View Single Post
Old
02-27-2013, 02:34 PM
  #108
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,881
vCash: 500
Sorry for the big block of text, hopefully you at least skim it!

Quote:
Originally Posted by markrander87 View Post
Yes I realize the gap in draft positions, but to refer to Turgeon as a "steal" because of point totals is just lazy. Did he have a positive impact on teammates? Is he the type of teammate who will make those around him better?
*
Yes, he absolutely made those around him better. Look at the results of his linemates, particularly between 1992 and 1998, and look at how much they typically tended to score.
*
Turgeon led his teams in points by margins of 24, 18, 15, 45, 19 (despite missing 15 games) from 1990-1994, with the players at all close to him usually being the guys he was carrying. In 2000 he was on pace to lead the 1st overall Blues by 29 points. In 2001 he led the team by 9, but that was 37 more than the next forward after Scott Young, who he clearly carried to 40 goals (the only season he scored more than 30 – and the 30 was in 1993). Any forward would be better by being on the same ice as him.
*
From 1997-2001, St. Louis was one of the league’s five best teams and Turgeon was their best offensive weapon. He had the most goals, assists and points, and was the best per-game as well, edging out Brett Hull. The only other guy to be a consistent regular season producer for them during this period barely cracked half a point per game in the playoffs (Turgeon averaged 0.90)
*
Sedin makes his linemates better, but I see no reason to believe he’s done any better a job at making them better than Turgeon did. Plus both his linemates make him better (which is not something anyone has ever claimed about Turgeon). Daniel is just as good a player as him, and it’s a no brainer that playing with Daniel Sedin instead of Derek King is going to make a positive difference for a player. And Burrows obviously scores more by being on the same line as those two, but it’s actually been proven that they both score more with him on the ice too! (see the link posted in the AAA draft, this phenomenon is not isolated to just the Sedins and Burrows)

Quote:
Originally Posted by markrander87 View Post
So is a guy who scores 30 goals and 70 assists a better player offensively then a guy who scores 20 goals and 80 assists?

According to 70's he is, and by a large margin.
*
Pardon me??

Quote:
Originally Posted by monster_bertuzzi View Post
A lot of people would take Forsberg at 25-75-100 over Iginla at 45-55, just as an example.

Although I agree with TDMM the more balanced scorer is more valuable, usually.
*
Maybe, but only because Iginla took 82 games to score those points and Forsberg took 68
*
Otherwise, give me Iginla in that case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
Who do you want to evaluate? Star players, or all players?

If you want to evaluate star players, recognize that certain factors in 1992-93 made is easier for top players to score a higher % of points and use vs2 or vs5 or your metric of choice that uses the top scorers as a benchmark. If you want to evaluate everyone why not just use regular adjusted points with league scoring level as a benchmark?
*
Ideally, all players, but I realize it’s not possible without some sort of logarithmic “size of league” factor in there.
*
The percentage system does a good job but without some intervention in certain seasons it can give crazy results. I try to account for that, and so do others, but we seem to have disagreements on when it’s necessary.
*
I’d really just rather use adjusted points with league scoring level as a benchmark, but as we’ve seen proven with HR’s adjusted points, this skews results in favour of 90s players at the expense of 80s players, much more than most of us are comfortable with. Under your adjusted points system, correct me if I’m wrong, the problem is even worse. (I don’t blame you, I know that it’s just displaying what the perfectly logical formula calculates). There has to be an accepted “adjusted adjusted” points system. I know a few people have put out their own variations, perhaps most notably Czech Your Math.
*
Basically the end result of this system is “adjust the 80s players down, but not to the full extent that league scoring dropped”. I like that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gmm View Post
Here's something about longevity. I realize baseball and hockey are extremely different. Hitting is individual and a bad team doesn't lessen it. Hockey scoring is team driven and a bad team affects it.

Although I realize Mike Gartner is a HHoFer, if a baseball player hit 708 home runs and was 6th all time everyone would say he was one of the greatest home run hitters of all time. Compare the way we think and talk about Gartner to the way we do about the 6th biggest HR hitter ever, Ken Griffey Jr. Is it just the difference in the 2 sports or do we hold hockey players to a different (higher?) standard? Do hockey players have to be successful in a way we like (besides winning) and does style matter? Is style one of the reasons Denis Savard is more popular than Gartner imo?
*
More Popular or considered better? As for why any player is more popular than another, there could be many reasons. But Savard is better because he demonstrated on an annual basis that he was much better at providing offense. His 6th-best season was better than Gartner’s best.

Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
I was looking at Gartner a bit and he was a real high-volume, low percentage shooter compared to other scoring wingers of his era. And unlike most of those wingers he never played with a star centre. You wonder what he would done if he ever got to play with a good centre - maybe some of those 12% seasons turn into 14% seasons if he has someone who can set him up around the net.
*
However, good point.

seventieslord is offline