View Single Post
09-25-2012, 10:41 AM
Student Of The Game
seventieslord's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 30,562
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
The biggest issue with Iain's points allocation system - it doesn't take quality of the league or the talent pool into effect. I don't think anyone thinks Russel Bowie was somewhere between Wayne Gretzky and Mario Lemieux, but that's what the points allocation system shows.

The quality of hockey improved a lot between the 1900s when Bowie/Nicholsson/Moran/etc played and the 1980s when Gretzky played, but it also improved a lot between the 1880s/early 1890s and the 1900s.
Those things are taken into account; the adjustments might just not be as drastic as you think they should be (or perhaps as they should be). Iain has commented that the league strength was the weakest in Paton's time so it is taken into account; it's just that the statistical dominance (GAA) was typically so strong that it even transcended that.

I remember looking at a few seasons from the early days and the 70s and 80s and tracking the number of players who met a certain TPAK threshold and concluded the results were mostly satisfactory. (i.e. it seemed to flow over time more or less along with the size of the talent pool)

This may sound a bit callous, but I think when a player dies, evaluating that player is a bit different than someone who stopped playing hockey for other reasons.
No, it's me who sounds callous for not giving him a bit more of a "pass" for dying in the war. That's why I say "Given the circumstances, you, different people and I may draw the line differently"

I'm pretty sure the infusion of quality (relative) forwards from 02-04 had much more to do with the Islanders becoming a playoff team than Jonsson being relegated to #2 status. When only one forward crack the 50 point mark (compared to 5 in 01-02), Lidstrom wouldn't make the playoffs.
It's possible. But at the same time, adding another Jonsson-caliber player plus another who outperformed him had to help. (it basically tripled their top-end defense strength)

I think the key difference in their defence is Seabrook almost always plays with a Norris calibre partner while Mitchell's partner is usually no better than average (Bieksa, Voynov, etc).
That's true. And I'm not saying Seabrook is even in Mitchell's class defensively even with that advantage; I think that the record speaks for itself (you saw the study, right?)

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote