Register FAQ Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
 Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
 Notices Please do not post or solicit links to illegal game streams.

 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.

 View Poll Results: How many games constitutes a 'season' rather than a 'pace' 35 0 0% 40 0 0% 45 0 0% 50 1 14.29% 55 2 28.57% 60 3 42.86% 65 1 14.29% 70 0 0% Voters: 7. You may not vote on this poll

08-12-2012, 11:22 AM
#26
Registered User

Join Date: Jan 2010
Country:
Posts: 1,029
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by solidmotion Just slipped that in there eh... assuming Bernie Nicholls?
haha, i forgot about that! Way to notice, ya - that's Bernie. He can thank 99 for making the list.

 08-12-2012, 01:40 PM #27 Czech Your Math Registered User     Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: bohemia Country: Posts: 4,841 vCash: 500 Tom, I don't think there is an exact point where a pace becomes a season. A season is a season and a pace is a pace. A pace becomes more reliable as the sample size increases, but it never exactly equates to a season. Also, I believe the reliability increases if the pace is similar to other seasons the player had. The more full seasons which are close to the pace for that season, the more reliable the pace would seem to be. I voted for 55 based on this logic: At that point, the games missed become 1/2 or less of the games played, so the reliability has improved significantly. That's an intuitive "inflection point", if you will, but may be wrong. Still, I stand by the points made in the first paragraph, the two are never really the same. Before I start working on this, any suggestions for a total game threshold over multiple seasons? Maybe a couple numbers between 200 and 400? If not, I'll pick at least one number that doesn't appear to affect either Wayne or Mario unfairly.
08-12-2012, 01:49 PM
#29
Registered User

Join Date: Jan 2010
Country:
Posts: 1,029
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Czech Your Math Tom, I don't think there is an exact point where a pace becomes a season. A season is a season and a pace is a pace. A pace becomes more reliable as the sample size increases, but it never exactly equates to a season. Also, I believe the reliability increases if the pace is similar to other seasons the player had. The more full seasons which are close to the pace for that season, the more reliable the pace would seem to be. I voted for 55 based on this logic: At that point, the games missed become 1/2 or less of the games played, so the reliability has improved significantly. That's an intuitive "inflection point", if you will, but may be wrong. Still, I stand by the points made in the first paragraph, the two are never really the same. Before I start working on this, any suggestions for a total game threshold over multiple seasons? Maybe a couple numbers between 200 and 400? If not, I'll pick at least one number that doesn't appear to affect either Wayne or Mario unfairly.
Pat Lafontaine would thank you.

I am very interested in a total game threshold, and also even a consecutive game prime (maybe even including playoff games...)

A total game threshold would eliminate arguments over what a season is, and would, in effect, simply be a gigantic 'pace' measurement. I like it, a lot, actually.

I like somewhere around 300 games, but ya, 200 - 400 area seems right, for sure. Maybe 250 as it is basically 3 full seasons.... i dunno, do a poll!!

08-12-2012, 01:56 PM
#30
Registered User

Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country:
Posts: 4,841
vCash: 500
Quote:
That's a good list of post-WHA talents. I still think it needs more Lindros, and I'm not a big fan of the Big E.

Selanne and Thornton may both be underrated a bit due to their playoff numbers and relative lack of team success compared to some other greats. They are similar to Dionne in this way.

Sakic's edge over Forsberg is mainly much more longevity and being a better goal-scorer. He had his own injuries as well, so he wasn't that much more durable within each season. Forsberg's biggest edges, from a data standpoint, are his even strength effectiveness (see adjusted plus-minus, ES GF/GA ratios on vs. off) and his team's record with or without him in the lineup. There are many pieces to the puzzle. What's important is the big picture. Too much is placed on one stat and/or one season, when it's multiple metrics over multiple seasons that shows the cream rising to the top.

08-12-2012, 02:00 PM
#31
Registered User

Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country:
Posts: 4,841
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by tombombadil Pat Lafontaine would thank you. I am very interested in a total game threshold, and also even a consecutive game prime (maybe even including playoff games...) A total game threshold would eliminate arguments over what a season is, and would, in effect, simply be a gigantic 'pace' measurement. I like it, a lot, actually. I like somewhere around 300 games, but ya, 200 - 400 area seems right, for sure. Maybe 250 as it is basically 3 full seasons.... i dunno, do a poll!!
I'll pick some round numbers (either nearest 50 or multiples of 80/82 games) that don't seem too biased for/against the top 3. I'm not going to include playoff games, as that would require a lot more work to separately adjust and include those numbers.

Now go do something with your wife, and expect some results late tonight or early next week.

 08-12-2012, 02:06 PM #32 tombombadil Registered User   Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: West Kelowna, Canada Country: Posts: 1,029 vCash: 500 the more i think about your total games version, the more i like it. It's 'who had the most productive individual career without hurting someone for playing too long, or for missing too much time' or, more simply, "who had the better prime" So, what's a prime? Some guys fly right away, but the rule of thumb i know of for young guys is the 4 year rule. roughly guessing, an average forward might be hitting his prime at 24? I have no idea, but i'm going to suggest that somewhere around 32 is generally the start of a decline. i don't suggest these age parameters be used whatsoever, just using it to say there is roughly a 9 year 'prime' on average (again guessing most of this) Very few guys play all of those games, very few play half, maybe 75% would be a decent average for a player over 9 years? 720 x .75 = 540. I'm not using these numbers for anything more than process of thought, by the way. Maybe I am leaning more towards your threshold of 400 now, though. I like it. Can't stand Crosby, for instance - but the guy deserves credit for producing so well over the last 2 seasons. and 400 games would balance out the crazy pace factor of simply giving him credit for close to 2 adj points a game for those seasons. Whichever threshold you choose, i like it. More than my list, actually.
 08-12-2012, 02:07 PM #33 tombombadil Registered User   Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: West Kelowna, Canada Country: Posts: 1,029 vCash: 500 haha, thanks, see ya!
 08-12-2012, 02:17 PM #34 Czech Your Math Registered User     Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: bohemia Country: Posts: 4,841 vCash: 500 For a forward, I think prime is generally ~21/22 to ~29/30. Goalies and defensemen would generally be later. I might start a separate thread for some of the data, once it's complete. Not sure yet. The good thing about using a threshold of games: Players aren't receiving credit for a higher proportion of missed games during a season. Each game is weighted equally (although one could adjust for schedule... which I may do, esp. if go back to much earlier decades).
08-12-2012, 04:35 PM
#35
Mod Supervisor

Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Windsor
Posts: 4,866
vCash: 663
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Czech Your Math Now go do something with your wife, and expect some results late tonight or early next week.
Wow - what sort of results are we hoping for?

 08-12-2012, 04:37 PM #36 tombombadil Registered User   Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: West Kelowna, Canada Country: Posts: 1,029 vCash: 500 hilarious! We already have 3 kids - that **** is over!
08-12-2012, 05:19 PM
#37
Registered User

Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country:
Posts: 4,841
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Taco MacArthur Wow - what sort of results are we hoping for?
Scoring results of course! Let's hope he remembers to pace himself... those "I was on pace for..." arguments won't work with the wife.

 08-12-2012, 05:24 PM #38 tombombadil Registered User   Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: West Kelowna, Canada Country: Posts: 1,029 vCash: 500 haha, that is way too funny. Never mind not playing a full season, I'm just an energy player.... 45 second shifts, and back on the bench!
 08-12-2012, 06:10 PM #39 tombombadil Registered User   Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: West Kelowna, Canada Country: Posts: 1,029 vCash: 500 nice, thanks. mollifying the Gretzky fans is funny to me. Just like soccer, the fans are way more vicious than the player(s)!
 08-12-2012, 07:03 PM #40 Czech Your Math Registered User     Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: bohemia Country: Posts: 4,841 vCash: 500 I looked at the big 3 (WG,ML,JJ) and the little 3 (SC,AO,EM) in terms of games in their best seasons, so that the little 3 can be fairly included and so that there's no real Wayne vs. Mario bias. The number of games I will use are: 300, 425 and 640. 300 allows Malkin's best seasons to be included and not his worst. Most of these players have a break point between 300-330, so that seemed the fairest solution. 425 allows Malkin and Crosby's careers to be included. The only one who's a bit penalized of these 6 would be Gretzky, but he will still be at the top I would guess, so it shouldn't matter too much. That seems a fair tradeoff to be able to include all of the little 3 in this list. Ovechkin still gets to take a season off, so that seems pretty fair as well. 640 is eight 80 game seasons, which is important since Wayne and Mario had a lot of 80 game schedules. It also is near breakpoints for Lemieux (646) and Jagr (640). Gretzky again is slightly penalized, but at this point it shouldn't matter much. Also keep in mind that since actual games will be used for these 3 lists, so Jagr is penalized for the shortened lockout season (and he missed a lockout season as well). I will eventually post tables which will include the number of actual games for each player for each period. That way, people can judge for themselves and consider that a player had more games than other players. If you have any suggested changes to the number of games, please post them in the very near future, as once I begin the calculations, I'm not going to go back and do double work.
 08-12-2012, 07:06 PM #41 tombombadil Registered User   Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: West Kelowna, Canada Country: Posts: 1,029 vCash: 500 looks good.
08-12-2012, 07:57 PM
#42
seventieslord
Registered User

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country:
Posts: 29,235
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by tombombadil haha, i forgot about that! Way to notice, ya - that's Bernie. He can thank 99 for making the list.
Oh good. I was going to ask.

 08-13-2012, 09:01 PM #43 tombombadil Registered User   Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: West Kelowna, Canada Country: Posts: 1,029 vCash: 500 I'd like to see this thread closed, based on that their is a new and improved version out now. Last edited by Czech Your Math: 08-13-2012 at 10:53 PM. Reason: thy will shall be done, good sir

Forum Jump