Richmond (age 37) - 6 games, 0-0-0
1996 AHL San Francisco (age 38) - 46 games, 1-5-6
1998 AHL Providence (age 40) - 10 games, 0-1-1
Again, obviously this comes with several caveats about age, usage, and purpose.
Still, with caveats in mind, that’s 92 NHL games and 62 minor league games in the 1990s where he scored a total of one single goal. That’s got to be the lowest offensive output from any skater we’ll consider in this project.
In his mid-late 30s, Langway pursued a coaching career by gradually working his way down the pro hockey ladder in search of player-coach opportunities in the minors. I bring this up because I saw a little bit of it in person, and it gives a sense of how he compared to 1990s competition offensively:
1992 Washington (age 34) - 64 games, 0-13-13
1992 playoffs - 7 games, 0-1-1
1993 Washington (age 35) - 21 games, 0-0-0
1995 ECHL Richmond (age 37) - 6 games, 0-0-0
1996 AHL San Francisco (age 38) - 46 games, 1-5-6
1998 AHL Providence (age 40) - 10 games, 0-1-1
Again, obviously this comes with several caveats about age, usage, and purpose.
Still, with caveats in mind, that’s 92 NHL games and 62 minor league games in the 1990s where he scored a total of one single goal. That’s got to be the lowest offensive output from any skater we’ll consider in this project.
Rod Langway's not being considered for his mid 30s.
In the early-80s his ES goals-assists-points were similar to the unadjusted ES totals of 00s Nick Lidstrom.
We might say Langway was a physical Lidstrom-lite...
Maybe I'm not reading you correctly, but it looked like you were comparing early 80s scoring to dead puck era scoring unadjusted? Everyone's early-80s scoring will look good in that comparison.
tarheelhockey
Offside Review Specialist
Like I said, it’s a very minor point. Simply pointing out that at age 34, playing in a very high scoring NHL, Langway was worth very close to zero offense. A couple of years later, he was worth very close to zero in the AHL and ECHL.
Not much has been said about Pavel Datsyuk yet but I think he compares well to all of available forwards now. From a superficial viewpoint, his offense is not as good as others but consider couple of points.
Is Datsyuk the best two-way player here? Looks like he is. 3 Selkes in a row. His top 10 Selke finishes are: 1, 1, 1, 3, 3, 3, 5, 9. No one has gotten better. Delvecchio and Bentley were two-way guys but would they be able to win any Selkes? I didn't find any retroactive Selkes attached to their names. Delvecchio was never considered better in defense than H. Richard or Keon, right? Francis doesn't have as good of a Selke record as Datsyuk.
Datsyuk doesn't have issue with lack of longevity either. Firstly, his point totals are negatively affected by lockout season 2005 during which he played whole year in the Russian Superleague, at World Cup 04 and at World Championship 05.
Secondly, Datsyuk played for the Russian national team at the 2001 WHC before his subsequent start in Detroit.
Thirdly, it's been 5 years since Datsyuk played his last NHL game but he's been still currently playing in the KHL. Since 2016, He has won the Gagarin Cup in 2017. Though he scored 8 points in 7 games in those playoffs which suggests he missed half of games because of injury. Datsyuk also captained the Russians to the Olympic gold medal in 2018 (6 points in 6 games) after which he joined the Triple Gold Club. Members of the press voted Datsyuk an All-Star Center for his contributions in the Olympics.
Outside of that, internationally Datsyuk was selected by the press as a member of All-Star Team at the 2010 WHC - tournament where Russians won every game except the final one. IIHF Directoriate also selected him as the championship's best forward. He also won the WHC gold medal in 2012 (without any individual credentials).
In 2017, Datsyuk was named one of the "100 Greatest NHL Players" by the league representatives themselves.
Datsyuk was also 4 times a Lady Byng trophy winner - noted for his consistently low PIM totals. How frequently you see an elite two-way C while maintaining a clean game and thus staying out of the penalty box? Well, I guess Ron Francis would be the one too, but my point stands...
I distinctly remember a minority of hockey people around me and on the internet who were calling Datsyuk a "real" or "true" best hockey player in the world during his two or three year peak. Now that may have been a little extreme but the claim made some sense when you realize superior defensive game of Datsyuk (versus Malkin, Crosby, Ovechkin at the time), Red Wings' contemporary success in SC playoffs and his uplifting stickhandling artistry.
