HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > By The Numbers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
By The Numbers Hockey Analytics... the Final Frontier. Explore strange new worlds, to seek out new algorithms, to boldly go where no one has gone before.

Measuring offensive production

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-16-2011, 04:44 PM
  #26
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,478
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ushvinder View Post
Yeah i know thier downsides, i just didnt expect them to rank so high on these lists, dionne was no defensive wizard but he was gritty and could get his nose dirty, its not like he's pierre turgeon.
Yup. In terms of regular season offense alone, Bathgate is really close to Jean Beliveau.

Quote:
Bathgate played on the worst team in the o-6, not much of an opportunity to develop a playoff resume.
Definitely, and that's why I am more critical of Dionne's postseason performances, despite the fact that Bathgate's are statistically worse.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-16-2011, 04:53 PM
  #27
WilliamRanford
Registered User
 
WilliamRanford's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 176
vCash: 500
Another observation: Selanne has a chance to go from #48 to #29 in the Top 10 pace rankings if he keeps up his pace over this year's final ~25 games and leapfrog some very big names. His play the last few seasons should really cement his legacy...

WilliamRanford is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-16-2011, 05:11 PM
  #28
Hawkey Town 18
Moderator
 
Hawkey Town 18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,241
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamRanford View Post
This is a very cool idea.

One possible way to express this data would be to show what percentage of their normalized careers they played at a top-5, top 10, etc pace. Howe played much longer than Gretzky, so you'd expect his absolute number to be higher. But it Gretz played 78% of his career at a top 5 pace while Howe played 72% at a top 5 pace, that would be the paydirt, IMO.

Thoughts?
Wouldn't this just punish guys that played longer and credit guys that retired early for whatever reason?

Mike Bossy might end up having the best Top 10 pace percentage of all-time just because he only played 10 seasons.

Why is 10 seasons of elite better than 10 seasons of elite and 5 seasons of very good?

Hawkey Town 18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-16-2011, 05:15 PM
  #29
WilliamRanford
Registered User
 
WilliamRanford's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 176
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyD View Post
Wouldn't this just punish guys that played longer and credit guys that retired early for whatever reason?

Mike Bossy might end up having the best Top 10 pace percentage of all-time just because he only played 10 seasons.

Why is 10 seasons of elite better than 10 seasons of elite and 5 seasons of very good?
Not trying to suggest it's meaningless as is, just saying that it might be fun to look at

WilliamRanford is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-16-2011, 05:24 PM
  #30
pappyline
Registered User
 
pappyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Mass/formerly Ont
Country: United States
Posts: 4,157
vCash: 500
Interesting exercise but rankings do benefit players that had longer NHL careers. For example, it hurts players like Bobby Hull & frank mahovlich who jumped to the WHA when still elite NHL players. I am sure that if Bobby Hull had 18 NHL seasons rather than 15, he would vault ahead of Maurice Richard in these rankings.

pappyline is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-16-2011, 09:30 PM
  #31
ushvinder
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,452
vCash: 500
There's no guarantee that Bobby Hull would have more top 5 finishes. He was 7th in scoring in 1972 and he was just going to get older. The 'what if' game can easily be applied to jagr considering that 1995 was a shortened season and he missed the 2005 season due to a lockout.

ushvinder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2011, 07:54 PM
  #32
Hawkey Town 18
Moderator
 
Hawkey Town 18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,241
vCash: 500
matnor, when you get a chance can you post the number of games Dale Hawerchuk played at a Top 10 pace?

Thanks

Hawkey Town 18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2011, 08:06 PM
  #33
Breakfast of Champs
Registered User
 
Breakfast of Champs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,143
vCash: 500
Another cool thing would be to see % of games played at that pace. For instance, Lemieux played over 91% of his games at a top 5 pace

Breakfast of Champs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2011, 08:19 PM
  #34
ushvinder
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,452
vCash: 500
I don't understand how Maurice Richard has '111' games played scoring at a top 1 pace, when he only lead the league in ppg once, even if you include his 28 games in 1958, he's still well below what hes being given credit for. Bobby Hull, Jean Beliveau and Jagr were all better offensive players than him.

In 1955 he was first in ppg and played 67 games, in 1958 he played 28 games. 67+28=95, what are these phantom games that he is being rewarded for?

Bobby Hull lead the league in points per game for 2 full seasons, there is no way Richard can be above him.


Last edited by ushvinder: 03-07-2011 at 08:25 PM.
ushvinder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2011, 08:45 PM
  #35
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,696
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by matnor View Post
A common way of measuring how good players are offensively around here is to count top-5, top-10 and top-20 finishes in goals, assists and points (see, for instance http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=614595 and http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=633070). While I think it's a relatively good way of comparing players I feel it punishes players who misses 10-15 games in a season disproportionally. For instance, let's say Crosby finishes outside the top-10 in scoring this season. Just comparing top-10 finishes would then ignore his amazing play the during the first half of the season. An alternative way is then to use top-10 finishes in ppg. That, on the other hand gives too much credit for players who are injured often.
I'll say what I have always said. You can't reward a player for sitting on the bench or the press box or the hospital for that matter. Crosby had a good first half of the season. However, there will be at least 10 other guys who had better seasons, maybe 20. Just because he WOULD have likely dominated the NHL over a full year doesn't mean we give him credit for things he failed to do.

Lemieux was the best player in the NHL in the 1989-'90 season. He had a 46 game point streak. Then he got hurt. In total he missed 21 games. Messier won the Hart and three other players had more points than him. Who had a better season Messier or Lemieux? Mario might have been the better player but he didn't have the better season because of injuries. Or the 1993-'94 season. Mario was seemingly on pace to win the Art Ross but he didn't, he only played in a third of the games. I don't get into the habit of rewarding a player for woulda, coulda and shouldas.


Now, there are exceptions. Mario in 1993 played in 60 games but he won the Art Ross and was so dominant in those 60 games he did more than the players who played in 80+ games. Same with 1992. He played in 64 games and won the Art Ross. I would say he had a better season than anyone else, although Messier won the Hart. Jagr in 2000 missed 19 games and still won the Art Ross. He still had the best season in the NHL despite Pronger winning a narrow Hart race.

These exceptions are scarce though.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2011, 08:49 PM
  #36
Darrelle Lundqvist
Swagelin
 
Darrelle Lundqvist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 1,781
vCash: 500
Very interesting. Suprised not to see Gretz at top

Darrelle Lundqvist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2011, 09:37 PM
  #37
JackSlater
Registered User
 
JackSlater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,004
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
I'll say what I have always said. You can't reward a player for sitting on the bench or the press box or the hospital for that matter. Crosby had a good first half of the season. However, there will be at least 10 other guys who had better seasons, maybe 20. Just because he WOULD have likely dominated the NHL over a full year doesn't mean we give him credit for things he failed to do.

Lemieux was the best player in the NHL in the 1989-'90 season. He had a 46 game point streak. Then he got hurt. In total he missed 21 games. Messier won the Hart and three other players had more points than him. Who had a better season Messier or Lemieux? Mario might have been the better player but he didn't have the better season because of injuries. Or the 1993-'94 season. Mario was seemingly on pace to win the Art Ross but he didn't, he only played in a third of the games. I don't get into the habit of rewarding a player for woulda, coulda and shouldas.


Now, there are exceptions. Mario in 1993 played in 60 games but he won the Art Ross and was so dominant in those 60 games he did more than the players who played in 80+ games. Same with 1992. He played in 64 games and won the Art Ross. I would say he had a better season than anyone else, although Messier won the Hart. Jagr in 2000 missed 19 games and still won the Art Ross. He still had the best season in the NHL despite Pronger winning a narrow Hart race.

These exceptions are scarce though.
As far as I can tell this is not about who was the most valuable in a given year was, which is what you are talking about, but who was actually the best. When I think of the 2010-2011 season and who the best player was, I and many others will think that it was Crosby and not whoever wins the Hart. This is a means of reflecting this, at least with regards to offensive play.

JackSlater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2011, 10:28 PM
  #38
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,696
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JackSlater View Post
As far as I can tell this is not about who was the most valuable in a given year was, which is what you are talking about, but who was actually the best. When I think of the 2010-2011 season and who the best player was, I and many others will think that it was Crosby and not whoever wins the Hart. This is a means of reflecting this, at least with regards to offensive play.
I'll admit Crosby had a wicked first half but what he did in 41 games will not be as good of a year as either one of the Sedins or the Tampa pair will do. Sorry, give me Martin St. Louis for 82 games over Crosby for 41. Hence, the player who had the better season is St. Louis. The better player - when healthy - is Sid, but the better season does not belong to him.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-07-2011, 11:28 PM
  #39
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,101
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
I'll admit Crosby had a wicked first half but what he did in 41 games will not be as good of a year as either one of the Sedins or the Tampa pair will do. Sorry, give me Martin St. Louis for 82 games over Crosby for 41. Hence, the player who had the better season is St. Louis. The better player - when healthy - is Sid, but the better season does not belong to him.
That's right, and Crosby will get Credit for playing 41 games at a "top-1" pace. That is the point of this study.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2011, 09:36 AM
  #40
JackSlater
Registered User
 
JackSlater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,004
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
I'll admit Crosby had a wicked first half but what he did in 41 games will not be as good of a year as either one of the Sedins or the Tampa pair will do. Sorry, give me Martin St. Louis for 82 games over Crosby for 41. Hence, the player who had the better season is St. Louis. The better player - when healthy - is Sid, but the better season does not belong to him.
I'm not disputing that, since I was not talking about how valuable any player was this season.

JackSlater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2011, 02:06 PM
  #41
WilliamRanford
Registered User
 
WilliamRanford's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 176
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
I'll admit Crosby had a wicked first half but what he did in 41 games will not be as good of a year as either one of the Sedins or the Tampa pair will do. Sorry, give me Martin St. Louis for 82 games over Crosby for 41. Hence, the player who had the better season is St. Louis. The better player - when healthy - is Sid, but the better season does not belong to him.
I'm think you may not be understanding what this is trying to do. If Sid plays only 41 games this season, he only gets credit for 41 games for his overall tally. This is asking the question, how many games did these players play at a Top-X pace? This isn't inventing games that didn't exist, it's counting those games that did.

Very novel.

WilliamRanford is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2011, 02:42 PM
  #42
matnor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Boston
Country: Sweden
Posts: 490
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyD View Post
matnor, when you get a chance can you post the number of games Dale Hawerchuk played at a Top 10 pace?

Thanks
Hawerchuk has 164 games at a top-10 pace (that is, two full seasons, 84/85 and 87/88). Both those seasons he was scoring at a top-5 pace.

matnor is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2011, 03:04 PM
  #43
matnor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Boston
Country: Sweden
Posts: 490
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnman10 View Post
Another cool thing would be to see % of games played at that pace. For instance, Lemieux played over 91% of his games at a top 5 pace
I think this is a bit problematic since it would favor guys who had short careers that primarily spanned their prime years. Players like Bossy and Forsberg would get very good shares (Bossy is 7th all-time in share scoring at a top-10 pace and Forsberg is 10th). Also, players like Crosby and Ovechkin who hasn't passed their prime yet place extremely well (Crosby is the only player together with Syl Apps who has a 100% share scoring at a top-10 pace). Though I should say that Bossy (23rd), Forsberg (28th) and Lindros (33rd) place very well in number of games playing at a top-10 pace despite playing much fewer games in total comparing to players like Yzerman (31st), Lafleur (35th) and Clarke (42nd).

matnor is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2011, 03:09 PM
  #44
matnor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Boston
Country: Sweden
Posts: 490
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ushvinder View Post
I don't understand how Maurice Richard has '111' games played scoring at a top 1 pace, when he only lead the league in ppg once, even if you include his 28 games in 1958, he's still well below what hes being given credit for. Bobby Hull, Jean Beliveau and Jagr were all better offensive players than him.

In 1955 he was first in ppg and played 67 games, in 1958 he played 28 games. 67+28=95, what are these phantom games that he is being rewarded for?

Bobby Hull lead the league in points per game for 2 full seasons, there is no way Richard can be above him.
The reason is that I have normalized games played to a 82-game schedule. So Richard gets credit with 111 games since 67*(82/70)+28*(82/70)=111. And Hull do place higher than Richard with 158 games.

matnor is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2011, 03:18 PM
  #45
matnor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Boston
Country: Sweden
Posts: 490
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
I'll say what I have always said. You can't reward a player for sitting on the bench or the press box or the hospital for that matter. Crosby had a good first half of the season. However, there will be at least 10 other guys who had better seasons, maybe 20. Just because he WOULD have likely dominated the NHL over a full year doesn't mean we give him credit for things he failed to do.

Lemieux was the best player in the NHL in the 1989-'90 season. He had a 46 game point streak. Then he got hurt. In total he missed 21 games. Messier won the Hart and three other players had more points than him. Who had a better season Messier or Lemieux? Mario might have been the better player but he didn't have the better season because of injuries. Or the 1993-'94 season. Mario was seemingly on pace to win the Art Ross but he didn't, he only played in a third of the games. I don't get into the habit of rewarding a player for woulda, coulda and shouldas.


Now, there are exceptions. Mario in 1993 played in 60 games but he won the Art Ross and was so dominant in those 60 games he did more than the players who played in 80+ games. Same with 1992. He played in 64 games and won the Art Ross. I would say he had a better season than anyone else, although Messier won the Hart. Jagr in 2000 missed 19 games and still won the Art Ross. He still had the best season in the NHL despite Pronger winning a narrow Hart race.

These exceptions are scarce though.
I'll echo what others have said, this method only rewards the player for the games ha actually played. To illustrate: Let's say Crosby does not play another game this season and hence end up with 41 games at a top-1 pace. Let's assume he then plays only 41 games next season, also scoring at a top-1 pace. According to my method he then gets credit with playing 82 games at a top-1 pace. That is, he gets the same credit as he would get if he had played all 82 games in one season and being injured the entire time in the other season. My reasoning is that it doesn't matter when he plays these games, 82 games is still 82 games. On the other hand, if we were to count the number of top-10 finishes he would not finish in the top-10 in either season if he played 41 games in each. But if he played all 82 games in one season and none in the other, he would have one top-1 finish despite playing the exact same number of games in the exact same way in the two cases.

matnor is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2011, 03:23 PM
  #46
Infinite Vision*
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,861
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by matnor View Post
I think this is a bit problematic since it would favor guys who had short careers that primarily spanned their prime years. Players like Bossy and Forsberg would get very good shares (Bossy is 7th all-time in share scoring at a top-10 pace and Forsberg is 10th). Also, players like Crosby and Ovechkin who hasn't passed their prime yet place extremely well (Crosby is the only player together with Syl Apps who has a 100% share scoring at a top-10 pace). Though I should say that Bossy (23rd), Forsberg (28th) and Lindros (33rd) place very well in number of games playing at a top-10 pace despite playing much fewer games in total comparing to players like Yzerman (31st), Lafleur (35th) and Clarke (42nd).
That right there is why they were better offensive players, not based on what if's. I've had debates before and so many people bring the what if stuff a little too much with these two specific players. Overall I personally see no way to conclude that Lafleur or Clarke were the better players, which is what the majority here believe, especially considering Forsberg and Lindros have an obvious edge over Lafleur defensively, and an obvious edge over Clarke offensively, bigger than his defensive edge without question. Truthfully there isn't really a defensive edge for Clarke either outside of two seasons.

Infinite Vision* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2011, 03:32 PM
  #47
matnor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Boston
Country: Sweden
Posts: 490
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Infinite Vision View Post
That right there is why they were better offensive players, not based on what if's. I've had debates before and so many people bring the what if stuff a little too much with these two specific players. Overall I personally see no way to conclude that Lafleur or Clarke were the better players, which is what the majority here believe, especially considering Forsberg and Lindros have an obvious edge over Lafleur defensively, and an obvious edge over Clarke offensively, bigger than his defensive edge without question. Truthfully there isn't really a defensive edge for Clarke either outside of two seasons.
While I agree to some extent, in the case of Lafleur, the games he did play at a top-10 pace was actually played at a much higher level than that. I think his six elite seasons are better than anything Bossy and Forsberg did (Lafleur has 474 games at a top-3 pace, Lindros has 267, Forsberg has 195 and Bossy 151). As for Clarke, the case for him is generally built on him being vastly superior defensively to most other star players.

matnor is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2011, 04:58 PM
  #48
kevinBOOMBOOMbieksa
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 493
vCash: 500
the only issue I have in this is that though Crosby should get credit for his 41 games at Top-1, I feel like that 41 games should not be enough to knock a zetterberg out of the Top-5 for this year. But then where do you draw the line, probably 75% of the games is a better line to draw, say 60 or 65 games.

kevinBOOMBOOMbieksa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2011, 07:26 PM
  #49
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,433
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Yup. In terms of regular season offense alone, Bathgate is really close to Jean Beliveau.



Definitely, and that's why I am more critical of Dionne's postseason performances, despite the fact that Bathgate's are statistically worse.
Not sure why you are more critical of Dionne, do you think he had more to work with in the playoffs?

Overall interesting stuff and gives another metric to measure, although I'm not surprised to see the dominance of some of the 06 guys. it is easier to get top 5,10,20 with a smaller pool there is no way around it.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2011, 08:59 PM
  #50
Hawkey Town 18
Moderator
 
Hawkey Town 18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,241
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Infinite Vision View Post
That right there is why they were better offensive players, not based on what if's. I've had debates before and so many people bring the what if stuff a little too much with these two specific players. Overall I personally see no way to conclude that Lafleur or Clarke were the better players, which is what the majority here believe, especially considering Forsberg and Lindros have an obvious edge over Lafleur defensively, and an obvious edge over Clarke offensively, bigger than his defensive edge without question. Truthfully there isn't really a defensive edge for Clarke either outside of two seasons.
Are you trying to say Clarke was one of the best defensive players in the league for only 2 seasons? Many consider him the best two-way player EVER.

Ultimate Hockey gave him 2 retro Selkes in addition to the actual one he has. Check out these coaches polls results for more proof...

BOBBY CLARKE

Best backchecker 3rd 1981
Best checker 1st 1974
Best checker 1st 1976
Best defensive forward 2nd 1981
Best forechecker 1st 1981
Best on faceoffs 2nd 1974
Best on faceoffs 1st 1976
Best on faceoffs 1st 1979
Best on faceoffs 1st 1981
Best on faceoffs 4th 1984
Best penalty killer T-1st 1974
Best penalty killer 1st 1976
Best playmaker 3rd 1974
Best playmaker 1st 1976
First player to build team around 1st 1976
Hardest worker 1st 1971
Hardest worker 1st 1974
Hardest worker 1st 1976
Hardest worker 1st 1979
Hardest worker 2nd 1984
Smartest player 3rd 1974
Smartest player 2nd 1976
Smartest player 4th 1979

You can say what you want about which is bigger Clarke's defensive edge or the other guys' offensive edges, but to say his defensive edge was only for two seasons is just plain wrong

Hawkey Town 18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:16 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.