Voting Record - VanIslander, Mike Farkas, tony d

[ImporterExporter]

Indeed, OV is not a sniper, but he is a prolific goal scorer.

And, at the end of the day, the number of shots DOESN'T MATTER WHATSOEVER!

Scoring goals matters.

Whomever scored more goals gets more praise, and deservedly so, as a goal scorer.

All coulda, woulda, shoulda aside.

So you would contend that Wayne Gretzky is the greatest goal scorer in the history of the game?

Simply because he has the most?

And I AGREE. Ovi is a prolific goal scorer. Scoring lots of goals gives credence to that.

The difference between you and I and at this point in the discussion, most others, is that I don't stop at a singular stat when evaluating "who's best". I believe the world is full of grey matter and that all things in life (stats included) aren't black and white.

 

[VanIslander]

So you would contend that Wayne Gretzky is the greatest goal scorer in the history of the game?

The greatest? Yes.

Gretzky holds 18 NHL goal scoring records (including playoff goals).

1016 NHL goals in total.
92 goals in a single regular season.

122 playoff goals.
24 playoff game winners.

No one is close enough for an adjust-for-era difference or for derivative analyses.

 

[Midnight Judges]

It'd be like an NFL QB leading the league in passing yards 10 years running while also throwing anywhere from 30-60% more than all other QB's in the league, year to year.

QBs don't create passing plays for themselves the way hockey players create scoring opportunities.

Ridiculous analogy.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Unless you or MJ are going to suggest goal scorers in the NHL score goals without the work of others to facilitate said goal scorers.

You should quote wherever I said that.

Deep down you know how lame your argument is, and that's why you are reduced to straw man statements.

 

[Midnight Judges]

The greatest? Yes.

Gretzky holds 18 NHL goal scoring records (including playoff goals).

1016 NHL goals in total.
92 goals in a single regular season.

122 playoff goals.
24 playoff game winners.

No one is close enough for an adjust-for-era difference or for derivative analyses.

Ovechkin's best season equates to 94 goals in '82:

NHL & WHA Single Season Leaders and Records for Adjusted Goals | Hockey-Reference.com

Ovechkin's career adjusted total will easily blow by Gretzky early into next season:

NHL & WHA Career Leaders and Records for Adjusted Goals | Hockey-Reference.com

Howe is the leader in that regard.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Could someone post a link for adjusted Stanley Cup wins?

 

[Midnight Judges]

Ratios are hard to comprehend apparently.

 

[TheEye]

Could someone post a link for adjusted Stanley Cup wins?

Here you go:

Adjusted Stanley Cups

 

[Canadiens1958]

Rating SCs won according to the number of teams is not an adjustment rather, it is an attempt at evaluation. Poor attempt but....

 

[Midnight Judges]

Makes perfect sense. The likelihood of winning a cup was far greater back in the O6 days. Those cup wins are objectively relatively cheap and easy.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Makes perfect sense. The likelihood of winning a cup was far greater back in the O6 days. Those cup wins are objectively relatively cheap and easy.

Previously you introduced a HHOF metric that now you conveniently ignore or deny.

Specifically.

O6 era any year at least 1/2 the playoff goalies were future HHOFers, 2019 maybe 1 out of 16 teams.

How many future, HHOF members in the 2019 playoffs? At most 1-2 per team. O6 era 4-12 per team.

O6 era, Vezina winners, Regular season TGA leaders, won 6 consecutive SC 1955-60. All future HHOFERs.

Methinks you lack a solid base for your position.

 

[ImporterExporter]

QBs don't create passing plays for themselves the way hockey players create scoring opportunities.

Ridiculous analogy.

No, QB's never break the pocket or do things that enable them to complete passes to somebody on their team. QB's don't have to read a defense both pre and post snap I guess?

QB's need other players to do their jobs well so that they can run the offense. Be it the WR running the correct route/catching the ball. The offensive line blocking the right people, etc.

Goal scorers need other players to do their jobs well so that they can score goals. Puck retrieval, being in the right spots, making a good pass, etc. Unless you're going to suggest that players like Ovechkin simply score goals in a vacuum? Which I know you aren't going to do.

Is it perfectly apples to apples? No. But then again, I've never once suggested it was. But there are correlations.

They are team games that require other teammates to facilitate goals being scored and passes being completed.

In one sport we have conversations about efficiency and advantages player A may have over player B, so on and so forth.

To simply judge a stand a lone stat (goals) as conclusive indicator as to who is "best" of said stat is the real ridiculous thing happening here.

Ignoring the inherent advantage of taking thousands more shots in goal scoring races then any other player is ridiculous.

Ignoring the inherent advantage of playing wing in the league today (especially the way the Caps have allowed 8 to play) while also playing anywhere from downright atrocious to average defense, as it pertains to scoring goals, over the course of a decade and half is ridiculous.

And at the end of the day I'm the one who's putting numbers up with most of my posts. Looking at the ratio's and advantages/disadvantages. Making logical statements like shooting way more than anyone else = greater odds of scoring goals than anyone else = a pretty clear cut factoid. A factoid that folks like you don't want to discuss, even though it has statistical merit, because it destroys a narrative that nobody has really dared to challenge.

Strawmen?

 

[ImporterExporter]

Makes perfect sense. The likelihood of winning a cup was far greater back in the O6 days. Those cup wins are objectively relatively cheap and easy.

I don't think you understand the meaning of both those words and if you did you wouldn't place them back to back or suggest that Cup wins are "cheap and easy".

 

[ImporterExporter]

Previously you introduced a HHOF metric that now you conveniently ignore or deny.

Specifically.

O6 era any year at least 1/2 the playoff goalies were future HHOFers, 2019 maybe 1 out of 16 teams.

How many future, HHOF members in the 2019 playoffs? At most 1-2 per team. O6 era 4-12 per team.

O6 era, Vezina winners, Regular season TGA leaders, won 6 consecutive SC 1955-60. All future HHOFERs.

Methinks you lack a solid base for your position.

Bingo.

Yes, the 06 era had, obviously, fewer teams.

The 06 also had much deeper teams and stars played against stars, far more often than they do today.

At least Bobby Hull can say he faced tighter comp among skaters, game to game, the netminders he faced were also of higher quality, game to game.

Oh, and players chasing him were also of deeper quality. No offense to Steven Stamkos, John Tavares and Ilya Kovalchuk, but Gordie Howe, Frank Mahovlich and Stan Mikita, they are not.

Since 2010 Ovechkin has averaged 0.565 goals per game. Second place is Stamkos, barely behind him at 0.545 per game.

Yet Ovechkin needs to take 4.53 shots per game to hold such a narrow lead in goals per game vs only 3.21 shots per game by Stamkos. Do I need to tell you how many extra shots that equals over an 82 game schedule? And that's just shots on net. Doesn't even include misses/blocks/etc which only skew the numbers more heavily in favor of 8.

So why doesn't Ovechin win goal scoring races by bigger margins that correlate to his massive advantage in shot totals?

Volume vs efficiency.

Quality vs quantity.

 

[Theokritos]

... suggest that Cup wins are "cheap and easy".

Relatively cheap and easy, that was the argument.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Relatively cheap and easy, that was the argument.

Even still,

That argument is ludicrous.

And take it from somebody who used to think that way. That's a young man/kids way of thinking about winning SC's.

MJ and other folks like to argue about the short nature of a playoff series vs today. The lack of team diversity. The overall depth of the league.

Yes, seasons and playoffs were shorter then. Yes, there were far fewer teams and yes the overall depth of the league was less then because there were less teams.

But,

Players today also enjoy other massive benefits that players then didn't have and it really balances out the argument of who had it tougher.

In the 06 era, you were playing stars and top teams more often. You didn't have the expansion teams and perennial losers to beet up on, found much more today. The game to game quality was better. So while players today play more games, they also have chances to enhance numbers vs lesser teams, more often.

In the 06 era equipment was shiiiit compared to today. It's a damn good and often forgotten area to look at. Having better equipment only enhances talents and the game overall.

In today's game you have much, much better medical technology/treatment. Bobby Orr would have almost surely played a full career had he enjoyed the same treatment options as players do today. And if he'd had a 2nd half of a career near/at what he did in the first 3rd/half, doesn't he become the greatest player ever, rather easily?

 

[seventieslord]

In the 06 era equipment was shiiiit compared to today. It's a damn good and often forgotten area to look at. Having better equipment only enhances talents and the game overall.

So who was disadvantaged? The forwards who couldn't deke out defensemen with their crappy skates, or the defensemen with their crappy skates who couldn't stop the forwards? The shooters who had their terrible heavy wooden sticks, or the goalies trying to stop them with the heavy pads?

 

[Vilica]

In the 06 era, you were playing stars and top teams more often. You didn't have the expansion teams and perennial losers to beet up on, found much more today. The game to game quality was better. So while players today play more games, they also have chances to enhance numbers vs lesser teams, more often.

How are you defining lesser teams more often? My research has indicated that in the O6 era, the players on our top 100 list played many more games against teams with a negative goal differential than they did teams with a positive goal differential. Here's the standings for the 60-61 season:
Montreal 92 Points, +66 GD
Toronto 90 Points, +58 GD
Chicago 75 Points, +18 GD
Detroit 66 Points, -20 GD
New York 54 Points, -44 GD
Boston 43 Points, -78 GD

By definition, every team plays 14 games, 20% of the schedule against every other team. If a player was on Montreal, that means they'd play 28 games against positive goal differential teams, and 42 games against negative goal differential teams. There was also much less year to year movement in team points - between 60-61 and 66-67 Boston never broke 50 points, and their yearly goal differentials went -78, -129, -83, -42, -87, -101, -71. That's basically -1.2 goals per game. That's the equivalent of a team going -100 for 7 straight years in the modern NHL - and -100 in post-lockout era has been done exactly three times (Buffalo and Arizona in 14-15, Colorado in 16-17). A lucky player might get 10 games against those teams in those years, of the 162 total, maybe? In contrast, a player who was in the league from 60-67 got to play 98 games against Boston.

Take for example Bobby Hull - I have him as a 1.06 PPG player in 674 games prior to expansion. I have him playing 43.6% of his games against +GD teams, and obviously 56.4% of his games against -GD teams. He was a 0.94 PPG player against +GD teams, and a 1.15 PPG player against -GD teams. In the same sort of sample size, from 05-06 through 15-16, Sidney Crosby played 707 games as a 1.32 PPG player. I have him playing 52.2% of his games against +GD teams, and 47.8% against -GD teams, and he was a 1.25 PPG player against +GD teams and a 1.40 PPG player against -GD teams. (Also fwiw, in those 700 games for Chicago that Hull had an opportunity to play in, they averaged 3.01 Goals for per game, and in the 868 games that Crosby had an opportunity to play, Pittsburgh averaged 3.02 Goals for per game, so there isn't really any scoring gap between the teams.)

 

[Canadiens1958]

How are you defining lesser teams more often? My research has indicated that in the O6 era, the players on our top 100 list played many more games against teams with a negative goal differential than they did teams with a positive goal differential. Take for example the 60-61 season, here's the standings:
Montreal 92 Points, +66 GD
Toronto 90 Points, +58 GD
Chicago 75 Points, +18 GD
Detroit 66 Points, -20 GD
New York 54 Points, -44 GD
Boston 43 Points, -78 GD

By definition, every team plays 14 games, 20% of the schedule against every other team. If a player was on Montreal, that means they'd play 28 games against positive goal differential teams, and 42 games against negative goal differential teams. There was also much less year to year movement in team points - between 60-61 and 66-67 Boston never broke 50 points, and their yearly goal differentials went -78, -129, -83, -42, -87, -101, -71. That's basically -1.2 goals per game. That's the equivalent of a team going -100 for 7 straight years in the modern NHL - and -100 in post-lockout era has been done exactly three times (Buffalo and Arizona in 14-15, Colorado in 16-17). A lucky player might get 10 games against those teams in those years, of the 162 total, maybe? In contrast, a player who was in the league from 60-67 got to play 98 games against Boston.

Take for example Bobby Hull - I have him as a 1.06 PPG player in 674 games prior to expansion. I have him playing 43.6% of his games against +GD teams, and obviously 56.4% of his games against -GD teams. He was a 0.94 PPG player against +GD teams, and a 1.15 PPG player against -GD teams. In the same sort of sample size, from 05-06 through 15-16, Sidney Crosby played 707 games as a 1.32 PPG player. I have him playing 52.2% of his games against +GD teams, and 47.8% against -GD teams, and he was a 1.25 PPG player against +GD teams and a 1.40 PPG player against -GD teams. (Also fwiw, in those 700 games for Chicago that Hull had an opportunity to play in, they averaged 3.01 Goals for per game, and in the 868 games that Crosby had an opportunity to play, Pittsburgh averaged 3.02 Goals for per game, so there isn't really any scoring gap between the teams.)

Its not about the games played but about the games won and lost or tied.

To get your data your are dancing back and forth between player performance and team performance.

Back on topic. Winning the Stanley Cup. The differential in games played between Hull and Crosby is a function of season length. Curious about the difference in RS games played by Hull. Initially you claim 674, later 700. Regardless, Crosby's teams won three SCs while Hull's won only one.

Perhaps Crosby's teams had an easier time winning SCs

 

[daver]

Previously you introduced a HHOF metric that now you conveniently ignore or deny.

Specifically.

O6 era any year at least 1/2 the playoff goalies were future HHOFers, 2019 maybe 1 out of 16 teams.

How many future, HHOF members in the 2019 playoffs? At most 1-2 per team. O6 era 4-12 per team.

O6 era, Vezina winners, Regular season TGA leaders, won 6 consecutive SC 1955-60. All future HHOFERs.

Methinks you lack a solid base for your position.

A little bit easier to rack up Vezina wins, All-Star nods, and HOF credentials when you are up against only 5 other contenders don't you think?

There is no reason to think that any goalie finishing in the Top 5 in Vezina voting in a 30 team league would not have a reasonable shot to win the Vezina in the O6.

Discounting accomplishments by current players based on the times they faced HOF talent is statistically disingenuous.

 

[daver]

In the 06 era, you were playing stars and top teams more often. You didn't have the expansion teams and perennial losers to beet up on, found much more today. The game to game quality was better. So while players today play more games, they also have chances to enhance numbers vs lesser teams, more often.

As shown by the other poster, statistically, the O6 stars faced lesser competition, on a relative basis, vs. their direct peers, than today's star players do.

Regardless of this, today's players all face the same level of competition meaning any player who separates themselves from the pack does so in the same environment as his direct peers. Your theory doesn't make it any easier for one player to do that anymore than it was for a player to do it in the O6.

Based on what you are saying, we should discount the results from all current players when compared to all O6 players. Seems like a pretty unreasonable premise to work with.

And it is 100% speculation anyways whose only utility is to allow personal biases to be put forward. We have zero idea what Hull would do in today's league or what Crosby or OV would do in the O6.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Qualifications for the Vezina changed in the early 1980s.

Expectation that this is commonly known does not apply to all.

 

[Vilica]

Its not about the games played but about the games won and lost or tied.

To get your data your are dancing back and forth between player performance and team performance.

Back on topic. Winning the Stanley Cup. The differential in games played between Hull and Crosby is a function of season length. Curious about the difference in RS games played by Hull. Initially you claim 674, later 700. Regardless, Crosby's teams won three SCs while Hull's won only one.

Perhaps Crosby's teams had an easier time winning SCs

In regards to the games played, Hull played 674 of a possible 700 games (96%) from 57-58 to 66-67, and instead of going through each individual year and excluding the games that Hull did not play, I simply just took the total number of goals scored by the Hawks over that period. In the same vein, Crosby played in 707 of a possible 868 games.

As for games won and lost or tied, here's Chicago head to head results against Montreal in this sample size.

	vs Montreal	GF	GA	GD
57-58	3-10-1	27	48	-21
58-59	1-8-5	28	50	-22
59-60	3-7-4	27	40	-13
60-61	5-5-4	40	40	0
61-62	3-9-2	38	53	-15
62-63	3-4-7	29	36	-7
63-64	6-5-3	39	30	9
64-65	5-6-3	44	36	8
65-66	4-8-2	39	49	-10
66-67	5-2-7	47	34	13
140	38-64-38	358	416	-58
	Hull all	2.557	2.971
112	34-46-32	303	318	-15
	Hull w/Mikita	2.705	2.839

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

You could argue that the first two years of Hull without Mikita contributed -43 to that Goal Differential, and once Mikita shows up Chicago does much better. There's actually a big split between Hull and Mikita against Montreal - once Mikita shows up, he plays 110 games against Montreal and Hull plays 106. In total over that time period (against everybody), Hull was a 1.15 PPG player, and Mikita a 1.06 PPG player. However, Mikita scored 112 points in those 110 games, and was a +34, while Hull had 92 points in 106 games, and was a -22. That's certainly a stark difference (and also backs up that they generally were not linemates).

There's nothing subjective about this - it is how both Mikita and Hull performed against Montreal over this time period. You could also split out their performances against Boston in this time period - Hull played 108 games and Mikita 109 games. Hull scored 151 points and was a +69 against Boston, a 1.40 PPG average, and Mikita scored 132 points and was a +56, a 1.21 PPG average. To me, that reveals that Bobby Hull struggled against elite teams, and padded his stats against poor teams much more so than Stan Mikita did over the same time period as teammates.

 

[Canadiens1958]

In regards to the games played, Hull played 674 of a possible 700 games (96%) from 57-58 to 66-67, and instead of going through each individual year and excluding the games that Hull did not play, I simply just took the total number of goals scored by the Hawks over that period. In the same vein, Crosby played in 707 of a possible 868 games.

As for games won and lost or tied, here's Chicago head to head results against Montreal in this sample size.

	vs Montreal	GF	GA	GD
57-58	3-10-1	27	48	-21
58-59	1-8-5	28	50	-22
59-60	3-7-4	27	40	-13
60-61	5-5-4	40	40	0
61-62	3-9-2	38	53	-15
62-63	3-4-7	29	36	-7
63-64	6-5-3	39	30	9
64-65	5-6-3	44	36	8
65-66	4-8-2	39	49	-10
66-67	5-2-7	47	34	13
140	38-64-38	358	416	-58
	Hull all	2.557	2.971
112	34-46-32	303	318	-15
	Hull w/Mikita	2.705	2.839

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

You could argue that the first two years of Hull without Mikita contributed -43 to that Goal Differential, and once Mikita shows up Chicago does much better. There's actually a big split between Hull and Mikita against Montreal - once Mikita shows up, he plays 110 games against Montreal and Hull plays 106. In total over that time period (against everybody), Hull was a 1.15 PPG player, and Mikita a 1.06 PPG player. However, Mikita scored 112 points in those 110 games, and was a +34, while Hull had 92 points in 106 games, and was a -22. That's certainly a stark difference (and also backs up that they generally were not linemates).

There's nothing subjective about this - it is how both Mikita and Hull performed against Montreal over this time period. You could also split out their performances against Boston in this time period - Hull played 108 games and Mikita 109 games. Hull scored 151 points and was a +69 against Boston, a 1.40 PPG average, and Mikita scored 132 points and was a +56, a 1.21 PPG average. To me, that reveals that Bobby Hull struggled against elite teams, and padded his stats against poor teams much more so than Stan Mikita did over the same time period as teammates.

In the alternative it reveals that teams strategized to stop Hull not Mikita, designating their best checking line to cover the Hull line.

 

[daver]

Perhaps Crosby's teams had an easier time winning SCs

Based on what? Having to be better than 29 teams rather than 5?

And I thought you were the eading advocate for "winning means everything"?

Interested to hear what nuances that one can apply to players winning or not winning the Cup.