Datsyuk would be a worthy inclusion to the final list at this point.
Is Datsyuk the best two-way player here? Looks like he is. 3 Selkes in a row. His top 10 Selke finishes are: 1, 1, 1, 3, 3, 3, 5, 9. No one has gotten better. Delvecchio and Bentley were two-way guys but would they be able to win any Selkes? I didn't find any retroactive Selkes attached to their names. Delvecchio was never considered better in defense than H. Richard or Keon, right? Francis doesn't have as good of a Selke record as Datsyuk.
Datsyuk doesn't have issue with lack of longevity either. Firstly, his point totals are negatively affected by lockout season 2005 during which he played whole year in the Russian Superleague, at World Cup 04 and at World Championship 05.
Secondly, Datsyuk played for the Russian national team at the 2001 WHC before his subsequent start in Detroit.
Thirdly, it's been 5 years since Datsyuk played his last NHL game but he's been still currently playing in the KHL. Since 2016, He has won the Gagarin Cup in 2017. Though he scored 8 points in 7 games in those playoffs which suggests he missed half of games because of injury. Datsyuk also captained the Russians to the Olympic gold medal in 2018 (6 points in 6 games) after which he joined the Triple Gold Club. Members of the press voted Datsyuk an All-Star Center for his contributions in the Olympics.
Outside of that, internationally Datsyuk was selected by the press as a member of All-Star Team at the 2010 WHC - tournament where Russians won every game except the final one. IIHF Directoriate also selected him as the championship's best forward. He also won the WHC gold medal in 2012 (without any individual credentials).
In 2017, Datsyuk was named one of the "100 Greatest NHL Players" by the league representatives themselves.
Datsyuk was also 4 times a Lady Byng trophy winner - noted for his consistently low PIM totals. How frequently you see an elite two-way C while maintaining a clean game and thus staying out of the penalty box? Well, I guess Ron Francis would be the one too, but my point stands...
I distinctly remember a minority of hockey people around me and on the internet who were calling Datsyuk a "real" or "true" best hockey player in the world during his two or three year peak. Now that may have been a little extreme but the claim made some sense when you realize superior defensive game of Datsyuk (versus Malkin, Crosby, Ovechkin at the time), Red Wings' contemporary success in SC playoffs and his uplifting stickhandling artistry.
Datsyuk would be a worthy inclusion to the final list at this point.
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
It is pretty wild that no one in this project treats Eddie Giacomin like someone with 5-consecutive All-Star selections (3x 1st, 2x 2nd) and we all know that his 2nd Team placements in 1968-1970 were from the Rangers being one of the few teams resisting employment of the tandem system in some degree (50:50, 33:33:33, 60:40, etc.)...
[TABLE="class: brtb_item_table"][TBODY][TR][TD][/TD]
[TD]GP[/TD][TD]S%[/TD][TD][/TD]
[TD]GP[/TD][TD]S%[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]1968 - Giacomin[/TD][TD]66[/TD][TD].915[/TD][TD]Parent[/TD][TD]38[/TD][TD].926[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]1969 - Giacomin[/TD][TD]70[/TD][TD].911[/TD][TD]Parent[/TD][TD]58[/TD][TD].925[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]1970 - Giacomin[/TD][TD]70[/TD][TD].916[/TD][TD]Parent[/TD][TD]62[/TD][TD].921[/TD][/TR][/TBODY][/TABLE]
...but (and I include myself in this), we’re also not really giving an appropriate nod to the goaltenders (Bower before, Parent now) who could be perceived as the best or 2nd best in a given year because of how they placed in the same All-Star voting that we don’t actually care about because if we did then where is Giacomin?
I think it’s safe to say that the only thing supposedly missing on Parent’s resume is filler. 2x 1st Team with a 2nd and 4th place Hart finish in years where a teammate was top-5 as well (so they could have just ignored him) and two Conn Smythe Trophies.
[TABLE="class: brtb_item_table"][TBODY][TR][TD][/TD]
[TD]GP[/TD][TD]S%[/TD][TD][/TD]
[TD]GP[/TD][TD]S%[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]1978 - Edwards[/TD][TD]72[/TD][TD].906[/TD][TD]Parent[/TD][TD]49[/TD][TD].912[/TD][/TR][/TBODY][/TABLE]
But it’s not that the filler isn’t there; we just haven’t done a great job in acknowledging it due to voting results that we as a whole have almost hypocritically said should not matter in our treatment of Giacomin.
I think an individual can be high on Giacomin and still low on Parent at this stage, but if one is low on Giacomin and not high on Parent when we’re already 115 players deep, then I think it would be rather inconsistent.
ted2019
History of Hockey
MXD
Partying Hard
- Oct 27, 2005
- 52,147
- 18,120
It's almost like, for these seasons, the W (and possibly the GP) numbers mattered more than every other number. Yes, there's worth in playing every game, and yes, a goalie does not "accrue" value when not playing.
But at this point there's something to be said for the fact that Parent actually faced more shots than Giacomin in both 1969 and 1970, despite playing less. So Parent was better at stopping pucks for a worse team (albeit somewhat defense-oriented) that spent a lot of times killing penalties, all the while being ultimately busier than a netminder that was worse at stopping pucks for a better team.
Shots and saves aren't QUITE everything to a netminder, but it's not like Giacomin was winning those all important games either (Giacomin not being up for voting, I'll skip this part).
Last edited:
MXD
Partying Hard
- Oct 27, 2005
- 52,147
- 18,120
sr edler
gold is not reality
- Mar 20, 2010
- 12,213
- 6,698
I disagree Stamkos compares well to Bure. Stamkos seems like a nice guy, but he's one of most underwhelming playoff performers of his generation (among players of his star stature, despite getting nice opportunities on some very good teams), while Bure was most often either excellent or very good in the playoffs and had one of the most iconic playoff runs of his generation. Stamkos also doesn't have anything of significance (on a personal contribution level) internationally, while Bure had a signature tournament at the Nagano Olympics being voted best forward.
I think Bure & Stamkos only compares well if one is surface skimming regular season numbers. Also, regarding the point made further up thread about C being a deeper position than RW, Stamkos at his young peak when he hit 60 goals lost a 1st team all-star selection at C to Henrik Sedin's 2nd best non-Hart season, while Bure lost two 1st team all-star selections at RW to Jagr, and as much as I like Henrik Sedin (and his 2nd best non-Hart season, I like too) he wasn't peak Jagr good.
If Stamkos had a serious defensive game with some nice Selke support (not necessarily Selke close, but at least a little buzz or fuzz), then he could perhaps start to bridge some of that gap built by his deficiencies regarding playoffs & so-so international resume, but he hasn't so he kinda isn't.
The Tampa player most comparable to Bure is probably Kucherov. Both have that grumpy mean streak too.
Last edited:
ted2019
History of Hockey
I was more taking a jab at Quackenbush's relatively modest accomplishments earning him that nickname from us.
For example Quackenbush led the NHL in ES scoring in 1949 with 17 points. Almost every team in the NHL (Rangers, not so much) had a defender with 13+ points, including his future team Boston, where Pat Egan tied him. His offense was better than the field, but only marginally.
For Langway, he got by in Montreal. Over his last three years with the Habs he was t-10th (w. Reinhart) in the NHL for ES points. He was an average ES point producer, who became below average in Washington.
They both had playoff troubles, but the big problem for Langway's Caps was the new playoff format kept getting them fed to the Isles. While Washington could outshoot New York, the big difference was that there was a really good player who didn't care if his team was outshot 145-110 in 1984 or 172-125 in 1985, he would keep his team in the game, or after going down 2-0 in a best-of-5, keep his team in the series by rattling off three straight wins, including Ws in a pair of 2-1 games. I tell ya, if you want to win a championship a guy like that is probably better to have than a Langway or a Quackenbush...
For now we have Bernie Parent, who has 2 peak regular season years that blow away Quackenbush's 2 best years, and a bunch of other really good years, mostly on bad teams, where he should be at least equal. And that's not even counting the playoffs where he REALLY blows away Quackenbush.
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
Yeah, I can’t say I would necessarily put Stamkos ahead of Bure either, but it was more to the point of a similarly styled ineligible player shouldn’t be an impediment to a similarly styled eligible one.
We might think to compare a Stamkos and a Bure (or a Kucherov and a Bure), even if Stamkos is not eligible. We might not think to compare a Stamkos and a Quackenbush or a Stamkos and a Parent unless they’re in the same round.
For that reason, we should really stick to the eligible players. You make a good argument as to why Bure is better than Stamkos, but Bure shouldn’t even have to clear some sort of bar of being better than Stamkos unless everyone else has to clear that same bar. Because frankly, I don’t know that everyone this round would.
