View Single Post
12-04-2012, 11:20 AM
#553
OrrNumber4
Registered User

Join Date: Jul 2002
Country:
Posts: 8,985
vCash: 500
Alright, new table. This is like before, except with two new columns. One takes the sum of the points, and divides by PP strength. The other takes the sum of the ES points + the PP points/PP strength. This is supposed to be a way of compensating for team strength. So in the first calculation we are making the assumption that the strength of the PP reflects on the strength of the team.

career:
 Player Start End GP EV% R-ON R-OFF \$ESP/S \$PPP/S Adj. Total Adj PP Total PP% TmPP+ SH% TmSH+ Bobby Orr 1968 1979 596 49% 2.15 1.09 75 55 86 111 96% 1.52 63% 0.76 Paul Coffey 1981 2001 1409 43% 1.23 1.21 46 35 72 77 78% 1.13 28% 0.82 Ray Bourque 1980 2001 1612 42% 1.37 0.95 39 39 70 74 87% 1.11 58% 0.88 Denis Potvin 1974 1988 1060 43% 1.49 1.23 40 41 69 75 86% 1.18 53% 0.82 Brian Leetch 1988 2006 1205 45% 1.06 0.97 36 39 67 71 87% 1.12 50% 1.03 Phil Housley 1983 2003 1495 38% 1.06 0.97 35 33 67 68 84% 1.01 11% 0.95 Al MacInnis 1982 2004 1416 38% 1.41 1.12 32 42 63 68 86% 1.18 39% 0.93 Brad Park 1969 1985 1115 42% 1.4 1.2 36 32 59 64 80% 1.16 43% 0.84 Sergei Zubov 1993 2009 1068 42% 1.25 1.13 33 34 59 63 82% 1.14 33% 0.86 Larry Murphy 1981 2001 1615 39% 1.2 1.02 34 25 56 58 65% 1.05 32% 0.92 Scott Niedermayer 1992 2010 1263 39% 1.25 1.22 31 26 55 56 64% 1.04 40% 0.94 Nicklas Lidstrom 1992 2011 1494 40% 1.4 1.18 33 34 54 60 72% 1.25 52% 0.8 Borje Salming 1974 1990 1148 43% 1.14 0.82 31 22 54 53 62% 0.98 55% 1.09 Rob Blake 1990 2010 1270 37% 1.03 1.03 30 26 54 55 66% 1.04 50% 1 Chris Pronger 1994 2011 1154 39% 1.22 0.99 27 29 50 53 67% 1.12 54% 0.91 Scott Stevens 1983 2004 1635 42% 1.31 1.19 31 14 48 46 40% 0.94 56% 0.88 Larry Robinson 1973 1992 1384 43% 1.6 1.34 35 19 47 52 49% 1.14 45% 0.85 Chris Chelios 1984 2010 1651 39% 1.27 1.18 27 20 46 47 52% 1.02 57% 0.85 Guy Lapointe 1969 1984 884 42% 1.41 1.66 31 28 46 53 64% 1.29 52% 0.76 J.C. Tremblay 1968 1972 358 45% 1.37 1.33 32 22 41 49 69% 1.31 64% 0.85 Zdeno Chara 1998 2011 928 40% 1.16 1.04 24 17 39 40 42% 1.05 52% 0.95 Jacques Laperriere 1968 1973 435 47% 1.53 1.31 26 9 29 33 35% 1.22 73% 0.84 Serge Savard 1968 1983 1038 43% 1.44 1.52 25 9 26 32 24% 1.32 58% 0.82 Rod Langway 1979 1993 994 35% 1.29 1.2 20 3 23 23 10% 1.02 53% 0.83

Prime:

 Player Start End GP EV% R-ON R-OFF \$ESP/S \$PPP/S Adj. Total Adj PP Total PP% TmPP+ SH% TmSH+ Bobby Orr 1969 1975 514 50% 2.21 1.1 80 56 86 115 96% 1.59 67% 0.74 Paul Coffey 1982 1987 458 45% 1.47 1.39 60 38 82 92 83% 1.19 34% 0.69 Ray Bourque 1982 1996 1081 43% 1.47 0.93 44 39 76 80 89% 1.09 58% 0.84 Phil Housley 1987 1996 686 42% 1.07 0.95 41 35 74 75 87% 1.03 16% 0.98 Rob Blake 1998 2002 362 43% 1.11 1.08 40 32 73 72 79% 0.99 54% 0.99 Brian Leetch 1989 1997 632 45% 1.2 1.06 40 41 69 75 91% 1.18 51% 0.95 Borje Salming 1976 1982 527 46% 1.26 0.83 41 32 68 71 81% 1.07 58% 1.04 Denis Potvin 1976 1984 623 44% 1.65 1.41 44 47 67 79 95% 1.36 56% 0.74 Brad Park 1970 1978 613 47% 1.53 1.26 46 35 66 74 84% 1.23 49% 0.82 Larry Murphy 1992 1995 292 45% 1.38 1.05 45 28 66 70 80% 1.11 45% 0.94 Al MacInnis 1989 2003 1043 41% 1.42 1.11 34 42 63 69 88% 1.2 43% 0.92 Scott Niedermayer 2004 2007 242 39% 1.27 1.22 37 33 62 66 79% 1.13 47% 0.9 Chris Chelios 1988 1998 803 44% 1.33 1.21 30 30 61 60 79% 0.99 61% 0.86 Nicklas Lidstrom 1998 2008 801 42% 1.42 1.18 36 38 58 66 78% 1.27 61% 0.78 Larry Robinson 1977 1986 731 48% 1.66 1.35 40 28 57 63 66% 1.2 58% 0.83 Chris Pronger 1998 2007 587 42% 1.43 1 32 36 57 62 72% 1.2 61% 0.82 Sergei Zubov 1998 2007 705 41% 1.25 1.16 29 35 56 60 84% 1.14 41% 0.85 Guy Lapointe 1973 1979 499 46% 1.67 1.88 40 34 56 66 75% 1.32 68% 0.74 Zdeno Chara 2003 2011 622 41% 1.38 1.13 30 25 52 54 60% 1.05 53% 0.89 Scott Stevens 1988 2003 1212 42% 1.34 1.2 31 14 48 46 38% 0.93 63% 0.89 J.C. Tremblay 1968 1972 358 45% 1.37 1.33 32 22 41 49 69% 1.31 64% 0.85 Serge Savard 1970 1979 651 45% 1.72 1.67 28 13 31 38 34% 1.33 65% 0.76 Jacques Laperriere 1968 1973 393 47% 1.56 1.31 26 9 28 33 36% 1.23 75% 0.83 Rod Langway 1981 1989 673 38% 1.35 1.21 22 4 26 26 14% 0.99 57% 0.85

Don't think that sorting by total adjustment is fair to Lidstrom, but there it is...