View Single Post
03-16-2013, 11:40 PM
Join Date: Feb 2010
Originally Posted by
That doesn't explain, for example, why the difference between his best and 5th-best season is so large compared to Messier.
Well, assuming you are using the total points, there's the "Carson effect" that I have referred to before with regards to 1990-91 and 1991-92 (and the first half of 1992-93). Bryan Murray's attempt to run three scoring lines centered separately by his three best forwards resulted in a team able to put out a scoring line at any given moment, but Yzerman's stats suffered big time. In 1989-90 (before Fedorov), he posted 127 points. After Carson was traded, his scoring pace increased dramatically.
And in 1987-88, Yzerman posted 50-52-102 in 64; which is pace for 63-65-128. Messier's peak season was a direct result of Carson being traded, and no legitimate scoring center being available for the second line (Tikkanen played a lot of center that season, and Messier's ice time increased significantly at ES and on the PP).
But if we take one of 1990-91 or 1991-92 and split the difference between the actual numbers and the 63-65-128 that a full 87-88 and 89-90 average to, we get 57-61-118 in 80GP in 90-91 and 54-61-115 in 79GP in 91-92.
His top seasons would look like this:
65-90-155 in 80 (88-89)
58-79-137 in 84 (92-93)
50-52-102 in 64 (87-88)
62-65-127 in 79 (89-90)
24-58-82 in 58 (93-94)
57-61-118 in 80 (90-91)
54-61-115 in 79 (91-92)
This exercise doesn't change the "best vs. 5th-best" when using PPG, but it makes a difference with points. Obviously, there's no way to no for certain what the offensive impact was; but it's clear that Yzerman's numbers were impacted negatively by Murray's attempt to run three lines centered by Yzerman, Fedorov, and Carson rather than moving either Carson or Fedorov to the wing. Especially given the state of Detroit's forwards at the time.
Media lists are horrible; try not to pay attention to them and your life will instantly get better.
I just saw one while looking for something else that had Messier at 18th. That's not terrible, honestly. But then it had things like Forsberg at 44th... and Ciccarelli at 100th.
And the guy actually did research, referencing how the press treated Lalonde as the superior player (over Joe Malone) and it was reflected in Malone's position change, using this to justify ranking Malone below Lalonde. Malone was 33rd... Lalonde was around 20-25 I think.
So if I understand your quibble, it's that Messier should be about 30th (which is at least reasonable), not 22nd? Big deal! All that just over 8 spots?
What is the thread topic?
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by pdd