HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   By The Numbers (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=241)
-   -   Vs#2 Thread (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1099631)

BM67 02-06-2012 09:54 AM

Vs#2 Thread
 
Decade by decade data for NHL and PCHA Vs#1 through #4 in goals, assists and points. GP is length of schedule, and the totals are the 10 separate years finishers combined. The PCHA lines without years is 13 year total, or 12 in the case of assists.

Player GP G A Pts Yrs G1 G2 G3 G4 A1 A2 A3 A4 P1 P2 P3 P4
Number 1 1918-1927 272 325 136 404 10 1000% 1160% 1286% 1465% 1000% 1108% 1346% 1378% 1000% 1093% 1177% 1303%
Number 2 1918-1927 272 283 123 370 10 873% 1000% 1115% 1269% 907% 1000% 1213% 1241% 917% 1000% 1078% 1194%
Number 3 1918-1927 272 253 104 343 10 787% 906% 1000% 1139% 762% 839% 1000% 1028% 853% 930% 1000% 1108%
Number 4 1918-1927 272 222 101 311 10 696% 801% 885% 1000% 740% 815% 976% 1000% 777% 847% 911% 1000%
Number 1 1928-1937 464 305 290 510 10 1000% 1097% 1224% 1305% 1000% 1114% 1259% 1345% 1000% 1134% 1186% 1227%
Number 2 1928-1937 464 279 262 450 10 923% 1000% 1114% 1191% 901% 1000% 1131% 1210% 886% 1000% 1045% 1082%
Number 3 1928-1937 464 252 233 432 10 832% 901% 1000% 1070% 801% 889% 1000% 1068% 849% 958% 1000% 1035%
Number 4 1928-1937 464 236 221 417 10 777% 843% 937% 1000% 755% 838% 942% 1000% 821% 926% 967% 1000%
Number 1 1938-1947 500 337 403 637 10 1000% 1213% 1251% 1296% 1000% 1154% 1223% 1291% 1000% 1113% 1168% 1210%
Number 2 1938-1947 500 276 353 580 10 840% 1000% 1029% 1069% 884% 1000% 1060% 1120% 907% 1000% 1053% 1092%
Number 3 1938-1947 500 268 333 550 10 819% 973% 1000% 1039% 837% 935% 1000% 1057% 862% 952% 1000% 1037%
Number 4 1938-1947 500 259 315 530 10 788% 938% 964% 1000% 791% 895% 947% 1000% 831% 919% 965% 1000%
Number 1 1948-1957 680 409 481 807 10 1000% 1217% 1298% 1370% 1000% 1152% 1256% 1313% 1000% 1145% 1238% 1303%
Number 2 1948-1957 680 338 420 706 10 839% 1000% 1072% 1133% 881% 1000% 1095% 1146% 882% 1000% 1080% 1137%
Number 3 1948-1957 680 316 387 657 10 786% 940% 1000% 1057% 810% 922% 1000% 1047% 821% 929% 1000% 1054%
Number 4 1948-1957 680 299 370 623 10 744% 892% 948% 1000% 773% 881% 957% 1000% 779% 882% 951% 1000%
Number 1 1958-1967 700 449 547 896 10 1000% 1213% 1337% 1445% 1000% 1119% 1149% 1218% 1000% 1076% 1153% 1205%
Number 2 1958-1967 700 376 489 834 10 852% 1000% 1111% 1207% 900% 1000% 1026% 1088% 934% 1000% 1072% 1120%
Number 3 1958-1967 700 340 477 779 10 772% 912% 1000% 1088% 878% 975% 1000% 1061% 872% 934% 1000% 1045%
Number 4 1958-1967 700 313 450 746 10 712% 844% 927% 1000% 828% 921% 944% 1000% 836% 896% 959% 1000%
Number 1 1968-1977 780 592 818 1,289 10 1000% 1179% 1235% 1308% 1000% 1188% 1300% 1359% 1000% 1132% 1240% 1324%
Number 2 1968-1977 780 501 692 1,140 10 859% 1000% 1045% 1109% 855% 1000% 1092% 1144% 887% 1000% 1094% 1168%
Number 3 1968-1977 780 480 633 1,041 10 824% 958% 1000% 1061% 787% 919% 1000% 1047% 813% 917% 1000% 1065%
Number 4 1968-1977 780 453 604 981 10 776% 904% 944% 1000% 752% 879% 956% 1000% 768% 865% 941% 1000%
Number 1 1978-1987 800 706 1,141 1,786 10 1000% 1175% 1267% 1321% 1000% 1371% 1462% 1574% 1000% 1373% 1422% 1504%
Number 2 1978-1987 800 602 829 1,306 10 867% 1000% 1081% 1127% 753% 1000% 1068% 1149% 756% 1000% 1038% 1107%
Number 3 1978-1987 800 557 776 1,258 10 803% 928% 1000% 1043% 705% 937% 1000% 1075% 728% 964% 1000% 1066%
Number 4 1978-1987 800 534 723 1,185 10 770% 891% 960% 1000% 658% 874% 932% 1000% 680% 909% 942% 1000%
Number 1 1988-1997 780 674 938 1,446 10 1000% 1186% 1250% 1305% 1000% 1092% 1205% 1255% 1000% 1109% 1212% 1259%
Number 2 1988-1997 780 571 860 1,296 10 862% 1000% 1057% 1106% 924% 1000% 1102% 1148% 905% 1000% 1093% 1135%
Number 3 1988-1997 780 539 779 1,187 10 815% 947% 1000% 1045% 843% 912% 1000% 1041% 832% 918% 1000% 1040%
Number 4 1988-1997 780 514 748 1,042 10 782% 910% 960% 1000% 811% 878% 962% 1000% 800% 883% 962% 1000%
Number 1 1998-2008 820 532 734 1,099 10 1000% 1112% 1139% 1183% 1000% 1117% 1168% 1217% 1000% 1065% 1140% 1174%
Number 2 1998-2008 820 480 656 1,034 10 908% 1000% 1024% 1064% 904% 1000% 1045% 1089% 941% 1000% 1072% 1104%
Number 3 1998-2008 820 468 627 963 10 887% 976% 1000% 1039% 867% 958% 1000% 1042% 881% 936% 1000% 1031%
Number 4 1998-2008 820 451 602 935 10 856% 942% 965% 1000% 832% 920% 960% 1000% 854% 909% 971% 1000%
Number 1 2001-2011 820 532 757 1,103 10 1000% 1106% 1138% 1204% 1000% 1123% 1175% 1225% 1000% 1042% 1114% 1157%
Number 2 2001-2011 820 482 673 1,060 10 911% 1000% 1029% 1090% 898% 1000% 1047% 1092% 960% 1000% 1069% 1110%
Number 3 2001-2011 820 468 642 991 10 885% 972% 1000% 1060% 858% 956% 1000% 1043% 901% 939% 1000% 1039%
Number 4 2001-2011 820 442 617 954 10 836% 919% 946% 1000% 824% 919% 960% 1000% 867% 903% 963% 1000%
PCHA #1 275 367 168 488 13 1300% 1613% 1800% 1965% 1200% 1512% 1713% 1978% 1300% 1521% 1777% 1899%
PCHA #1 1912-1921 191 281 130 373 10 1000% 1211% 1339% 1489% 900% 1147% 1322% 1500% 1000% 1160% 1352% 1447%
PCHA #1 1915-1924 228 292 145 393 10 1000% 1238% 1407% 1562% 1000% 1276% 1432% 1630% 1000% 1146% 1380% 1492%
PCHA #2 275 303 134 422 13 1089% 1300% 1467% 1599% 983% 1200% 1356% 1565% 1128% 1300% 1515% 1618%
PCHA #2 1912-1921 191 238 103 328 10 856% 1000% 1123% 1242% 734% 900% 1036% 1171% 875% 1000% 1166% 1245%
PCHA #2 1915-1924 228 239 115 345 10 834% 1000% 1150% 1272% 809% 1000% 1119% 1275% 883% 1000% 1196% 1290%
PCHA #3 275 271 119 362 13 972% 1170% 1300% 1420% 877% 1069% 1200% 1390% 983% 1131% 1300% 1389%
PCHA #3 1912-1921 191 215 90 282 10 767% 907% 1000% 1109% 641% 786% 900% 1018% 761% 870% 1000% 1068%
PCHA #3 1915-1924 228 211 103 290 10 733% 886% 1000% 1111% 730% 900% 1000% 1145% 754% 849% 1000% 1081%
PCHA #4 275 251 105 341 13 898% 1081% 1203% 1300% 764% 910% 1048% 1200% 925% 1064% 1223% 1300%
PCHA #4 1912-1921 191 197 81 266 10 701% 827% 913% 1000% 573% 699% 801% 900% 718% 819% 942% 1000%
PCHA #4 1915-1924 228 193 92 271 10 667% 805% 911% 1000% 642% 792% 884% 1000% 702% 788% 931% 1000%

Leafs Forever 02-06-2012 11:10 AM

Thanks, and quite useful. Perhaps #2 doesnt vary as much as I thought, though it still does vary.

One think I'm worried about is if the large ranges and the average too mitigate single year oddities.

BM67 02-06-2012 08:52 PM

Year by year data for NHL and PCHA, #2 compared to the #1 through #4 in goals, assists and points. GP is length of schedule.

Player Year League GP G A Pts G1 G2 G3 G4 A1 A2 A3 A4 P1 P2 P3 P4
Number 2 1918 NHL 22 36 10 46 81.82% 100.00% 120.00% 156.52% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 111.11% 95.83% 100.00% 115.00% 153.33%
Number 2 1919 NHL 18 22 9 28 100.00% 100.00% 115.79% 122.22% 90.00% 100.00% 150.00% 150.00% 87.50% 100.00% 100.00% 127.27%
Number 2 1920 NHL 24 37 14 46 94.87% 100.00% 142.31% 154.17% 93.33% 100.00% 116.67% 116.67% 93.88% 100.00% 112.20% 127.78%
Number 2 1921 NHL 24 34 14 40 97.14% 100.00% 103.03% 121.43% 93.33% 100.00% 140.00% 140.00% 93.02% 100.00% 102.56% 108.11%
Number 2 1922 NHL 24 31 14 39 96.88% 100.00% 114.81% 129.17% 82.35% 100.00% 100.00% 116.67% 84.78% 100.00% 102.63% 111.43%
Number 2 1923 NHL 26 24 12 34 92.31% 100.00% 104.35% 126.32% 92.31% 100.00% 109.09% 109.09% 91.89% 100.00% 109.68% 121.43%
Number 2 1924 NHL 24 16 8 23 72.73% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 80.00% 100.00% 133.33% 133.33% 95.83% 100.00% 104.55% 104.55%
Number 2 1925 NHL 30 30 15 42 78.95% 100.00% 107.14% 111.11% 100.00% 100.00% 115.38% 115.38% 91.30% 100.00% 102.44% 107.69%
Number 2 1926 NHL 36 28 12 36 82.35% 100.00% 107.69% 116.67% 92.31% 100.00% 133.33% 133.33% 85.71% 100.00% 116.13% 116.13%
Number 2 1927 NHL 44 25 15 36 75.76% 100.00% 100.00% 131.58% 83.33% 100.00% 115.38% 115.38% 97.30% 100.00% 112.50% 116.13%
Number 2 1928 NHL 44 28 14 39 84.85% 100.00% 103.70% 121.74% 77.78% 100.00% 107.69% 116.67% 76.47% 100.00% 111.43% 111.43%
Number 2 1929 NHL 44 21 15 29 95.45% 100.00% 116.67% 123.53% 93.75% 100.00% 125.00% 150.00% 90.63% 100.00% 107.41% 107.41%
Number 2 1930 NHL 44 41 31 62 95.35% 100.00% 102.50% 105.13% 86.11% 100.00% 103.33% 103.33% 84.93% 100.00% 101.64% 105.08%
Number 2 1931 NHL 44 30 27 48 96.77% 100.00% 107.14% 120.00% 84.38% 100.00% 117.39% 117.39% 94.12% 100.00% 111.63% 114.29%
Number 2 1932 NHL 48 34 33 50 100.00% 100.00% 121.43% 130.77% 89.19% 100.00% 132.00% 132.00% 94.34% 100.00% 102.04% 104.17%
Number 2 1933 NHL 48 27 27 44 96.43% 100.00% 112.50% 122.73% 96.43% 100.00% 108.00% 108.00% 88.00% 100.00% 102.33% 107.32%
Number 2 1934 NHL 48 27 30 46 84.38% 100.00% 122.73% 122.73% 93.75% 100.00% 115.38% 142.86% 88.46% 100.00% 104.55% 117.95%
Number 2 1935 NHL 48 25 32 47 69.44% 100.00% 113.64% 113.64% 94.12% 100.00% 110.34% 118.52% 82.46% 100.00% 102.17% 104.44%
Number 2 1936 NHL 48 23 26 40 100.00% 100.00% 109.52% 121.05% 92.86% 100.00% 104.00% 113.04% 88.89% 100.00% 100.00% 105.26%
Number 2 1937 NHL 48 23 27 45 100.00% 100.00% 104.55% 109.52% 93.10% 100.00% 108.00% 108.00% 97.83% 100.00% 102.27% 104.65%
Number 2 1938 NHL 48 23 27 50 88.46% 100.00% 104.55% 109.52% 93.10% 100.00% 103.85% 108.00% 96.15% 100.00% 113.64% 119.05%
Number 2 1939 NHL 48 24 33 44 92.31% 100.00% 100.00% 114.29% 97.06% 100.00% 106.45% 117.86% 93.62% 100.00% 104.76% 107.32%
Number 2 1940 NHL 48 22 28 43 91.67% 100.00% 100.00% 104.76% 93.33% 100.00% 103.70% 107.69% 82.69% 100.00% 100.00% 107.50%
Number 2 1941 NHL 48 24 28 44 92.31% 100.00% 100.00% 104.35% 62.22% 100.00% 107.69% 112.00% 70.97% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
Number 2 1942 NHL 48 24 32 54 75.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 86.49% 100.00% 103.23% 106.67% 96.43% 100.00% 101.89% 103.85%
Number 2 1943 NHL 50 30 44 72 90.91% 100.00% 107.14% 107.14% 97.78% 100.00% 102.33% 104.76% 98.63% 100.00% 102.86% 118.03%
Number 2 1944 NHL 50 36 48 77 94.74% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 97.96% 100.00% 104.35% 114.29% 93.90% 100.00% 104.05% 105.48%
Number 2 1945 NHL 50 32 40 73 64.00% 100.00% 110.34% 110.34% 74.07% 100.00% 105.26% 111.11% 91.25% 100.00% 108.96% 112.31%
Number 2 1946 NHL 50 31 30 52 83.78% 100.00% 106.90% 114.81% 88.24% 100.00% 100.00% 111.11% 85.25% 100.00% 104.00% 104.00%
Number 2 1947 NHL 60 30 43 71 66.67% 100.00% 100.00% 103.45% 93.48% 100.00% 122.86% 126.47% 98.61% 100.00% 112.70% 114.52%
Number 2 1948 NHL 60 30 36 60 90.91% 100.00% 107.14% 111.11% 97.30% 100.00% 105.88% 116.13% 98.36% 100.00% 105.26% 107.14%
Number 2 1949 NHL 60 26 42 66 92.86% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 97.67% 100.00% 144.83% 150.00% 97.06% 100.00% 122.22% 122.22%
Number 2 1950 NHL 70 35 36 69 81.40% 100.00% 102.94% 120.69% 65.45% 100.00% 102.86% 105.88% 88.46% 100.00% 101.47% 106.15%
Number 2 1951 NHL 70 42 43 66 97.67% 100.00% 135.48% 140.00% 100.00% 100.00% 104.88% 110.26% 76.74% 100.00% 106.45% 108.20%
Number 2 1952 NHL 70 31 42 69 65.96% 100.00% 103.33% 103.33% 84.00% 100.00% 107.69% 107.69% 80.23% 100.00% 106.15% 113.11%
Number 2 1953 NHL 70 32 43 71 65.31% 100.00% 106.67% 114.29% 93.48% 100.00% 110.26% 113.16% 74.74% 100.00% 116.39% 120.34%
Number 2 1954 NHL 70 33 37 67 89.19% 100.00% 113.79% 122.22% 77.08% 100.00% 102.78% 112.12% 82.72% 100.00% 108.06% 124.07%
Number 2 1955 NHL 70 38 43 74 100.00% 100.00% 102.70% 115.15% 89.58% 100.00% 102.38% 102.38% 98.67% 100.00% 101.37% 112.12%
Number 2 1956 NHL 70 38 47 79 80.85% 100.00% 100.00% 102.70% 83.93% 100.00% 111.90% 114.63% 89.77% 100.00% 111.27% 112.86%
Number 2 1957 NHL 70 33 51 85 75.00% 100.00% 100.00% 103.13% 92.73% 100.00% 102.00% 113.33% 95.51% 100.00% 101.19% 110.39%
Number 2 1958 NHL 70 33 48 80 91.67% 100.00% 103.13% 103.13% 92.31% 100.00% 100.00% 109.09% 95.24% 100.00% 102.56% 103.90%
Number 2 1959 NHL 70 41 48 91 91.11% 100.00% 102.50% 124.24% 87.27% 100.00% 104.35% 104.35% 94.79% 100.00% 103.41% 116.67%
Number 2 1960 NHL 70 39 48 80 100.00% 100.00% 114.71% 121.88% 97.96% 100.00% 106.67% 111.63% 98.77% 100.00% 108.11% 108.11%
Number 2 1961 NHL 70 48 50 90 96.00% 100.00% 137.14% 150.00% 86.21% 100.00% 102.04% 104.17% 94.74% 100.00% 107.14% 116.88%
Number 2 1962 NHL 70 33 52 84 66.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 92.86% 100.00% 100.00% 118.18% 100.00% 100.00% 109.09% 109.09%
Number 2 1963 NHL 70 37 49 81 97.37% 100.00% 102.78% 105.71% 98.00% 100.00% 102.08% 106.52% 94.19% 100.00% 106.58% 110.96%
Number 2 1964 NHL 70 39 50 87 90.70% 100.00% 100.00% 134.48% 86.21% 100.00% 100.00% 106.38% 97.75% 100.00% 111.54% 112.99%
Number 2 1965 NHL 70 39 47 83 92.86% 100.00% 134.48% 139.29% 79.66% 100.00% 104.44% 111.90% 95.40% 100.00% 109.21% 116.90%
Number 2 1966 NHL 70 32 48 78 59.26% 100.00% 103.23% 103.23% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 104.35% 80.41% 100.00% 100.00% 101.30%
Number 2 1967 NHL 70 35 49 80 67.31% 100.00% 112.90% 125.00% 79.03% 100.00% 106.52% 111.36% 82.47% 100.00% 114.29% 123.08%
Number 2 1968 NHL 76 40 48 84 90.91% 100.00% 102.56% 114.29% 97.96% 100.00% 100.00% 102.13% 96.55% 100.00% 102.44% 107.69%
Number 2 1969 NHL 76 49 67 107 84.48% 100.00% 100.00% 108.89% 87.01% 100.00% 113.56% 115.52% 84.92% 100.00% 103.88% 110.31%
Number 2 1970 NHL 76 42 56 99 97.67% 100.00% 107.69% 110.53% 64.37% 100.00% 107.69% 112.00% 82.50% 100.00% 115.12% 126.92%
Number 2 1971 NHL 78 51 76 139 67.11% 100.00% 115.91% 118.60% 74.51% 100.00% 116.92% 122.58% 91.45% 100.00% 119.83% 132.38%
Number 2 1972 NHL 78 50 67 117 75.76% 100.00% 100.00% 106.38% 83.75% 100.00% 106.35% 119.64% 87.97% 100.00% 107.34% 110.38%
Number 2 1973 NHL 78 52 72 104 94.55% 100.00% 104.00% 118.18% 96.00% 100.00% 107.46% 118.03% 80.00% 100.00% 102.97% 104.00%
Number 2 1974 NHL 78 52 77 122 76.47% 100.00% 101.96% 104.00% 85.56% 100.00% 124.19% 126.23% 84.14% 100.00% 116.19% 103.71%
Number 2 1975 NHL 80 53 89 127 86.89% 100.00% 101.92% 106.00% 100.00% 100.00% 108.54% 120.27% 94.07% 100.00% 104.96% 106.72%
Number 2 1976 NHL 80 56 71 119 91.80% 100.00% 105.66% 107.69% 79.78% 100.00% 102.90% 102.90% 95.20% 100.00% 105.31% 106.25%
Number 2 1977 NHL 80 56 69 122 93.33% 100.00% 105.66% 114.29% 86.25% 100.00% 104.55% 104.55% 89.71% 100.00% 116.19% 125.77%
Number 2 1978 NHL 80 53 72 123 88.33% 100.00% 108.16% 112.77% 93.51% 100.00% 100.00% 105.88% 93.18% 100.00% 105.13% 126.80%
Number 2 1979 NHL 80 59 77 130 85.51% 100.00% 113.46% 118.00% 88.51% 100.00% 108.45% 108.45% 97.01% 100.00% 100.78% 103.17%
Number 2 1980 NHL 80 56 84 137 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 105.66% 97.67% 100.00% 112.00% 127.27% 100.00% 100.00% 109.60% 129.25%
Number 2 1981 NHL 80 58 82 135 85.29% 100.00% 103.57% 105.45% 75.23% 100.00% 106.49% 112.33% 82.32% 100.00% 103.05% 113.45%
Number 2 1982 NHL 80 64 93 147 69.57% 100.00% 106.67% 116.36% 77.50% 100.00% 106.90% 112.05% 69.34% 100.00% 105.76% 108.09%
Number 2 1983 NHL 80 66 86 124 92.96% 100.00% 110.00% 115.79% 68.80% 100.00% 111.69% 128.36% 63.27% 100.00% 102.48% 105.08%
Number 2 1984 NHL 80 56 86 126 64.37% 100.00% 103.70% 103.70% 72.88% 100.00% 111.69% 117.81% 61.46% 100.00% 104.13% 105.88%
Number 2 1985 NHL 80 71 84 135 97.26% 100.00% 122.41% 129.09% 62.22% 100.00% 105.00% 109.09% 64.90% 100.00% 103.85% 107.14%
Number 2 1986 NHL 80 61 93 141 89.71% 100.00% 105.17% 112.96% 57.06% 100.00% 103.33% 114.81% 65.58% 100.00% 102.17% 107.63%
Number 2 1987 NHL 80 58 72 108 93.55% 100.00% 107.41% 107.41% 59.50% 100.00% 102.86% 112.50% 59.02% 100.00% 100.93% 100.93%
Number 2 1988 NHL 80 56 98 149 80.00% 100.00% 101.82% 105.66% 89.91% 100.00% 112.64% 127.27% 88.69% 100.00% 113.74% 123.14%
Number 2 1989 NHL 80 70 114 168 82.35% 100.00% 107.69% 129.63% 100.00% 100.00% 126.67% 137.35% 84.42% 100.00% 108.39% 112.00%
Number 2 1990 NHL 80 62 84 129 86.11% 100.00% 112.73% 112.73% 82.35% 100.00% 106.33% 107.69% 90.85% 100.00% 101.57% 104.88%
Number 2 1991 NHL 80 51 90 131 59.30% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 73.77% 100.00% 120.00% 123.29% 80.37% 100.00% 113.91% 115.93%
Number 2 1992 NHL 80 54 87 123 77.14% 100.00% 101.89% 101.89% 96.67% 100.00% 108.75% 110.13% 93.89% 100.00% 101.65% 112.84%
Number 2 1993 NHL 84 76 95 148 100.00% 100.00% 110.14% 120.63% 97.94% 100.00% 100.00% 104.40% 92.50% 100.00% 104.23% 108.03%
Number 2 1994 NHL 84 57 84 120 95.00% 100.00% 101.79% 107.55% 91.30% 100.00% 105.00% 109.09% 92.31% 100.00% 107.14% 108.11%
Number 2 1995 NHL 48 32 44 70 94.12% 100.00% 106.67% 106.67% 91.67% 100.00% 102.33% 107.32% 100.00% 100.00% 107.69% 112.90%
Number 2 1996 NHL 82 62 92 149 89.86% 100.00% 112.73% 119.23% 100.00% 100.00% 105.75% 106.98% 92.55% 100.00% 124.17% 125.21%
Number 2 1997 NHL 82 51 72 109 98.08% 100.00% 102.00% 102.00% 100.00% 100.00% 114.29% 114.29% 89.34% 100.00% 110.10% 112.37%
Number 2 1998 NHL 82 52 67 91 100.00% 100.00% 101.96% 101.96% 100.00% 100.00% 101.52% 108.06% 89.22% 100.00% 101.11% 101.11%
Number 2 1999 NHL 82 44 67 107 93.62% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 80.72% 100.00% 108.06% 111.67% 84.25% 100.00% 105.94% 110.31%
Number 2 2000 NHL 82 44 56 94 75.86% 100.00% 102.33% 104.76% 88.89% 100.00% 103.70% 105.66% 97.92% 100.00% 103.30% 109.30%
Number 2 2001 NHL 82 54 69 118 91.53% 100.00% 103.85% 120.00% 100.00% 100.00% 101.47% 106.15% 97.52% 100.00% 122.92% 124.21%
Number 2 2002 NHL 82 41 55 90 78.85% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 85.94% 100.00% 103.77% 110.00% 93.75% 100.00% 105.88% 112.50%
Number 2 2003 NHL 82 48 65 104 96.00% 100.00% 104.35% 106.67% 84.42% 100.00% 103.17% 114.04% 98.11% 100.00% 102.97% 106.12%
Number 2 2004 NHL 82 41 56 87 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 107.89% 100.00% 100.00% 101.82% 103.70% 92.55% 100.00% 100.00% 103.57%
Number 2 2006 NHL 82 54 71 123 96.43% 100.00% 103.85% 103.85% 73.96% 100.00% 102.90% 102.90% 98.40% 100.00% 116.04% 119.42%
Number 2 2007 NHL 82 50 84 114 96.15% 100.00% 104.17% 108.70% 91.30% 100.00% 113.51% 118.31% 95.00% 100.00% 105.56% 108.57%
Number 2 2008 NHL 82 52 66 106 80.00% 100.00% 104.00% 110.64% 98.51% 100.00% 104.76% 108.20% 94.64% 100.00% 108.16% 109.28%
Number 2 2009 NHL 82 46 70 110 82.14% 100.00% 102.22% 106.98% 89.74% 100.00% 106.06% 106.06% 97.35% 100.00% 106.80% 113.40%
Number 2 2010 NHL 82 51 69 109 100.00% 100.00% 102.00% 115.91% 83.13% 100.00% 101.47% 102.99% 97.32% 100.00% 100.00% 107.92%
Number 2 2011 NHL 82 45 68 99 90.00% 100.00% 104.65% 109.76% 90.67% 100.00% 107.94% 119.30% 95.19% 100.00% 101.02% 105.32%
Number 2 1912 PCHA 16 26 0 26 96.30% 100.00% 108.33% 113.04% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 96.30% 100.00% 108.33% 113.04%
Number 2 1913 PCHA 15 14 8 20 58.33% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 114.29% 133.33% 68.97% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
Number 2 1914 PCHA 16 24 11 31 100.00% 100.00% 109.09% 114.29% 73.33% 100.00% 122.22% 157.14% 79.49% 100.00% 110.71% 114.81%
Number 2 1915 PCHA 18 24 11 44 72.73% 100.00% 104.35% 109.09% 52.38% 100.00% 122.22% 137.50% 97.78% 100.00% 146.67% 146.67%
Number 2 1916 PCHA 18 22 13 32 95.65% 100.00% 104.76% 122.22% 100.00% 100.00% 130.00% 130.00% 91.43% 100.00% 110.34% 123.08%
Number 2 1917 PCHA 24 37 17 53 86.05% 100.00% 102.78% 105.71% 94.44% 100.00% 113.33% 113.33% 98.15% 100.00% 110.42% 115.22%
Number 2 1918 PCHA 18 20 11 32 62.50% 100.00% 100.00% 142.86% 91.67% 100.00% 110.00% 137.50% 74.42% 100.00% 139.13% 152.38%
Number 2 1919 PCHA 20 22 9 29 95.65% 100.00% 115.79% 146.67% 69.23% 100.00% 112.50% 128.57% 80.56% 100.00% 116.00% 152.63%
Number 2 1920 PCHA 22 26 10 29 100.00% 100.00% 162.50% 173.33% 76.92% 100.00% 111.11% 125.00% 87.88% 100.00% 120.83% 120.83%
Number 2 1921 PCHA 24 23 13 32 88.46% 100.00% 115.00% 115.00% 76.47% 100.00% 100.00% 108.33% 100.00% 100.00% 103.23% 106.67%
Number 2 1922 PCHA 24 16 10 26 61.54% 100.00% 106.67% 106.67% 83.33% 100.00% 100.00% 111.11% 86.67% 100.00% 104.00% 108.33%
Number 2 1923 PCHA 30 28 12 40 71.79% 100.00% 127.27% 133.33% 75.00% 100.00% 120.00% 133.33% 72.73% 100.00% 137.93% 142.86%
Number 2 1924 PCHA 30 21 9 28 100.00% 100.00% 110.53% 116.67% 90.00% 100.00% 100.00% 150.00% 93.33% 100.00% 107.69% 121.74%

Leafs Forever 02-06-2012 09:49 PM

Much appreciated. :) Some pretty substantial variations apparent some years, I think.

BM67 02-15-2012 02:57 PM

I'm going to stick this in here, since the draft thread will get locked at some time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by seventieslord (Post 44181647)
Not really, when the point is to attempt to assign players a “score” based on how impressive their totals are in a historical context. 1987 is definitely a weird year when you look at how every non-Gretzky fared. The issue is not just in the top-5 scorers.

The number of 90, 80, and 70-point scorers went from an average of 21-33-56 in 1985 and 1986, to 13-23-52 in 1987, to an average of 17-34-57 in 1988 and 1989.

Point is, I have no problem with how the 1987 scores turn out.



Aren’t we talking about the effect of removing Bossy in 1986? If I did, the comparable would be one point higher, meaning minimal differences in the scores.

If you’re referring to 1989, I disagree that the rest of the leaderboard is below average. It looks like any other season in that range to me. The effect of bumping up those players’ scores is desired, the huge undesired effect I was referring to would be the embarrassingly low scores they would have if based on Wayne’s 169 (or even that 140 average)



On the surface, it looks like you are probably right that using 139 in 1982 is not a good idea. At the time I didn’t see it as a “crazy” enough result to break the pattern and “arbitrarily” remove it (see 1989 Yzerman, 1996 Jagr, 2006 Jagr) and one would think that this season to fall more “in line” with other seasons, a lower comparable would likely have to be used. But it actually falls in line with the other seasons pretty nicely:

year 90+ 80+ 70+ 60+
1978 3 3 12 21
1979 4 6 10 23
1980 3 8 20 36
1981 4 8 18 30
1982 5 8 15 38
1983 4 12 24 56
1984 9 15 35 59
1985 6 12 26 39
1986 8 16 22 53
1987 10 19 43 71
1988 7 12 25 54
1989 9 22 42 69
1990 4 13 26 44
1991 9 14 26 49
1992 12 23 45 67
1993 6 11 22 44
1994 8 21 41 71

I know it can never be perfectly linear, and I wouldn’t want to try to “force” it to be, either, but I am satisfied with how this looks. It reflects that over this time, the number of players in the NHL capable of scoring at a level of x% of the #2 non-outlier has steadily increased. You can definitely pick out a couple odd spots, some are explainable (1980 was a spike, due to the absorption of the WHA), some aren’t (1987 is slightly but not obscenely out of line)

If I used 140 as the comparable in 1989, the numbers would look like this: 4, 6, 10, 29. Far too out of line with the seasons around it and, IMO, not reflective of how that season went.

A start would be taking the average of the #2-5 scorers that came across their scores “honestly” (Gretzky 168, Yzerman 155, Mullen 110, Kurri 102 = 134) Then we’d end up with 4, 7, 13, 34 – which I would still very much disagree with, but is more “right” than the above. Personally, I like that year the way I have it.

Lets look at 1987. The 71 players above 60% is tied for the highest in the 17 years on your table. 71st in scoring is 63 points. 63 points from 1985-1989 gets you: 70th, 85th, 71st, 71st, & 76th. 71st place is 63, 67, 63, 63 & 65 points. 60%+ equals: 76 pts, 73 pts, 63 pts, 72 pts, & 66 pts. That doesn't vary as much as your 60%+: 39, 53, 71, 54 & 69 players.

That's 63 pts: 70th-85th; 71st: 63-67 pts; 60%+: 66-76 pts; 60%+: 39-71 players.

Leaving the #2 at #2 and 108 points would only move that to 65 points and 64 players for 1987. (That 64 players would still be the 4th highest for the 17 years.) I don't see anything out of line there, so you fixed something that wasn't broken. Maybe your tweak is better, but I'm doubtful at this point.

On the other hand with only 39 players making the 60%+ mark in 1985, with 2 outliers already removed, I'd think that might need a closer look.

One will need to look at other points in the data, and compare them to the straight #2 numbers to get a better picture, but just with the numbers above it looks like you didn't "fix" at least two years. I also wonder how many years have you gone too far, as I believe you have in 1989.

In 1989 the top 4 are way ahead of average, and the rest of the pack are slightly below average. So a line like 4, 7, 13, 34 is much more in line with reality than 9, 22, 42, 69, which makes it look like the leaders were below average and the pack were above.

seventieslord 02-15-2012 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BM67 (Post 44191243)
I'm going to stick this in here, since the draft thread will get locked at some time.



Lets look at 1987. The 71 players above 60% is tied for the highest in the 17 years on your table. 71st in scoring is 63 points. 63 points from 1985-1989 gets you: 70th, 85th, 71st, 71st, & 76th. 71st place is 63, 67, 63, 63 & 65 points. 60%+ equals: 76 pts, 73 pts, 63 pts, 72 pts, & 66 pts. That doesn't vary as much as your 60%+: 39, 53, 71, 54 & 69 players.

That's 63 pts: 70th-85th; 71st: 63-67 pts; 60%+: 66-76 pts; 60%+: 39-71 players.

Leaving the #2 at #2 and 108 points would only move that to 65 points and 64 players for 1987. (That 64 players would still be the 4th highest for the 17 years.) I don't see anything out of line there, so you fixed something that wasn't broken. Maybe your tweak is better, but I'm doubtful at this point.

Maybe 1987 wasn't broken to begin with. However, the majority of seasons in this range were.

Leaving it as-is still leaves me in the position of saying Kurri was the #2 scorer for that year, when, if #1 is removed, he almost certainly wouldn't be.

Quote:

On the other hand with only 39 players making the 60%+ mark in 1985, with 2 outliers already removed, I'd think that might need a closer look.
Bossy in 6th is more than 10% up on Savard in 7th. Arguably, that should be the comparable but then that is calling Hawerchuk and Dionne "outliers". If 105 was the comparable for that year, we have 20-30-45-71... which is extremely wacky. This may have to just be called a "weird year". (it's 8-20-32-51 if we use Bossy's 117 as the comparable, which gives easily the most "desireable" results but there's also less "logic" behind it because he outscored the next guy by so much.)

Quote:

One will need to look at other points in the data, and compare them to the straight #2 numbers to get a better picture, but just with the numbers above it looks like you didn't "fix" at least two years. I also wonder how many years have you gone too far, as I believe you have in 1989.

In 1989 the top 4 are way ahead of average, and the rest of the pack are slightly below average. So a line like 4, 7, 13, 34 is much more in line with reality than 9, 22, 42, 69, which makes it look like the leaders were below average and the pack were above.
the scores of those in the top-4 will reflect how far ahead of the average they are, which is ok with me. I think in this particular season the "pack" did have a better year. 9-22-42-69 is on the higher side, but 4-7-13-34 is embarrassingly low compared to the seasons surrounding it. If I had to pick one I would pick the former every time. Of course, that means something in between those two "fits" better but I don't see a "good" way to get there either, other than arbitrarily.

BenchBrawl 02-15-2012 03:14 PM

where is the graph you made about defensemen? I think it was something like a week or two ago?

BM67 02-15-2012 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seventieslord (Post 44192045)
Maybe 1987 wasn't broken to begin with. However, the majority of seasons in this range were.

Leaving it as-is still leaves me in the position of saying Kurri was the #2 scorer for that year, when, if #1 is removed, he almost certainly wouldn't be.

You're getting caught up in a name again. As I said, Lemieux was already removed by injury. Same can be said for Bossy, which drags Trottier down as well, and Stastny. Age caught a few guys before guys like Yzerman could get it going. I'd say this seems like a year where the outliers removed themselves already.

Quote:

Bossy in 6th is more than 10% up on Savard in 7th. Arguably, that should be the comparable but then that is calling Hawerchuk and Dionne "outliers". If 105 was the comparable for that year, we have 20-30-45-71... which is extremely wacky. This may have to just be called a "weird year". (it's 8-20-32-51 if we use Bossy's 117 as the comparable, which gives easily the most "desireable" results but there's also less "logic" behind it because he outscored the next guy by so much.)
It may be that the logjam of talent at the top warrants there only being 39 guys 60%+ in 1985. Maybe that's too many. Once we look at more of the data, we can decide.

Quote:

the scores of those in the top-4 will reflect how far ahead of the average they are, which is ok with me. I think in this particular season the "pack" did have a better year. 9-22-42-69 is on the higher side, but 4-7-13-34 is embarrassingly low compared to the seasons surrounding it. If I had to pick one I would pick the former every time. Of course, that means something in between those two "fits" better but I don't see a "good" way to get there either, other than arbitrarily.
Point totals for selected spots in the top 25 78-94

Year #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #10 #15 #20 #25
1978 132 123 117 97 94 87 81 77 73
1979 134 130 129 126 108 91 85 80 77
1980 137 137 125 106 105 94 92 89 79
1981 164 135 131 119 112 103 96 87 83
1982 212 147 139 136 129 106 97 92 89
1983 196 124 121 118 107 104 92 88 84
1984 205 126 121 119 118 105 95 92 89
1985 208 135 130 126 121 102 100 95 89
1986 215 141 138 131 123 105 97 89 84
1987 183 108 107 107 105 95 87 81 79
1988 168 149 131 121 111 106 93 89 86
1989 199 168 155 150 115 98 90 88 85
1990 142 129 127 123 123 102 96 92 90
1991 163 131 115 113 110 101 91 87 82
1992 131 123 121 109 107 99 93 87 82
1993 160 148 142 137 132 123 107 100 97
1994 130 120 112 111 107 99 93 91 86

Just sticking to the 12 years, 79-80 to 90-91, with 21 teams and an 80 game schedule. The leader board for 1989 has: #1: 5th highest; #2: 1st; #3: 1st;#4: 1st; #5: 6th; #10: 10th; #15: 11th; #20: T8th; #25: 6th. As you can see #2-3-4 are very high, #1-5-25 are average, and #10-15-20 are well below average. As I posted above, down around #71, the season isn't out of line with the 4 seasons before it.

A line like 4-7-13-34 is much more in line with that than the line of 9-22-42-69 (all 4 rank in top 3 of the 17 years in your table), which is more in line with a season like 1987, where the leader board is so weak at top that the weak pack looks average by comparison.

seventieslord 02-16-2012 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BM67 (Post 44200097)
You're getting caught up in a name again. As I said, Lemieux was already removed by injury. Same can be said for Bossy, which drags Trottier down as well, and Stastny. Age caught a few guys before guys like Yzerman could get it going. I'd say this seems like a year where the outliers removed themselves already.

could be.

Quote:

It may be that the logjam of talent at the top warrants there only being 39 guys 60%+ in 1985. Maybe that's too many. Once we look at more of the data, we can decide.
I wouldn't want other great scorers to look bad only because of a logjam at the top.


Quote:

Point totals for selected spots in the top 25 78-94

Year #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #10 #15 #20 #25
1978 132 123 117 97 94 87 81 77 73
1979 134 130 129 126 108 91 85 80 77
1980 137 137 125 106 105 94 92 89 79
1981 164 135 131 119 112 103 96 87 83
1982 212 147 139 136 129 106 97 92 89
1983 196 124 121 118 107 104 92 88 84
1984 205 126 121 119 118 105 95 92 89
1985 208 135 130 126 121 102 100 95 89
1986 215 141 138 131 123 105 97 89 84
1987 183 108 107 107 105 95 87 81 79
1988 168 149 131 121 111 106 93 89 86
1989 199 168 155 150 115 98 90 88 85
1990 142 129 127 123 123 102 96 92 90
1991 163 131 115 113 110 101 91 87 82
1992 131 123 121 109 107 99 93 87 82
1993 160 148 142 137 132 123 107 100 97
1994 130 120 112 111 107 99 93 91 86

Just sticking to the 12 years, 79-80 to 90-91, with 21 teams and an 80 game schedule. The leader board for 1989 has: #1: 5th highest; #2: 1st; #3: 1st;#4: 1st; #5: 6th; #10: 10th; #15: 11th; #20: T8th; #25: 6th. As you can see #2-3-4 are very high, #1-5-25 are average, and #10-15-20 are well below average. As I posted above, down around #71, the season isn't out of line with the 4 seasons before it.

A line like 4-7-13-34 is much more in line with that than the line of 9-22-42-69 (all 4 rank in top 3 of the 17 years in your table), which is more in line with a season like 1987, where the leader board is so weak at top that the weak pack looks average by comparison.
I'm still not seeing how 4-7-13-34 is a better result. You say 1987 is a year where "the leader board is so weak at top that the weak pack looks average by comparison" - 1989 appears to be the exact opposite. And there were higher scoring players in 1989, I don't think the right result is for them to appear significantly worse just because Lemieux and Gretzky were healthy and peaking at the same time, both brought teammates along for the ride, and Yzerman reached a level he'd never approach again too.

The way I currently have it set, the results for the two years are nearly identical. I'd be much more comfortable with that, than having results that pretend the top-end talent suddenly was cut in half in just two years.

BM67 02-16-2012 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seventieslord (Post 44254371)
I wouldn't want other great scorers to look bad only because of a logjam at the top.

So you don't want the numbers to reflect reality in a given year?


Quote:

I'm still not seeing how 4-7-13-34 is a better result. You say 1987 is a year where "the leader board is so weak at top that the weak pack looks average by comparison" - 1989 appears to be the exact opposite. And there were higher scoring players in 1989, I don't think the right result is for them to appear significantly worse just because Lemieux and Gretzky were healthy and peaking at the same time, both brought teammates along for the ride, and Yzerman reached a level he'd never approach again too.

The way I currently have it set, the results for the two years are nearly identical. I'd be much more comfortable with that, than having results that pretend the top-end talent suddenly was cut in half in just two years.
There is no point in the top 100 scorers where someone had a higher point total in 87 than in 89, yet the 89 top 100 can't keep up with the top 4 in 89. Why shouldn't the numbers reflect that?

Seems what you want to do is compare players to the average #2 over a 5 year period or something like that.

seventieslord 02-16-2012 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BM67 (Post 44257669)
So you don't want the numbers to reflect reality in a given year?

I'm saying that the best players being better, doesn't make the other players worse.

Quote:

There is no point in the top 100 scorers where someone had a higher point total in 87 than in 89, yet the 89 top 100 can't keep up with the top 4 in 89. Why shouldn't the numbers reflect that?
I think my above answer is satisfactory for this one as well.

DoMakc 02-16-2012 03:23 PM

In baseball they are using ERA+ to compare pitchers across the different eras. This stat basicly shows the difference between a pitcher a an average pitcher in his era (with a ballpark adjustment). Maybe this aproach can be more usefull in hockey too, since averages don't fluctuate as much #2's do?

BM67 02-16-2012 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seventieslord (Post 44260009)
I'm saying that the best players being better, doesn't make the other players worse.



I think my above answer is satisfactory for this one as well.

It's a dominance number, so it shows dominance. Gretzky isn't a better player because Lemieux is injured, but he is going to be more dominant in the scoring race, and that is what the number will show.

Thornton is more dominant in the scoring race, and thus in vs#2, than Forsberg or Lindros, because he stays healthier, not because he's a better player.

seventieslord 02-16-2012 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BM67 (Post 44269675)
It's a dominance number, so it shows dominance. Gretzky isn't a better player because Lemieux is injured, but he is going to be more dominant in the scoring race, and that is what the number will show.

Thornton is more dominant in the scoring race, and thus in vs#2, than Forsberg or Lindros, because he stays healthier, not because he's a better player.

I'm talking about the players in the pack. I'm not too concerned about the players at the top. I know guys like Gretzky will deservedly get insane scores and guys like Thornton numbers closer to 100 when they win.

BM67 02-18-2012 06:08 PM

Let's test the vs method. Here are the top 25 NHL points leaders by 6 different measures. Points, Adjusted Points and vs#1-4 career totals, in random order.

The shortest career on any of the lists is Bobby Hull's at 16 years. 4 of the lists have Recchi ahead of Dionne, and the other 2 have him just behind. Recchi played for 22 years, while Dionne played for 18. I think Nels Stewart came the closest to making a list of any 15 year career player.

Do any of these lists reflect the 25 "best" careers?

ABCDEF
Gordie Howe Wayne Gretzky Gordie Howe Wayne Gretzky Gordie Howe Gordie Howe
Wayne Gretzky Mark Messier Wayne Gretzky Gordie Howe Wayne Gretzky Wayne Gretzky
Jaromir Jagr Gordie Howe Mark Messier Jaromir Jagr Mark Messier Mark Messier
Joe Sakic Ron Francis Ron Francis Mark Messier Stan Mikita Ron Francis
Stan Mikita Marcel Dionne Stan Mikita Ron Francis Ron Francis Stan Mikita
Alex Delvecchio Steve Yzerman Jaromir Jagr Joe Sakic Phil Esposito Alex Delvecchio
Jean Beliveau Mario Lemieux Alex Delvecchio Steve Yzerman Alex Delvecchio Jaromir Jagr
Mark Messier Joe Sakic Joe Sakic Mark Recchi Jaromir Jagr Joe Sakic
Ron Francis Jaromir Jagr Phil Esposito Mario Lemieux Joe Sakic Steve Yzerman
Mark Recchi Phil Esposito Steve Yzerman Phil Esposito Steve Yzerman Phil Esposito
Phil Esposito Raymond Bourque Jean Beliveau Teemu Selanne Jean Beliveau Jean Beliveau
John Bucyk Mark Recchi John Bucyk Marcel Dionne John Bucyk John Bucyk
Steve Yzerman Paul Coffey Mark Recchi Stan Mikita Marcel Dionne Marcel Dionne
Maurice Richard Stan Mikita Marcel Dionne Alex Delvecchio Mark Recchi Mark Recchi
Norm Ullman Bryan Trottier Maurice Richard Raymond Bourque Maurice Richard Maurice Richard
Bobby Hull Adam Oates Norm Ullman Mats Sundin Norm Ullman Norm Ullman
Teemu Selanne Doug Gilmour Mario Lemieux Mike Modano Mario Lemieux Mario Lemieux
Mike Modano Dale Hawerchuk Bobby Hull Adam Oates Bobby Hull Bobby Hull
Mats Sundin Jari Kurri Raymond Bourque John Bucyk Raymond Bourque Raymond Bourque
Marcel Dionne Luc Robitaille Mats Sundin Brett Hull Mike Modano Mats Sundin
Mario Lemieux Teemu Selanne Mike Modano Jean Beliveau Mats Sundin Mike Modano
Brendan Shanahan Brett Hull Teemu Selanne Brendan Shanahan Teemu Selanne Teemu Selanne
Brett Hull Mike Modano Adam Oates Luc Robitaille Adam Oates Adam Oates
Adam Oates John Bucyk Brett Hull Paul Coffey Brett Hull Paul Coffey
Raymond Bourque Brendan Shanahan Brendan Shanahan Doug Gilmour Brendan Shanahan Brett Hull

The names that just miss the top 25 vary more than the names on the list: #26= Andy Bathgate, Guy Lafleur, Paul Coffey, Pierre Turgeon, Ted Lindsay, Brendan Shanahan.

seventieslord 02-23-2012 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BM67 (Post 44387683)
Let's test the vs method. Here are the top 25 NHL points leaders by 6 different measures. Points, Adjusted Points and vs#1-4 career totals, in random order.

The shortest career on any of the lists is Bobby Hull's at 16 years. 4 of the lists have Recchi ahead of Dionne, and the other 2 have him just behind. Recchi played for 22 years, while Dionne played for 18. I think Nels Stewart came the closest to making a list of any 15 year career player.

Do any of these lists reflect the 25 "best" careers?.

no. but I don't think that's what we expect of the vs. #2 system, is it? I use it to help gauge the impressiveness of one season by a player, or a series of consecutive seasons, or their best x number of seasons. it can't be used as a measure of a player's career anymore than career points can be.

BM67 02-23-2012 12:28 PM

If vs#2 has meaning over 1 season, and over 10 seasons, why shouldn't it have meaning over 20 seasons?

I don't have any hard expectations for what vs#2 can or can't do at this point. I'm comparing it to other measures and seeing how it compares.

Raw point totals are not much good. Adjusted points are better, but still flawed. Vs#2 can be better than them and still not of much use, but I think we should look at them and find out, rather than reject the idea before looking.

Right now I'd say it's the best measure of how a player did over his career in the multi-league pre-merger days. Top 5s or 10s or accumulated point totals don't even come close to it.

Other than that, I'd say the jury is still out.

Look at Dionne and Recchi in the table above. Are their rankings flawed? Are their rankings in the table a flaw of the methods used, or a flaw in my expectations?

seventieslord 02-23-2012 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BM67 (Post 44708329)
Look at Dionne and Recchi in the table above. Are their rankings flawed? Are their rankings in the table a flaw of the methods used, or a flaw in my expectations?

I'm not sure in what way you would want me to consider them flawed. If you're asking, does Recchi ever show up ahead of Dionne when we both know damn well he shouldn't, then yes, he does, and yes that makes this "sum of all percentages" list flawed.

This is a function of Recchi's freakish longevity and ability to keep piling up 50-70 scores late into his career.

Also, if proper outliers were removed, Dionne would look better, as he should. ;)

BM67 02-23-2012 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seventieslord (Post 44709051)
I'm not sure in what way you would want me to consider them flawed. If you're asking, does Recchi ever show up ahead of Dionne when we both know damn well he shouldn't, then yes, he does, and yes that makes this "sum of all percentages" list flawed.

This is a function of Recchi's freakish longevity and ability to keep piling up 50-70 scores late into his career.

Also, if proper outliers were removed, Dionne would look better, as he should. ;)

Recchi is ahead of Dionne in adjusted points as well as 2 of the 4 vs columns. He's just behind him in the other 2.

Recchi only played 4 more years than Dionne, and Dionne didn't stick around for a bunch of sub-par seasons either, just a quick crash at the end.

The only list where Dionne blows Recchi away is the raw points column. Dionne played in the WHA period and the firewagon 80s, so his points are inflated. Recchi played through the dead puck era, so his points are deflated.

Recchi wasn't the scorer that Dionne was at his peak, but should 4 extra years, after you equalize for the differing scoring levels, be enough to get them to finish next to each other in a career scoring list?

It was a surprise to me that they are ranked where they are on some of the lists. If I had thought about it, I would have predicted that Dionne would be way ahead in raw points, and that Dionne's vs#1 number would be crushed by "the Gretzky factor". So no surprises in those columns. That Recchi is ahead by several spots in adjusted points, and in pretty much a tie in the other vs columns isn't what I would have expected.

Is it my expectations that are flawed? Recchi was never as good a scorer as Dionne, but did he have as good a career as far as piling up points? Four extra 50-70 point seasons do make up for a lot of seasons trailing by 10-20 points.

Recchi only trails Dionne by 238 raw points. Move Recchi up by 5%, and Dionne down by 5%, and they are only 73 points apart. The more I think about it, the more I agree with them being close.

seventieslord 02-23-2012 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BM67 (Post 44717481)
Recchi is ahead of Dionne in adjusted points as well as 2 of the 4 vs columns. He's just behind him in the other 2.

Recchi only played 4 more years than Dionne, and Dionne didn't stick around for a bunch of sub-par seasons either, just a quick crash at the end.

The only list where Dionne blows Recchi away is the raw points column. Dionne played in the WHA period and the firewagon 80s, so his points are inflated. Recchi played through the dead puck era, so his points are deflated.

Recchi wasn't the scorer that Dionne was at his peak, but should 4 extra years, after you equalize for the differing scoring levels, be enough to get them to finish next to each other in a career scoring list?

It was a surprise to me that they are ranked where they are on some of the lists. If I had thought about it, I would have predicted that Dionne would be way ahead in raw points, and that Dionne's vs#1 number would be crushed by "the Gretzky factor". So no surprises in those columns. That Recchi is ahead by several spots in adjusted points, and in pretty much a tie in the other vs columns isn't what I would have expected.

Is it my expectations that are flawed? Recchi was never as good a scorer as Dionne, but did he have as good a career as far as piling up points? Four extra 50-70 point seasons do make up for a lot of seasons trailing by 10-20 points.

Recchi only trails Dionne by 238 raw points. Move Recchi up by 5%, and Dionne down by 5%, and they are only 73 points apart. The more I think about it, the more I agree with them being close.

from a "point accumulation" standpoint, yes, they probably are. From an all-time value standpoint, peak obviously matters a lot (perhaps too much to some people, but it does matter)

TheDevilMadeMe 02-25-2012 08:15 PM

My new name-neutral vs. 2 method, taking into account the criticisms of other methods. This method is valid for post-expansion NHL and MIGHT be valid for all consolidated NHL.

Vs 2 scorer at all times except:

if any of the top 5 scorers is more than 10% above the guy immediately below Then compare to the [U]first[U] scorer who doesn't fit the criteria.

I believe this solves both the problems of the 1970s Bruins and the 1989 weirdness without resorting to arbitrary removal of outliers. Thoughts?

Edit: Just checked it against the 1970s and I still got wild fluctuations year by year, which is a sign of a system not working well. It seems to work very well for the 80s, 90s, and 00s though

seventieslord 02-25-2012 08:41 PM

Let me guess, it is because of hodge, cashman, etc?

If so, just do a common sense fudge. There is nothing wrong with that. Take out any player who obviously wouldn't have that many points without a superior teammate.

TheDevilMadeMe 02-25-2012 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seventieslord (Post 44918799)
Let me guess, it is because of hodge, cashman, etc?

If so, just do a common sense fudge. There is nothing wrong with that. Take out any player who obviously wouldn't have that many points without a superior teammate.

1968:
1. Stan Mikita*-CBH 87
2. Phil Esposito*-BOS 84
3. Gordie Howe*-DET 82
4. Jean Ratelle*-NYR 78
5. Rod Gilbert*-NYR 77

Easy, use Esposito

1969:
1. Phil Esposito*-BOS 126
2. Bobby Hull*-CBH 107
3. Gordie Howe*-DET 103
4. Stan Mikita*-CBH 97
5. Ken Hodge-BOS 90

Use Bobby Hull

1970:
1. Bobby Orr*-BOS 120
2. Phil Esposito*-BOS 99
3. Stan Mikita*-CBH 86
4. Phil Goyette-STL 78
5. Walt Tkaczuk-NYR 77

By my method use Mikita. But this doesn't make sense. 86 is much lower than the 107 standard for the previous year, while the 10th and 20th place scorers vary very little between the years. So the common sense thing to do would be just use Esposito, but then that breaks down the ability to make a non-arbitrary formula.

1971:
1. Phil Esposito*-BOS 152
2. Bobby Orr*-BOS 139
3. John Bucyk*-BOS 116
4. Ken Hodge-BOS 105
5. Bobby Hull*-CBH 96

My proposed method would use Bucyk. You seem to think we should use Hull?

One again the 10th and 20th place scorers are very similar, so it seems strange to use a number that fluxuates so much.

I'm starting to think that VS5 or VS10 is a superior method than VS2. It seems clear to me that the top 5 scorers fluxuate too much to form a meaningful standard.

TheDevilMadeMe 02-25-2012 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BM67 (Post 44200097)


Point totals for selected spots in the top 25 78-94

Year #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #10 #15 #20 #25
1978 132 123 117 97 94 87 81 77 73
1979 134 130 129 126 108 91 85 80 77
1980 137 137 125 106 105 94 92 89 79
1981 164 135 131 119 112 103 96 87 83
1982 212 147 139 136 129 106 97 92 89
1983 196 124 121 118 107 104 92 88 84
1984 205 126 121 119 118 105 95 92 89
1985 208 135 130 126 121 102 100 95 89
1986 215 141 138 131 123 105 97 89 84
1987 183 108 107 107 105 95 87 81 79
1988 168 149 131 121 111 106 93 89 86
1989 199 168 155 150 115 98 90 88 85
1990 142 129 127 123 123 102 96 92 90
1991 163 131 115 113 110 101 91 87 82
1992 131 123 121 109 107 99 93 87 82
1993 160 148 142 137 132 123 107 100 97
1994 130 120 112 111 107 99 93 91 86

Just sticking to the 12 years, 79-80 to 90-91, with 21 teams and an 80 game schedule. The leader board for 1989 has: #1: 5th highest; #2: 1st; #3: 1st;#4: 1st; #5: 6th; #10: 10th; #15: 11th; #20: T8th; #25: 6th. As you can see #2-3-4 are very high, #1-5-25 are average, and #10-15-20 are well below average. As I posted above, down around #71, the season isn't out of line with the 4 seasons before it.

A line like 4-7-13-34 is much more in line with that than the line of 9-22-42-69 (all 4 rank in top 3 of the 17 years in your table), which is more in line with a season like 1987, where the leader board is so weak at top that the weak pack looks average by comparison.

Looking at this chart - I'm going to say it now. VS5 or VS10 is a superior method to VS2. The data at 5 and 10 follows a much more gentle curve and doesn't appear as prone to random fluxuations as the second place scorer.

Actually, looking at it again, there are some years when even the 5th place scorer fluxuates. VS10 is a nice smooth curve through the entire time period - where the only peaks are years like 1993, when there should be one.

TheDevilMadeMe 02-25-2012 09:07 PM

Benefit to using VS10: Much smoother curve than VS2 or VS5

Drawback to using VS10: It assumes every 10th place finish is equal, something I disagree with if we are talking before and after the European influx.

I didn't think of this in my post above. That's a major problem.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:42 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.