Why are people comparing Parent and only Parent to the Second Team All-Star in 1969, 1970 and 1978? That's a really biased analysis, if we want to revisit awards voting (and for goalies we absolutely should, because the voters focused too much on wins and GAA) then you have to look at everybody. It isn't enough to say that Parent outplayed his backups and outplayed the Second Team All-Star, therefore he was one of the two best goalies in the league. Goaltending in the 1970s was extremely shallow, good starters routinely outplayed their backups by a lot, and if you think the All-Star voting was incorrect you have to prove that your guy beat everyone else, not just the one guy who was overrated.
Take 1977-78, for example:
[TABLE="class: brtb_item_table"][TBODY][TR][TD]Goalie[/TD][TD]Record[/TD][TD]Save%[/TD][TD]Bkp Record[/TD][TD]Bkp Sv%[/TD][TD]Diff[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Herron[/TD][TD]20-25-15[/TD][TD].901[/TD][TD]5-12-3[/TD][TD].838[/TD][TD]+.063[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Bouchard[/TD][TD]25-12-19[/TD][TD].893[/TD][TD]9-15-0[/TD][TD].860[/TD][TD]+.033[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Meloche[/TD][TD]16-27-8[/TD][TD].888[/TD][TD]6-18-5[/TD][TD].857[/TD][TD]+.031[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Palmateer[/TD][TD]34-19-9[/TD][TD].911[/TD][TD]7-10-1[/TD][TD].882[/TD][TD]+.029[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Dryden[/TD][TD]37-7-7[/TD][TD].922[/TD][TD]22-3-4[/TD][TD].895[/TD][TD]+.027[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Vachon[/TD][TD]29-27-13[/TD][TD].892[/TD][TD]2-7-2[/TD][TD].869[/TD][TD]+.023[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Parent[/TD][TD]29-6-13[/TD][TD].912[/TD][TD]16-14-2[/TD][TD].892[/TD][TD]+.020[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Esposito[/TD][TD]28-22-14[/TD][TD].914[/TD][TD]4-7-5[/TD][TD].894[/TD][TD]+.020[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Favell[/TD][TD]13-20-11[/TD][TD].888[/TD][TD]6-20-10[/TD][TD].872[/TD][TD]+.016[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Edwards[/TD][TD]38-16-17[/TD][TD].906[/TD][TD]6-3-0[/TD][TD].895[/TD][TD]+.011[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Resch[/TD][TD]28-9-7 [/TD][TD].908 [/TD][TD]20-8-8 [/TD][TD].909 [/TD][TD]-.001 [/TD][/TR][/TBODY][/TABLE]
There were plenty of other goalies who had to deal with much tougher situations than Parent who weren't that far behind him in save percentage. Parent's performance against his backups was actually unexceptional when compared against most of the league's top goalies, with the exception of Edwards and Resch (who definitely had the hardest internal competition of anyone). Keep in mind too that Parent was 4th in wins and 2nd in GAA, he might have been at a disadvantage to wins leader Edwards in terms of voting but he still had a distinct edge over most of the league. Parent's backup got 3 points in AST voting, while Herron, Bouchard, Meloche and Palmateer combined for 6 total.
Obviously the quality of your goalie competition needs to be considered, but I don't think Parent getting voted the 5th best goalie in 1977-78 was inappropriate at all, if we're fully accounting for team effects. It's fine to advocate for Parent if you think the rest of his career provides more value than he is usually given credit for, but at least compare him to the entire league not just one guy, it's a bad argument.
