View Single Post
12-04-2012, 12:21 PM
Registered User
OrrNumber4's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 9,528
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Any metric that would purport to say that Chris Chelios was better offensively than Nicklas Lidstrom should be thrown in the rubbish on sight.
Right, which is what I did. That measure corrects too strongly for team strength:

Another way of looking at it is making the assumption that for every era, every PP goal had 2.8 points associated with it (one goal, 1.8 assists). Divide the PP% contribution by that much, and then subtract that number from the team strength. This gives players credit for their own contributions to a strong PP.

These results show that the top offensive defensemen were more or less-the-same in terms of contributions on the PP. Orr is the huge outlier. Macinnis, Potvin, and Leetch pfollow. Then you have Lidstrom, Zubov, Tremblay, and PArk, followed by Housley and Coffey.

Especially when the reason is that the formula used actually considers it a major negative that the powerplays Lidstrom quarterbacked for over a decade were consistently strong.
The above should fix that.

In other words, Lidstrom is a worse offensive player than Chelios because he consistently QBed better PPs than Chris.
The stat you are looking at is a prime comparison, not a peak comparison. Also, like I said, it definitely over-corrects for team strength. It even brings Orr down to human levels.

Last edited by OrrNumber4: 12-04-2012 at 12:26 PM. Reason: Fix quote tag
OrrNumber4 is offline   Reply With Quote