What are your thoughts about Richard's 1944/45 season?

[daver]

McDavid has never finished higher than 6th in goals. He’s currently 6th once again. He’s not anywhere near a 50/50 bet to beat the field.

I meant 50/50 to win the Art Ross.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I meant 50/50 to win the Art Ross.

Art Ross is a whole different dynamic. Scoring goals and generating [goals + assists]... the breaks don’t fall the same way. This is what I got into in the other thread about variability in data samples. The Ross measures twice as many events, and is far less prone to unlikely results.

 

[JackSlater]

Is there any other way to comment on someone's else's subjective opinion?

That being said, claiming that McDavid, unlike Richard, does not have a dominating season on his resume is 100% objective BTW.

Of course, essentially everything that has been said has been subjective, even when a person claims their opinion to be objective. For example, saying that McDavid doesn't have a a "dominating season" is a purely subjective claim. Very much in the same manner as claiming that Richard was essentially a "take it to the bank" goal leader regardless of who played is a very subjective claim.

 

[The Macho King]

Art Ross is a whole different dynamic. Scoring goals and generating [goals + assists]... the breaks don’t fall the same way. This is what I got into in the other thread about variability in data samples. The Ross measures twice as many events, and is far less prone to unlikely results.

Even then - no way is McDavid 50/50 against the field.

 

[Michael Farkas]

The closest thing to a 50/50 shot in today’s league is Ovechkin. He has won 6 of the last 7. I don’t know his actual odds were in the preseason, but I bet they were under 50%. And if you had taken that bet, you’d be losing right now because Pastrnak is having a freakish season and Matthews is going off as well.

Ovechkin was about 6:1 (favorite)
Matthews was roughly 10 to 12:1
Pasta was like 20 to 25:1

I, for one, bet on Jack Eichel at 100:1...cashed it out after I watched Ovechkin net back to back hat tricks haha

 

[BenchBrawl]

Alex Ovechkin winning the Rocket in the past few years was like Rafael Nadal winning Roland Garros a few years ago.

Problem is there's no strong competition.

 

[daver]

Art Ross is a whole different dynamic. Scoring goals and generating [goals + assists]... the breaks don’t fall the same way. This is what I got into in the other thread about variability in data samples. The Ross measures twice as many events, and is far less prone to unlikely results.

I understand that you aren't really arguing against the concept that Richard could have been close to his level of dominance (not necessarily in raw goal totals or percentage over 2nd place) under different circumstances in 44/45, as Farkas mentioned.

I am interested in your idea that one event is more likely to lead to unlikely results than two events.

If we look at the Art Ross winners and the Richard winners over the past 20 years, should we not see a clear indication of this in the form of more dominant Richard winners vs. Art Ross winners?

Off the top of my head, instead of McDavid, then let's go with OV, who has won 8 of 14 goal titles so he has been just over 50/50 vs. the field. He has one goal title (07/08) that approaches the dominance realm that Richard reached three times.

Off the top of my head, I can think of more dominant Art Ross winners than Richard winners over the past 20 years.

 

[daver]

Of course, essentially everything that has been said has been subjective, even when a person claims their opinion to be objective. For example, saying that McDavid doesn't have a a "dominating season" is a purely subjective claim. Very much in the same manner as claiming that Richard was essentially a "take it to the bank" goal leader regardless of who played is a very subjective claim.

I understand from @farkas that noone is really arguing against Richard's ability to dominate that year under any circumstances but rather for the idea that his season needs context in the form of acknowledging some players were missing that year. I am completely fine with applying context to that season based on that. I have been quite clear on that.

My goal was to introduce objective statistical evidence to qualify what exactly that context should look like given that specific context goes into the exclusively subjective territory of "what if" scenarios.

IMO, the starting point to Richard's 50 in 50 season is to objectively identify statistical anomalies that warrant closer inspection.

Was his goal total a statistical anomaly?

Yes. League scoring had taken a jump in the mid 40s so the goal leaders from that time period were higher than the goal leaders from the early and late 40s.

Was his level of dominance over 2nd place and the other Top 5 - 10 goalscorers, in terms of both raw totals and/or GPG, a statistical anomaly in general?

No, Howe and Hull also hit similar levels within the next 23 years before the '67 expansion.

Was his level of dominance over 2nd place and the other Top 5 - 10 goalscorers, in terms of both raw totals and/or GPG, a statistical anomaly for him?

No, he reached a similar level of dominance in 46/47 and 50/51, and at times in his playoff career.

Was there an unusual turnover in the Top Ten goalscorers in 1943/44 and 1944/45 from before and after those years?

Maybe in 46/47 when there were nine new players in the Top Ten but 48/49 also saw the same turnover.

Was there an unusual amount of goalscorers who were Top Ten in 1943/44 and 1944/45 who were not able to hit the Top Ten before or after?

Not especially. There are many examples of Top Ten players from 1943/44 and 1944/45 (Cowley, Howe, Cain, Blake, Carr, Kennedy, Moisenko, DeMarco, and Smith) hitting the Top Ten before and after. And consideration needs to be given to the fact that some of the Top Ten in 1943/44 and 1944/45 increased their production relative to the league with the increase in offensive opportunities they were given which could explain a drop in production relative to league after 44/45 or their lack of presence in the Top Ten before 43/45.


Conclusion: Based on the statistical evidence, my SUBJECTIVE opinion is that it is reasonable to believe that goal totals could have been lower in 44/45 thus Richard, along with the other Top Ten scorers, would not have hit those raw totals. It is also reasonable to believe that a couple of missing players hit the Top Ten in 44/45 with healthy and close to peak production, something that cannot be assumed for all missing players, and that they likely reach a total that is closer to Richard percentage-wise than Cain was. This doesn't mean that the whole Top Ten takes a shift upwards as you can also speculate that some of the actual Top Ten in 44/45 drop out as they lose the offensive opportunity they were given.

 

[daver]

Even then - no way is McDavid 50/50 against the field.

Two Rosses and a 2nd place since his rookie season, and 2nd place currently.

What odds would you give him, assuming, as with Richard in 44/45, perfect health?

 

[daver]

Alex Ovechkin winning the Rocket in the past few years was like Rafael Nadal winning Roland Garros a few years ago.

Problem is there's no strong competition.

The point was he has been 50/50 throughout his whole career with only one of those eight seasons approaching Richard's level of dominance.

Therefore being 50/50 to win =/= putting up a dominant season when you do win

 

[daver]

Goal races are just weird. That’s a principle that underlies a lot of what has been said here. There’s no such thing as “take it to the bank”... an injury here, a run of luck there, a routine shakeup in the lines, and everything changes. In all seriousness, it’s no insult and actually a high compliment to give Richard even odds against every other player in the world. It’s basically saying, he’s going to win unless Hockey Luck becomes a major factor.

You seem to be saying, "let's completely ignore what Richard actually did in 44/45 and start anew with everyone else in the field". If that was the case then your 50/50 claim makes more sense given Richard lost goalscoring titles after 44/45 to players that were missing.

You sound like you truly believe that another player could have reached Richard's level of performance in 44/45 based only on the fact said player did not have the chance to compete that year.

I think that is completely unreasonable given that there were players capable of competing for the goal title in your hypothetical "full roster" season that actually played in 43/44 and 44/45 and were over 50% lower than Richard.

Richard was the only goalscoring leader from the '40s capable of anything close to that level of domination.

 

[JackSlater]

I understand from @farkas that noone is really arguing against Richard's ability to dominate that year under any circumstances but rather for the idea that his season needs context in the form of acknowledging some players were missing that year. I am completely fine with applying context to that season based on that. I have been quite clear on that.

My goal was to introduce objective statistical evidence to qualify what exactly that context should look like given that specific context goes into the exclusively subjective territory of "what if" scenarios.

IMO, the starting point to Richard's 50 in 50 season is to objectively identify statistical anomalies that warrant closer inspection.

Was his goal total a statistical anomaly?

Yes. League scoring had taken a jump in the mid 40s so the goal leaders from that time period were higher than the goal leaders from the early and late 40s.

Was his level of dominance over 2nd place and the other Top 5 - 10 goalscorers, in terms of both raw totals and/or GPG, a statistical anomaly in general?

No, Howe and Hull also hit similar levels within the next 23 years before the '67 expansion.

Was his level of dominance over 2nd place and the other Top 5 - 10 goalscorers, in terms of both raw totals and/or GPG, a statistical anomaly for him?

No, he reached a similar level of dominance in 46/47 and 50/51, and at times in his playoff career.

Was there an unusual turnover in the Top Ten goalscorers in 1943/44 and 1944/45 from before and after those years?

Maybe in 46/47 when there were nine new players in the Top Ten but 48/49 also saw the same turnover.

Was there an unusual amount of goalscorers who were Top Ten in 1943/44 and 1944/45 who were not able to hit the Top Ten before or after?

Not especially. There are many examples of Top Ten players from 1943/44 and 1944/45 (Cowley, Howe, Cain, Blake, Carr, Kennedy, Moisenko, DeMarco, and Smith) hitting the Top Ten before and after. And consideration needs to be given to the fact that some of the Top Ten in 1943/44 and 1944/45 increased their production relative to the league with the increase in offensive opportunities they were given which could explain a drop in production relative to league after 44/45 or their lack of presence in the Top Ten before 43/45.


Conclusion: Based on the statistical evidence, my SUBJECTIVE opinion is that it is reasonable to believe that goal totals could have been lower in 44/45 thus Richard, along with the other Top Ten scorers, would not have hit those raw totals. It is also reasonable to believe that a couple of missing players hit the Top Ten in 44/45 with healthy and close to peak production, something that cannot be assumed for all missing players, and that they likely reach a total that is closer to Richard percentage-wise than Cain was. This doesn't mean that the whole Top Ten takes a shift upwards as you can also speculate that some of the actual Top Ten in 44/45 drop out as they lose the offensive opportunity they were given.

Your goal seems to be to find a statistic that can't exist to demonstrate what the vast majority of people already intuitively realize - it is more difficult to score and to dominate against more difficult competition, especially in a more balanced league. No one can prove whether Richard would have scored more or less or whether the best non-Richard scorer could have outperformed Cain in a league not impacted by WW2, but it's pretty obvious that the most likely outcome is that Richard scores less and someone gets closer than Cain did.

 

[daver]

Your goal seems to be to find a statistic that can't exist to demonstrate what the vast majority of people already intuitively realize - it is more difficult to score and to dominate against more difficult competition, especially in a more balanced league. No one can prove whether Richard would have scored more or less or whether the best non-Richard scorer could have outperformed Cain in a league not impacted by WW2, but it's pretty obvious that the most likely outcome is that Richard scores less and someone gets closer than Cain did.

I told you what my goal was. Why are you putting words into my mouth? I am a numbers person who was looking to try to add some statistical perspective to that reasonable statistical intuition. Anyways, it seems we are on same page in terms of context needed around that season.

That being said, as for being more difficult to score and dominate against more difficult competition, are you saying those two are or aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[JackSlater]

I told you what my goal was. Why are you putting words into my mouth? I am a numbers person who was looking to try to add some statistical perspective to that reasonable statistical intuition. Anyways, it seems we are on same page in terms of context needed around that season.

That being said, as for being more difficult to score and dominate against more difficult competition, are you saying those two are or aren't mutually exclusive.

I am stating your apparent goal in a plain way and pointing out that it isn't possible. Calling yourself a "numbers guy" repeatedly doesn't mean much when you display a jarring lack of ability to apply basic logic to this situation or even the data that we actually do have. You don't need a math degree to recognize that it is more difficult to stand out from stronger peers than it is from weaker peers, and especially so when the stronger peers play in a more balanced league.

I don't know why you are asking me that last question but obviously being more difficult to score and being more difficult to dominate, if that means stand out from peers, are not mutually exclusive ideas.

 

[daver]

I am stating your apparent goal in a plain way and pointing out that it isn't possible. Calling yourself a "numbers guy" repeatedly doesn't mean much when you display a jarring lack of ability to apply basic logic to this situation or even the data that we actually do have. You don't need a math degree to recognize that it is more difficult to stand out from stronger peers than it is from weaker peers, and especially so when the stronger peers play in a more balanced league.

No, I was questioning how "obvious" it was that Richard's stats would change given some of the narrative that was being bandied about by introducing some statistical perspective and questioning some other poster's statistical perspectives.

You don't think that you should try to back up a statistical claim using all statistical data available?

 

[daver]

I don't know why you are asking me that last question but obviously being more difficult to score and being more difficult to dominate, if that means stand out from peers, are not mutually exclusive ideas.

When you say "stand out from peers" are referring to a % gap or simply raw numbers?

E.g. if Richard scored 40 that year while 2nd place scored 26, that is a similar level of domination in terms of % gap despite being a lower raw number gap.

 

[JackSlater]

No, I was questioning how "obvious" it was that Richard's stats would change given some of the narrative that was being bandied about by introducing some statistical perspective and questioning some other poster's statistical perspectives.

You don't think that you should try to back up a statistical claim using all statistical data available?

We have more than enough statistical data to see that Richard's stats would change, in addition to how obvious it is that playing against better goaltenders, better defencemen, better forwards, while playing with the exact same forwards, would cause Richard's scoring to decrease.

When you say "stand out from peers" are referring to a % gap or simply raw numbers?

E.g. if Richard scored 40 that year while 2nd place scored 26, that is a similar level of domination in terms of % gap despite being a lower raw number gap.

Both.

 

[blogofmike]

Your goal seems to be to find a statistic that can't exist to demonstrate what the vast majority of people already intuitively realize - it is more difficult to score and to dominate against more difficult competition, especially in a more balanced league. No one can prove whether Richard would have scored more or less or whether the best non-Richard scorer could have outperformed Cain in a league not impacted by WW2, but it's pretty obvious that the most likely outcome is that Richard scores less and someone gets closer than Cain did.

Balance is the really big issue. Missing names aren't just contenders to beat Richard in a shooting accuracy skills competition - they are people who can increase the goal totals of players who stayed and suppress Richard's goal totals and margin of victory.

It's obvious that Montreal was the team least hurt by the war. They had the most prime HHOF players (Blake/Lach/Richard, Bouchard, Buddy O'Connor, Bill Durnan), taking 5 of 6 spots on the 1st AS team. They were an .800 team without looking all that great on paper. With Brimsek and Broda gone, the Habs are the only team that isn't shooting on the NHL's only goalie with a sub-3.00 GAA. (Even a young Rayner or Jim Henry would have been a significant step forward over Ken McAuley, who I believe the Rangers found on the street and then taped into the net like Goldberg from the Mighty Ducks.)

 

[daver]

Both.

Aside from 43/44 and 44/45 (and their shoulder seasons) are there any other seasons/time period where it was obvious it was more difficult to score?

 

[JackSlater]

Aside from 43/44 and 44/45 (and their shoulder seasons) are there any other seasons/time period where it was obvious it was more difficult to score?

Yes, most seasons in NHL history.

 

[MS]

What an absolutely ridiculous discussion.

Of course Richard's 44-45 season was hugely inflated because of WW 2. Every goalie he was facing was an AHLer and 2/3 of opposition players were AHLers, while most of Montreal's team and their entire superstar line were intact. It's the simplest of simple logic that an all-time dominant line will dominate more against far weaker competition.

As for statistical evidence, look what happens to Montreal's team GF/G during the 1940s. It practically *doubles* when the team is playing garbage opposition (players started leaving in 1941, the full exodus was 43-45, and then trickled back 45-47) before quickly returning to pre-WW2 levels almost as soon as the league returns to full strength.

40-41 2.52
41-42 2.79
42-43 3.62
43-44 4.68
44-45 4.56
45-46 3.44
46-47 3.15
47-48 2.45

The most ridiculous notion here is the using of journeymen like Cain and Liscombe who had absurd career years in 43-44 under the exact same conditions and then didn't build on them in 44-45 as evidence that Richard's 44-45 was legit, rather than the complete opposite.

This was a league in 1943-45 where a decent 2nd liner like Herb Cain could set insane scoring records that lasted for 25 years until post-1967 expansion. Literally everyone knows those Cain marks are totally bogus, but to be arguing that Richard in the exact same situations was totally legit and scored at exactly the same rate he would have against a full-strength NHL is just bonkers.

 

[daver]

Yes, most seasons in NHL history.

So 43/44 and 44/45 are unique. OK, that sounds reasonable.

I have seen others use the "higher league scoring = easier to score and dominate" argument for other seasons/eras and wasn't sure if this is taken as gospel or not.

 

[JackSlater]

So 43/44 and 44/45 are unique. OK, that sounds reasonable.

I have seen others use the "higher league scoring = easier to score and dominate" argument for other seasons/eras and wasn't sure if this is taken as gospel or not.

1943 is an outlier as well, but not to the same degree. That span represents an outlier in NHL history. I don't think that it was any easier to dominate scoring relative to others in the 1980s for instance even though scoring was up.

 

[daver]

1943 is an outlier as well, but not to the same degree. That span represents an outlier in NHL history. I don't think that it was any easier to dominate scoring relative to others in the 1980s for instance even though scoring was up.

In general, I think higher scoring opens the door for generational offensive talent to exploit the gap between them and the field. Lower scoring tends to bring in more parity.

 

[JackSlater]

In general, I think higher scoring opens the door for generational offensive talent to exploit the gap between them and the field. Lower scoring tends to bring in more parity.

I think that a higher scoring environment allows for fewer flukes. Kind of like a basketball game vs a hockey game.