Take 1977-78, for example:
[TABLE="class: brtb_item_table"][TBODY][TR][TD]Goalie[/TD][TD]Record[/TD][TD]Save%[/TD][TD]Bkp Record[/TD][TD]Bkp Sv%[/TD][TD]Diff[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Herron[/TD][TD]20-25-15[/TD][TD].901[/TD][TD]5-12-3[/TD][TD].838[/TD][TD]+.063[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Bouchard[/TD][TD]25-12-19[/TD][TD].893[/TD][TD]9-15-0[/TD][TD].860[/TD][TD]+.033[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Meloche[/TD][TD]16-27-8[/TD][TD].888[/TD][TD]6-18-5[/TD][TD].857[/TD][TD]+.031[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Palmateer[/TD][TD]34-19-9[/TD][TD].911[/TD][TD]7-10-1[/TD][TD].882[/TD][TD]+.029[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Dryden[/TD][TD]37-7-7[/TD][TD].922[/TD][TD]22-3-4[/TD][TD].895[/TD][TD]+.027[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Vachon[/TD][TD]29-27-13[/TD][TD].892[/TD][TD]2-7-2[/TD][TD].869[/TD][TD]+.023[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Parent[/TD][TD]29-6-13[/TD][TD].912[/TD][TD]16-14-2[/TD][TD].892[/TD][TD]+.020[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Esposito[/TD][TD]28-22-14[/TD][TD].914[/TD][TD]4-7-5[/TD][TD].894[/TD][TD]+.020[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Favell[/TD][TD]13-20-11[/TD][TD].888[/TD][TD]6-20-10[/TD][TD].872[/TD][TD]+.016[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Edwards[/TD][TD]38-16-17[/TD][TD].906[/TD][TD]6-3-0[/TD][TD].895[/TD][TD]+.011[/TD][/TR]
[TR][TD]Resch[/TD][TD]28-9-7 [/TD][TD].908 [/TD][TD]20-8-8 [/TD][TD].909 [/TD][TD]-.001 [/TD][/TR][/TBODY][/TABLE]
There were plenty of other goalies who had to deal with much tougher situations than Parent who weren't that far behind him in save percentage. Parent's performance against his backups was actually unexceptional when compared against most of the league's top goalies, with the exception of Edwards and Resch (who definitely had the hardest internal competition of anyone). Keep in mind too that Parent was 4th in wins and 2nd in GAA, he might have been at a disadvantage to wins leader Edwards in terms of voting but he still had a distinct edge over most of the league. Parent's backup got 3 points in AST voting, while Herron, Bouchard, Meloche and Palmateer combined for 6 total.
Obviously the quality of your goalie competition needs to be considered, but I don't think Parent getting voted the 5th best goalie in 1977-78 was inappropriate at all, if we're fully accounting for team effects. It's fine to advocate for Parent if you think the rest of his career provides more value than he is usually given credit for, but at least compare him to the entire league not just one guy, it's a bad argument.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
First, that's something I said a very long time ago, and I'm not that attached to it today - I think it does say something about the competition level a player was up against, but you're not wrong that it's also important to look at who they topped.
Second, I'm not opposed to doing something similar for Bure. All I said was that I don't care much about all-star voting for wingers, when their offensive metrics are more telling. by the same standard applied to Quackenbush (that I'm not all that attached to), Bure was 1st, 1st, 2nd, 5th and 9th in points in his 5 best seasons with already-added players removed. That's excellent, and comparable, if we acknowledge that point rankings are as good a cursory way of judging offensive wingers as all-star voting is for judging defensive defensemen - but the problem is that in his 6th-best, he's 21st, and it doesn't get any better from there. 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 3rd, 5th, 6th, 10th* is just better, even if you like forwards way more than defensemen (and you do), and even if you like the 90s more than the 1945-1955 (and we should). Not only is that a better string of top-end seasons (by this metric that you suggested I was not willing to employ), it's only about half of Quackenbush's relevant seasons and practically all of Bure's.
*Without looking, I'm quite sure that a couple of those lower rankings are based on low vote totals, but they also occurred in seasons where he was a defacto top-10 defenseman in the NHL by making the all-star game on merit.
Last edited:
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
To be fair to the voters, I'm pretty sure they were not even aware of save percentage at that time. It wasn't an official NHL statistic until sometime later. (I think)
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
Why should anyone expect that backups and tandem partners on every team have the same level of strength and should be beaten by the same margins?
Denis Herron doesn’t have the best season in 1978 just because Dunc Wilson has the worst one.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
I'm still trying to get a sense for how to value Bure as a point producer. I realize that raw points and rankings don't do him justice and obviously a lot of consideration is being made of his "per game" value for him to even be available for voting at this stage of the project.
I know that scoring levels changed a lot from his first peak to his second one, but if you take a look at that entire span (1992-93 through 2000-01) and sort by points per game, here is what you get:
NHL Stats
- Obviously, Lemieux, Jagr, Lindros and Sakic are gone.
- Then we have Lafontaine whose absolute peak is captured in this period and not much else
- Then there are Selanne, Forsberg and Gretzky, long since added to the list
- But then.... Turgeon. Who's got no hope of making this list. And even more comparable, Paul Kariya. (then, low-GP Neely, and then Bure).
Kariya will likely get a chance here but not for a bit still. People are not nearly as split on how good he was, even though his personal accomplishments are practically identical (3-3-4-7 in pts vs 2-3-5-7, 4-5-7 in PPG vs 3-7-7-8). This timeframe cuts off two very good seasons, a couple of good ones, and includes his rookie year (I gave Bure the benefit of cutting his off). Bure averaged 1.12 adjusted points per adjusted game to Kariya's 1.05, but by the end of Kariya's age 32 season he had nearly the same career GP as Bure and 1.13 adjusted pts per adjusted game.
It feels like Kariya more or less had a Bure career by 2006 and then added to it, slightly, after that. There are reasons to prefer Bure - linemates, playoffs - and I would definitely vote Bure over Kariya. Kariya's point collaboration score through his prime is 1.67 - the mark of a standard superstar player with average (on the aggregate) linemates. Bure's are through the roof at 2.07 - driven mostly by his 1994 and 2001 seasons.
Still, this raw points per game comparison doesn't do it for me - does someone have a VsX per game spreadsheet put together, where we can see how he stacks up against other players of his era by his best per-game seasons? I still don't think I like Bure for this round but I'm open to changing my mind before the deadline.
I know that scoring levels changed a lot from his first peak to his second one, but if you take a look at that entire span (1992-93 through 2000-01) and sort by points per game, here is what you get:
NHL Stats
- Obviously, Lemieux, Jagr, Lindros and Sakic are gone.
- Then we have Lafontaine whose absolute peak is captured in this period and not much else
- Then there are Selanne, Forsberg and Gretzky, long since added to the list
- But then.... Turgeon. Who's got no hope of making this list. And even more comparable, Paul Kariya. (then, low-GP Neely, and then Bure).
Kariya will likely get a chance here but not for a bit still. People are not nearly as split on how good he was, even though his personal accomplishments are practically identical (3-3-4-7 in pts vs 2-3-5-7, 4-5-7 in PPG vs 3-7-7-8). This timeframe cuts off two very good seasons, a couple of good ones, and includes his rookie year (I gave Bure the benefit of cutting his off). Bure averaged 1.12 adjusted points per adjusted game to Kariya's 1.05, but by the end of Kariya's age 32 season he had nearly the same career GP as Bure and 1.13 adjusted pts per adjusted game.
It feels like Kariya more or less had a Bure career by 2006 and then added to it, slightly, after that. There are reasons to prefer Bure - linemates, playoffs - and I would definitely vote Bure over Kariya. Kariya's point collaboration score through his prime is 1.67 - the mark of a standard superstar player with average (on the aggregate) linemates. Bure's are through the roof at 2.07 - driven mostly by his 1994 and 2001 seasons.
Still, this raw points per game comparison doesn't do it for me - does someone have a VsX per game spreadsheet put together, where we can see how he stacks up against other players of his era by his best per-game seasons? I still don't think I like Bure for this round but I'm open to changing my mind before the deadline.
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
Lots of math being done on Bure.
Just wondering, have all of our voters seen Bure play?
Just wondering, have all of our voters seen Bure play?
I agree! As I wrote in that post:
That also works both ways, e.g. Don Edwards didn't necessarily have a massively overrated season in 1977-78 just because Bob Sauve posted a career-high .911 save percentage in just 479 minutes. The next season Sauve came in at .876 in 1608 minutes. Edwards was +.017 vs league average in '78 and +.016 vs. league average in '79. I don't think it is obvious that he was overrated in 1977-78 and really good in 1978-79, just because of what Sauve did in a small sample.
Backup analysis is hard, there are a lot of variables to consider and the sample size creates some real issues. The best is probably to use an estimate that takes into account multiple seasons and some subjective tweaking based on the team's talent and style of play. My main point, again, is that you shouldn't do this for one or two goalies each season while completely ignoring the context of the rest of the league.
I'm not criticizing the voters, I'm merely saying that we have more available information and should take that into account. And that's not just looking up save percentages, it's considering how well everybody does within their individual team contexts.
Professor What
Registered User
vadim sharifijanov
Registered User
- Oct 10, 2007
- 30,106
- 18,565
tarheelhockey
Offside Review Specialist
- Status
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
-
-
-
Super Bowl LIX WINNER - Pick only one teamWagers: 2Staked: $1,766.00Event closes - 4 days from now- Updated: