Adjusted stats - how valuable?
View Single Post
11-11-2012, 03:13 AM
Join Date: Feb 2010
Originally Posted by
Czech Your Math
Thanks for correction, forgot that Oates did that in Boston. Yes, that makes it even more impressive. It also only makes me more convinced that other players could have hit ~150 at least once, because I definitely believe there were better players as good or better than Oates & Lafontaine in their peaks/primes... and at least 10% better than Maruk... and 25% better point producers than Clarke, who spent much of his energy on defense & fighting and in the penalty box.
I'm not disputing that it might have been possible for others to do it. But the fact remains that Yzerman did it, on a team where he had basically no offensive support; arguably less even than Maruk did. That's a pretty incredible feat. As I said before; it has been achieved three times without another player on the team cracking 100. Once each by Gretzky, Lemieux, and Yzerman. And further reducing the impact of Nicholls' and Esposito's 150+ seasons is the fact that the years they did it, they played with the Hart trophy winner.
I'm not going to give much credence to the "Ryan Walter effect", esp. as Maruk outscored him by ~50 points. If Maruk could basically score 136 on his own, that doesn't exactly dissuade me from believing Sakic, Selanne, Forsberg, etc. and Ovechkin, Malkin, Crosby, etc. wouldn't have a good chance at some point if they played ~80s. I doubt anyone would have said "Ovechkin was pretty great that year... but then he did play with Ryan Walter." (no offense Mr. Walter).
How many points does a prime Yzerman score in 1982? He posted 155, 137, and 127 with pretty shoddy linemates. He was clearing 100 despite rolling in Murray's "three first-line center" system before 1992-93 saw a move back to more reliance on Yzerman and ultimately Carson being dealt.
I just don't see Gartner-Walter-Veitch as a Trottier-Potvin or Lemieux/Gretzky-Coffey type of set up. Gartner's a HOFer, but he wasn't exactly an elite point producer in his peak/prime years.
I didn't say anyone, I mentioned several of the greatest offensive players of the past 20 years... really some of the best in history... when players like Brett Hull, Bure, Fedorov, St. Louis, Iginla, Stamkos, etc. don't even make the "possible" list, then it's a rather select group who are given a good chance of possibly doing so. Messier would be around that level of adjusted peak/prime point production, not in the Sakic/Ovechkin group. If Messier could score 129 at age 29, w/o Gretzky, when there were many higher scoring seasons than that in the 80s... then again I believe there are better point producers who may have hit 150.
Messier's 129 is his only season that comes close to comparing to Iginla's 2002 or 2008 in adjusted points. That season was also only a shade lower scoring than 1988-89, and Messier's 129 is a huge outlier for him - he was really a 105 (give or take) guy and not a 130 guy. Comparable to Maruk's huge year, in that a huge offensive year came out of nowhere, and then he went back to his "normal" production.
A far a adjusted points, only a handful of seasons since 1932 adjust to or above 124 points with a 6 GPG average (124 is what Nicholls adjusts to) that weren't already 150+ seasons. Those seasons? Phil Esposito in 1968-69, 1971-72, and 1973-74; Bobby Orr in 1969-70; Mario Lemieux 1996-97; Jaromir Jagr 1995-96, 1998-99, and 2000-01; and Joe Sakic in 2000-01. Malkin last year, Ovechkin in 2008, Crosby in 2007, and Selanne in 1999 adjust to 122 for basically as close as you get. Crosby in 2010-11 had 71 in 41, so he was on pace to break the mark. But "on pace" doesn't do it. And adjusted numbers are only an estimate; we have to still consider that Nicholls' 124 is pushed down by the presence of Lemieux's 199, Gretzky's 168, and Yzerman's 155. If you replace those three in calculations with "average" players based on the remaining players in the league, how does Nicholls adjust then?
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by pdd