View Single Post
10-16-2012, 03:00 PM
Czech Your Math
Registered User
Czech Your Math's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 4,846
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
Ok, first of all, let's introduce a bit of methodological sense here if we're going to look into the numbers. Going down to the top-20 is simply too deep, because it captures a lot of guys who may have gotten only a single Norris or all-star vote in any given season...a fact you surely noticed, right?
I know that top 20 is too deep to count Norris votes. Perhaps you missed that I have been using the objective measure of points by defensemen each season, not Norris or AS votes. I don't find relying on other people's opinions to be an objective measure of quality. While a large part of a d-man's value may be missed by simply counting points, it's still better than using a subjective measure (prone to the bias you are concerned about) where voters only vote for the top 5 at the position. If top 20 in points is too deep, perhaps top 10 is better, but the results are very similar.

Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
At any rate, the numbers are what they are, and only reinforce what many people sense intuitively, which is that European forwards have had more of an impact in the NHL than have the defensemen.
I agree that non-Canadian forwards have had more impact in NHL than d-men, but still believe the impact at the top is substantially understated by the total % of d-men in the NHL and by Norris/AS voting. It may be overstated by using points as a metric, in which case the true impact of top tier d-men should be somewhere between these measures.

Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
There is, by the way, no reason to seperate Americans in this analysis. Americans have been playing and starring in the NHL for more than 100 years (Si Griffis is the oldest American HHOFer, I believe). The expansion of population in the American hockey hotbeds needs to be taken into account when one evaluates north america, certainly, but I sort of take it as a given that we're already doing that. American talent has had its own ebb and flow, but seperating it in a discussion about European impact only confuses matters. For all intents and purposes, the north american hockey talent pool is a single entity.
You take it as a given that the great expansion in US hockey talent over the past ~30 years is being factored in already, but because there have been US players in the NHL for a long time, the degree of this expansion is often overlooked. I disagree that the North American hockey talent pool is a single entity, since before the WHA merger the number of US players in the NHL was generally very small. We are examining the growth of the hockey talent pool, so the fact that the US players went from an almost insignificant portion of the NHL to one of the leading non-Canadian countries is easy to overlook if it is not explicitly shown. US-born talent really began to become a major factor in the mid-80s and has remained so since that time. It's definitely an important factor in the growth of the hockey talent pool, and grouping the US with Canada only serves to obfuscate that fact.

Last edited by Czech Your Math: 10-16-2012 at 03:07 PM.
Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote