HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Why would Gretzky still dominate today? Here's the secret about Gretzky...

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-20-2012, 12:49 AM
  #326
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,008
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irato99 View Post
Gretzky's numbers were ridiculously high when he was in his prime...
Yes and so were alot of other players.

Here is 81-87 Wayne's Prime where he has the top 7 seasons

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...rder_by=points

notice there are 77 other non Wayne 100 point guys in those 7 years.

now switch to post lockout, which conveniently lines up at 7 seasons.


http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...rder_by=points

Only 25 seasons of over 100 points

Only 3 guys in post lockout hit over 120 and 19 guys not named Wayne in Wayne's prime.

Heck there are 30 teams and more top lines guys in the league with a greater chance to score over 100 points than the guys on 21 teams in Wayne's prime so there must be other reasons right?

Some people here would seem to believe that Wayne slips only a little while the other 77 guys perhaps slip alot or the other 77 guys were better offensively than the 25 post lockout.

Frankly it's hard to keep up with it because it doesn't really fit.

The fact of the matter is that it's plain and simple alot ahrder to score post lockout than in the early 80's and that would hold true for every player in the early 80's, even Wayne.

The 170-180 in Vancouver or Detroit that R71 is pulling out is almost impossible to even speculate possible when you look at the lay of the land post lockout.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-20-2012, 01:03 AM
  #327
Irato99
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 171
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Yes and so were alot of other players.

Here is 81-87 Wayne's Prime where he has the top 7 seasons

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...rder_by=points

notice there are 77 other non Wayne 100 point guys in those 7 years.

now switch to post lockout, which conveniently lines up at 7 seasons.


http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...rder_by=points

Only 25 seasons of over 100 points

Only 3 guys in post lockout hit over 120 and 19 guys not named Wayne in Wayne's prime.

Heck there are 30 teams and more top lines guys in the league with a greater chance to score over 100 points than the guys on 21 teams in Wayne's prime so there must be other reasons right?

Some people here would seem to believe that Wayne slips only a little while the other 77 guys perhaps slip alot or the other 77 guys were better offensively than the 25 post lockout.

Frankly it's hard to keep up with it because it doesn't really fit.

The fact of the matter is that it's plain and simple alot ahrder to score post lockout than in the early 80's and that would hold true for every player in the early 80's, even Wayne.

The 170-180 in Vancouver or Detroit that R71 is pulling out is almost impossible to even speculate possible when you look at the lay of the land post lockout.
Hello.................

I said Gretzky's numbers were ridiculously high when he was in his prime, look at the list you provided and tell me if another player comes near his numbers.

But if we look closely at both lists we can do an exercise. On the first list, Gretzky's best season is the double of the season at position 43. If we keep the relative proportions right, we could assume that he would do the same today, that would give a 188 pts season, interesting isn't it...


Last edited by Irato99: 08-20-2012 at 01:17 AM. Reason: Add an argument
Irato99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-20-2012, 01:21 AM
  #328
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,880
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Yes and so were alot of other players.

Here is 81-87 Wayne's Prime where he has the top 7 seasons

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...rder_by=points

notice there are 77 other non Wayne 100 point guys in those 7 years.

now switch to post lockout, which conveniently lines up at 7 seasons.


http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...rder_by=points

Only 25 seasons of over 100 points

Only 3 guys in post lockout hit over 120 and 19 guys not named Wayne in Wayne's prime.

Heck there are 30 teams and more top lines guys in the league with a greater chance to score over 100 points than the guys on 21 teams in Wayne's prime so there must be other reasons right?

Some people here would seem to believe that Wayne slips only a little while the other 77 guys perhaps slip alot or the other 77 guys were better offensively than the 25 post lockout.

Frankly it's hard to keep up with it because it doesn't really fit.

The fact of the matter is that it's plain and simple alot ahrder to score post lockout than in the early 80's and that would hold true for every player in the early 80's, even Wayne.

The 170-180 in Vancouver or Detroit that R71 is pulling out is almost impossible to even speculate possible when you look at the lay of the land post lockout.
Look, we can argue over the exact amount of points Wayne or Mario would get today till we're blue in the face and have in the past.
We are quite obviously not going to agree considering you and I are prolly a good 25-30 points apart.

The only real point that most of are trying to make is that even if Gretz would have serious competition for the Richard trophy today, he would still run away with the Art Ross year after year by quite noticeable and/or large margins.

We don't have to agree on the exact numbers those margins would entail but you can at least agree that those margins, by your standard or mine, would be impressive.

Rhiessan71 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-20-2012, 01:23 AM
  #329
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,008
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Only in your opinion and only because there is no Gretzky to outscore everyone by a huge margin.

There was no context in 1981 when Wayne, at all of 20 years of age, blew away the record for points in a season and there sure as **** wasn't any context when he broke the 200 point mark 4 out of the next 5 seasons.
All this by age 25.

I have the context, in that it ACTUALLY happened. You are actually the one that has no context other than it hasn't happened since.
Your theory for this is that it's because of the changes in the game, players, goaltending ect ect.
My theory is that it's because there are no current players of the level of Gretzky or Lemieux.
Either way, absence of proof is no proof at all for either of us but at least my theory is based on something that DID happen, not based on some mathematical formula for normalized, averaged of statistics.


At the end of the day, which sounds more plausible to you...

A) That there has only been 4-5 players (Wayne, Mario, Gordie, Bobby and possibly Jagr) in the last 50 years that have dominated the game to such a high degree.

OR!

B) That, according to you, that there are like 4-5 players in the league right this moment on their level or pretty close to it and they simply can't dominate because the league is 5-10 times better than it was just 10-20 years ago.


Hmmmm....which one seems more based on reality, tough choice
Hey if you are going to build a straw man might as well make it a huge one 5-10 times better seriously?

Why not make it 100 times, it has about as much relevance.

The difference in scoring could be because it's only 25% harder to score which if my math is correct 1/4 times better but that's never what I've been arguing about.

It has nothing to do with the league being better or worse but about the conditions of the game and how hard or easy it is to score goals compared to other seasons.

We all know what Wayne did in his prime in the early to mid 80's but you provide extremely weak to no support about your notion of 170-180 on a team like Detroit or Vancouver or even 150 on Columbus.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-20-2012, 01:36 AM
  #330
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,008
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irato99 View Post
Hello.................

I said Gretzky's numbers were ridiculously high when he was in his prime, look at the list you provided and tell me if another player comes near his numbers.

But if we look closely at both lists we can do an exercise. On the first list, Gretzky's best season is the double of the season at position 43. If we keep the relative proportions right, we could assume that he would do the same today, that would give a 188 pts season, interesting isn't it...
That's only part of the equation, you are going to need to bring those other guys from 81-87 along with you and that's when the excuses come out like oh no we only mean Wayne ect....

That's the whole problem with only looking at Wayne did and not putting it in context of the then and now.

Sure Wayne blew away the field but the same field was collectivity blowing out everyone before and afterwards as well.

If you really think that even Wayne is going to put up 188 points in a season today, something he did only 5 times in his career, then any discussion on this matter is kind of pointless IMO.

you either have an inflated opinion of Wayne, and yes it's possible to ahve the number 1 guy held in too high a reguard it seems, or that you think todays top players simply aren't as talented as half that field of 77 from 81-87 that topped 100 plus points.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-20-2012, 02:56 AM
  #331
Irato99
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 171
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
If you really think that even Wayne is going to put up 188 points in a season today, something he did only 5 times in his career, then any discussion on this matter is kind of pointless IMO.
Yes I think he could, look at the top scorers on the 86-87 season and look at the first season post-lockout...

Irato99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-20-2012, 02:59 AM
  #332
alanschu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,224
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
I don't think he was undermining Bossy at all. He was saying that Bossy's skillset would translate into today's game better than Gretzky, so he wouldn't need to change his style as much, not that he couldn't do so.

I'm probably misunderstanding you, due to the nature of this back to the future discussion, but it almost seems like you think Bossy would be even better today. That too would require some evidence.

No. I'm saying that Bossy had a fantastic shot and is probably one of the best wrist shot releases. In spite of having tools that are arguably superior to even Wayne's, it's basically a conclusion that Bossy played suboptimally in the 80s.

I do believe that Bossy would likely flirt with 50 goals every season because he's a great natural goal scorer, but given he was typically flirting with 60 goals in the 80s, this represents only a 10 goal difference which is a pretty conservative.

But somehow Gretzky appeared to be able to do something that absolutely no other player was able to do in order to put up significantly better results and to boot, he was the one player most significantly affected by the changes the league was making.

The reason why I think it undermines Bossy is because it pretty much says that in spite of Bossy's great skills, he wasn't actually able to really figure out the goalies and just got by on a great shot that was somehow less affected by the changes as the game went on. For such a great goal scoring talent, I wouldn't expect Gretzky to have blown him out of the water in the early to mid 80s.

What magical thing let Wayne Gretzky light up goalies for 70+ goals several times that Mike Bossy with his arguably superior shot just couldn't figure out? Because I consider Bossy a heck of a goalscorer with great instincts for the game that was able to pretty much figure out the goalies of the time.

alanschu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-20-2012, 03:17 AM
  #333
tazzy19
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,588
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
That's only part of the equation, you are going to need to bring those other guys from 81-87 along with you and that's when the excuses come out like oh no we only mean Wayne ect....

That's the whole problem with only looking at Wayne did and not putting it in context of the then and now.

Sure Wayne blew away the field but the same field was collectivity blowing out everyone before and afterwards as well.

If you really think that even Wayne is going to put up 188 points in a season today, something he did only 5 times in his career, then any discussion on this matter is kind of pointless IMO.

you either have an inflated opinion of Wayne, and yes it's possible to ahve the number 1 guy held in too high a reguard it seems, or that you think todays top players simply aren't as talented as half that field of 77 from 81-87 that topped 100 plus points.
Yes, but he had at least 17 more points (than those 188 points) 4 times out of those 5, which included 2 out of those 5 being 24 and 27 more points (than those 188). And of course he had a 183 points another year (1987), and was on pace for pretty much exactly 188 points in 1988 before his 16 game injury. The fact remains that he beat Mario Lemieux by 74 points in 85-86, and everyone at the time said Mario had an amazing year (which he did). Gretzky would routinely win scoring titles by 60-70 points. During his 183 point year, he won the scoring title by 69%. Are we really supposed to believe that players like Mark Messier, Mario Lemieux (even of 1987), Jari Kurri, Doug Gilmour, and others, were simply not as good as the top players today, which is why Wayne dominated them by so much? Or should we admit that those players were perhaps just as good, but Wayne managed to exploit "the weak 1980s" by a FAR greater degree than any of them, despite how good they were? And if the latter is indeed the case, then how is it that these great players could not also destroy this weak 1980s era to such RIDICULOUS fashion? That's the crux of the issue here.

tazzy19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-20-2012, 03:22 AM
  #334
tazzy19
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,588
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by alanschu View Post
No. I'm saying that Bossy had a fantastic shot and is probably one of the best wrist shot releases. In spite of having tools that are arguably superior to even Wayne's, it's basically a conclusion that Bossy played suboptimally in the 80s.

I do believe that Bossy would likely flirt with 50 goals every season because he's a great natural goal scorer, but given he was typically flirting with 60 goals in the 80s, this represents only a 10 goal difference which is a pretty conservative.

But somehow Gretzky appeared to be able to do something that absolutely no other player was able to do in order to put up significantly better results and to boot, he was the one player most significantly affected by the changes the league was making.

The reason why I think it undermines Bossy is because it pretty much says that in spite of Bossy's great skills, he wasn't actually able to really figure out the goalies and just got by on a great shot that was somehow less affected by the changes as the game went on. For such a great goal scoring talent, I wouldn't expect Gretzky to have blown him out of the water in the early to mid 80s.

What magical thing let Wayne Gretzky light up goalies for 70+ goals several times that Mike Bossy with his arguably superior shot just couldn't figure out? Because I consider Bossy a heck of a goalscorer with great instincts for the game that was able to pretty much figure out the goalies of the time.
Bingo. The answer to this question should put this debate to rest.

tazzy19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-20-2012, 03:38 AM
  #335
alanschu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,224
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Yes and so were alot of other players.

Here is 81-87 Wayne's Prime where he has the top 7 seasons

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...rder_by=points

notice there are 77 other non Wayne 100 point guys in those 7 years.

now switch to post lockout, which conveniently lines up at 7 seasons.


http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...rder_by=points

Only 25 seasons of over 100 points

Only 3 guys in post lockout hit over 120 and 19 guys not named Wayne in Wayne's prime.

Heck there are 30 teams and more top lines guys in the league with a greater chance to score over 100 points than the guys on 21 teams in Wayne's prime so there must be other reasons right?

Some people here would seem to believe that Wayne slips only a little while the other 77 guys perhaps slip alot or the other 77 guys were better offensively than the 25 post lockout.

Frankly it's hard to keep up with it because it doesn't really fit.

The fact of the matter is that it's plain and simple alot ahrder to score post lockout than in the early 80's and that would hold true for every player in the early 80's, even Wayne.

The 170-180 in Vancouver or Detroit that R71 is pulling out is almost impossible to even speculate possible when you look at the lay of the land post lockout.
None of this disputes that Gretzky's numbers were significantly higher than his peers.

That more people broke 120 is irrelevant when the statement was a relative one.

alanschu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-20-2012, 05:31 AM
  #336
Fourier
Registered User
 
Fourier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Waterloo Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,655
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
But it's not just about playing more defensively responsible. It was about paying the price and doing anything it takes to win both offensively and defensively.
Whether their goals against were the same or not doesn't matter. If we had access to the differences in faceoff wins, blocked shots and hits, I guarantee you a big increase from the '83 playoffs to the '84 playoffs.
I understand, and agree that the 83 playoffs was a tremendous learning experience for the Oilers. And of course you are not going to see the same intensity night in and night out that you would in the playoffs. But my point was even during the regular season the Oilers focus became winning regardless of how that had to be done.

The battle of Alberta was a very good example of this. These games were very often wars, even in the preseason and regular season. The Oilers could get away with playing pond hockey against many teams so they did. But not against Calgary.

Despite their reputation, the Oilers of the dynasty years were a very tough team to play against. Not just because of their skill but also because when necessary they could be as physical as any team around.

Fourier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-20-2012, 06:55 AM
  #337
Fourier
Registered User
 
Fourier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Waterloo Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,655
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
No I didn't, which is in some sense is an advantage because I don't have any of my natural human biases colouring my conclusions. I don't have to fit my reasoning to how I feel about the series, to how I remember it.
Of course there is observational bias. But if you think sv% or any other stat can give you a better sense of how these series played out then you would get by taking the word of someone who was actually there, then you are simply using the information you have in the wrong way. We are not talking about something subtle here that your numbers can explain away. The two series were night and day in terms of how things actually happened. The fact that your data does not detect this simply shows the weakness in using stats as your sole means of presenting your case.

And since you were about to dismiss the "did you see it argument" in advance, I'll do the same and say that if you feel I do not understand variance than I can assure you that is not the case.

Fourier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-20-2012, 06:57 AM
  #338
ot92s
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 737
vCash: 500
So you believe you can learn more about a players ability by looking at statistics than you can by actually watching them play?

************ is fun...

I reject your standard scientific approach of relying upon empirical observation in the study of sports, and instead, favor the use of logical analysis, a logic which is influenced by Immanuel Kant's analytic–synthetic distinction. The empirical methods used in the natural sciences cannot be applied to these situations because the principle of induction does not apply. In essence, I believe that a theory constructed to predict how a player will perform in a "complex" situation could not arise from studying how they acted in "simple" situations. Furthermore, there are limits to how much can be learned from even a "simple situation". As a criticism to empirical studies seeking to find justification in the predicted performance of an individual player, I propose that only the human actor knows the ends toward which he acts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
Your brain then fills in the gaps as needed based on the input received before and after, experience, and essentially guesswork. So even if you think you saw something, you might not have...
press rewind...do you see something different every time?

ot92s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-20-2012, 08:29 AM
  #339
shazariahl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,384
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
That's only part of the equation, you are going to need to bring those other guys from 81-87 along with you and that's when the excuses come out like oh no we only mean Wayne ect....

That's the whole problem with only looking at Wayne did and not putting it in context of the then and now.

Sure Wayne blew away the field but the same field was collectivity blowing out everyone before and afterwards as well.

If you really think that even Wayne is going to put up 188 points in a season today, something he did only 5 times in his career, then any discussion on this matter is kind of pointless IMO.

you either have an inflated opinion of Wayne, and yes it's possible to ahve the number 1 guy held in too high a reguard it seems, or that you think todays top players simply aren't as talented as half that field of 77 from 81-87 that topped 100 plus points.
Just like Wayne wouldn't hit 215 pts today, most that field of 77 wouldn't break 100 pts either. Is anyone disputing that? I don't see any relevance to anything you've said here. Its harder to score goals today. We all know that. The top players today are just as good as the top players from the 80's - except for Gretzky and Lemieux (and Bourque, but we're mostly talking forwards). But we've also seen players who overlapped with Gretzky - players like Selanne, Bure, Mogilny, Federov, Hull, Jagr, etc all have great careers in the 90's. Yet Gretzky was right there with them, despite having already played a decade of NHL hockey, tons of playoff games, and having suffered a career threatening injury.

Since some of those players are still around, despite being 40 themselves now, I have to conclude that the league has not evolved that much, despite changes in the game, or else these players would simply not be able to compete. So if Selanne, a player who was no where near Gretzky's level in his best years, can still play today at age 40, then I have to think a 23 yr old Gretzky would be just fine.

shazariahl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-20-2012, 08:55 AM
  #340
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,880
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
That's only part of the equation, you are going to need to bring those other guys from 81-87 along with you and that's when the excuses come out like oh no we only mean Wayne ect....
What exactly are you still arguing about at this point? The actual number of points Wayne would have today? That he wouldn't win multiple Art Ross's by convincing margins today? Or both?

Quote:
That's the whole problem with only looking at Wayne did and not putting it in context of the then and now.

Sure Wayne blew away the field but the same field was collectivity blowing out everyone before and afterwards as well.
Hmmm...context of players not named Wayne or Mario. How about this then...Yzerman in '89, 155 points playing with scrubs. Aside from Jagr, I have not seen offensive wizardry and magic of that magnitude from any player today, not even close. Not Crosby, not OV, not the Sedin's, not anyone.
Now for the context...Wayne and Mario had seasons that makes Yzerman's look like peanuts. THAT'S CONTEXT!

Quote:
If you really think that even Wayne is going to put up 188 points in a season today, something he did only 5 times in his career, then any discussion on this matter is kind of pointless IMO.
You realise he didn't actually argue that Wayne could amass 188 points today. He just took your own mathematical arguments and showed the fallacy of them right.
Something he did quite well I might add.


Quote:
you either have an inflated opinion of Wayne, and yes it's possible to ahve the number 1 guy held in too high a reguard it seems, or that you think todays top players simply aren't as talented as half that field of 77 from 81-87 that topped 100 plus points.
You keep asking for context. Well lets ask some questions and get some context shall we.

Some questions regarding your 81-87 timeframe:
1) How many of those 77 are named Wayne or Mario?
2) How many of those 77 were teammates of Wayne or Mario?
3) What is the total minus the answers from question 1 & 2?
4) How many 100 point scorers have there been since the LO?
5) What was the average % that Wayne won his scoring titles over non-teammates by?
6) What is the highest % anyone has won the scoring title by since the LO?
7) What was the average margin of victory for the scoring leader the 5 years prior to Gretzky's arrival in the NHL?

Answers:
1) 11
2) 14
3) 52
4) 25
5) Despite competing against more than twice the amount of 100+ point scorers compared to today, his average margin of victory was by a whopping 53% per season.
6) It was last year, 12% (the average has been 6%). Previous to that, it was Jagr back in 98/99 with 19%.
7) 6%


That enough context for you?


Last edited by Rhiessan71: 08-20-2012 at 12:02 PM.
Rhiessan71 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-20-2012, 02:11 PM
  #341
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,340
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourier View Post
Of course there is observational bias. But if you think sv% or any other stat can give you a better sense of how these series played out then you would get by taking the word of someone who was actually there, then you are simply using the information you have in the wrong way.
Not save % or any other stat, but all factual information taken together. Are you suggesting that the correct way to use stats is only to support a preconceived notion? That is, since the stats don't support what you already believe, they must be wrong?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ot92s View Post
So you believe you can learn more about a players ability by looking at statistics than you can by actually watching them play?
In the sense that statistics record what they record, for every player on the ice, for every game that was played, absolutely. Relying upon your own perceptions, besides the many issues I presented already, has the problem that it requires you seeing every game for every player to know about them. And that is, of course, impossible. Otherwise you're left with a partial understanding of the player, and (again due to normal human biases) a tendency to maintain an opinion on that player based on early impressions, even if later play contradicts it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ot92s View Post
I reject your standard scientific approach of relying upon empirical observation in the study of sports
This is not empiricism; there are no experiments. The scientific method cannot apply, because we cannot test hypotheses with repeatable experiments. Instead, it's logical analysis of the available information, combined with an understanding of the limitations of each source of information.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ot92s View Post
press rewind...do you see something different every time?
There is no rewind...and my memories of things that happened nearly 30 years ago are indeed not to be trusted without corroboration. This is why we write things down.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-20-2012, 02:28 PM
  #342
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,340
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
Well, that explains a lot, frankly.
And to the predictable ad hominem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
Oh yeah? And all the shots are equal are they, Iain?

I mean, we know you didn't see any of them, so I'm sure they look alike to you, but we know that isn't the case.
Oh yeah? Can I direct you to the research on shot quality? Shot quality matters, but not enough to turn a .950 save percentage into an .870 or vice-versa. Recently analysts have been suggesting that shot quality can largely be ignore in all but the most extreme situations. You're trying to explain this huge swing with something that cannot produce such a huge swing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
What a second. I thought you were the one drawing conclusions from a small sample of games and I was the one calling you out on it this time... did I miss something?
You did. Variance easily explains the 1983 and 1984 playoff results under discussion. You're asserting something else, based on a tiny number of games. Variance analysis is based on all games played that season, not just the few in the final.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
Variance =/= luck for me.

Calling all variance luck is just being lazy because we don't have the data.
It's not lazy, because you still apparently don't understand what I mean by it. There will always be variance in performance. Put a puck 30 feet from the net and ask a prime Gretzky to pick the top left corner. He'll do it X times out of 100, with X being between 0 and 100. But it won't be 100, even though he has full control over the situation, and no other players or events getting in the way. The result of his shot is largely predictable, but there will be a certain number of observations that fall outside of that, even in the best circumstances.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
You don't know if all those shots that the Isles recorded a .950 save percentage on were lobs from center or goalmouth scrambles and rebounds off one timers from the slot.
What were they then? If you know, please let us in on it.

I'll ask again: how many games do you think it takes for variance to even out? You've agreed that variance can affect the result of games and even series. You don't think you're underestimating how much of an effect it can have when you're talking about a set of 7 or fewer games?

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-20-2012, 04:46 PM
  #343
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,323
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
And to the puredictable ad hominem.
I can see why it would be predictable that everyone in the thread would call into question your conclusions regarding a complex game like hockey based on some sparse data from two different years... There is a reason for that as much as you'd like to ignore your natural human bias lol

Quote:
Oh yeah? Can I direct you to the research on shot quality? Shot quality matters, but not enough to turn a .950 save percentage into an .870 or vice-versa. Recently analysts have been suggesting that shot quality can largely be ignore in all but the most extreme situations. You're trying to explain this huge swing with something that cannot produce such a huge swing.
It was only one example to illustrate how much your blinders are on relying on the very limited statistical data to tell you the "facts" while ignoring everything else.

Quote:
You did. Variance easily explains the 1983 and 1984 playoff results under discussion. You're asserting something else, based on a tiny number of games. Variance analysis is based on all games played that season, not just the few in the final.
I did?

Quote:
It's not lazy, because you still apparently don't understand what I mean by it. There will always be variance in performance. Put a puck 30 feet from the net and ask a prime Gretzky to pick the top left corner. He'll do it X times out of 100, with X being between 0 and 100. But it won't be 100, even though he has full control over the situation, and no other players or events getting in the way. The result of his shot is largely predictable, but there will be a certain number of observations that fall outside of that, even in the best circumstances.
I know this.. I just don't call the whole reason for it luck.

Quote:
What were they then? If you know, please let us in on it.

I'll ask again: how many games do you think it takes for variance to even out? You've agreed that variance can affect the result of games and even series. You don't think you're underestimating how much of an effect it can have when you're talking about a set of 7 or fewer games?
Again I am illustrating how poor the data is with an extreme example in the hopes it might register. Obviously I don't remember every shot or even care at this point. I and every poster who saw the games are in agreement and I don't feel some great need to disprove your conclusions to your personal satisfaction.

As for the variance I don't equate variance and luck exactly like I said. I also said that I think luck sometimes determines series.. Mostly by pushing things one way or the other at a critical time. I think "variance" is part of players being human beings.

If the Oilers played poorly because the isles dominated them then that is what happened.. You can prefer to call it variance if you like..

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-20-2012, 08:17 PM
  #344
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,340
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
It was only one example to illustrate how much your blinders are on relying on the very limited statistical data to tell you the "facts" while ignoring everything else.
I am using a rather specific definition of fact. That is, something that is recorded and verifiable, rather than something someone tells me is true, no really it is. If you have anything to show that the shot quality was a significant factor, great. Just saying that it might be the case isn't terribly convincing. I'd call that the "right-handed centre" argument. There's something that's probably at least a small factor, therefore everything is explained.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
Again I am illustrating how poor the data is with an extreme example in the hopes it might register. Obviously I don't remember every shot or even care at this point.
You're using a possible reason that the data might not be saying what I think it may be as a positive refutation of it, without actually demonstrating that it's valid in this particular case. And if you don't care to continue, feel free to stop responding.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
I and every poster who saw the games are in agreement and I don't feel some great need to disprove your conclusions to your personal satisfaction.
What have there been, three posters arguing against me? Forgive me if I don't find that an overwhelming unanimity of opinions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
If the Oilers played poorly because the isles dominated them then that is what happened.. You can prefer to call it variance if you like..
There is variance in teams playing poorly, and there's also variance in a team playing well but not getting the result it "deserves" (because variance in W/L > variance in GF/GA > variance in shots for/against). I'm suggesting the Oilers suffered more from the latter type of variance in 1983.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-20-2012, 08:32 PM
  #345
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,340
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Shadows View Post
I can attest that the Oilers who won the cup the next year learned the lesson they were taught well and were playing to empty their gas tanks like it was game 7 every game.
Okay, Random Guy on Internet. I'll have to take your word for it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Shadows View Post
Mike Bossy went on to support him and talked about the 4th Cup they won when they beat Edmonton saying "it was not their time yet. You have to learn to win before you can win"
With due respect to Mr. Bossy, this is a platitude that's true, except when it isn't. If this is true, how does one explain the Hurricanes winning the 2006 Cup? When did they learn how to win - during the lockout? It certainly wasn't in 2004, when they missed the playoffs entirely. And the 2012 Kings - they'd lost in the first round in 2010 and 2011, then learned how to win in 2012 (tip: don't bet on them repeating despite their new knowledge of how to win). Even Mario's Penguins, they had a short run in 1989, missed the 1990 playoffs, then learned how to win and took two Cups. There are other examples.

A team having "learned how to win" is only ever determined retrospectively. Did the team win the Cup? Then that means they've learned how to win. It's circular reasoning.

Please tell me which teams have learned how to win this past season, and so should be expected to win in the 2013 playoffs, assuming there will be such a thing?

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-20-2012, 09:23 PM
  #346
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Pacific NW
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,019
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ot92s View Post
I reject your standard scientific approach of relying upon empirical observation in the study of sports, and instead, favor the use of logical analysis, a logic which is influenced by Immanuel Kant's analytic–synthetic distinction. The empirical methods used in the natural sciences cannot be applied to these situations because the principle of induction does not apply.... I propose that only the human actor knows the ends toward which he acts.
"Experience without theory is blind, but theory
without experience is mere intellectual play"

Immanuel Kant

I see no harm in giving full reign to the practitioners of Empirical Observation and
Statistical Analysis. Makes for lively debate, an interesting foil. Let them play.

En garde'. Come at me Bro.

Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-20-2012, 11:13 PM
  #347
bambamcam4ever
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,004
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Yes and so were alot of other players.

Here is 81-87 Wayne's Prime where he has the top 7 seasons

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...rder_by=points

notice there are 77 other non Wayne 100 point guys in those 7 years.

now switch to post lockout, which conveniently lines up at 7 seasons.


http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...rder_by=points

Only 25 seasons of over 100 points

Only 3 guys in post lockout hit over 120 and 19 guys not named Wayne in Wayne's prime.

Heck there are 30 teams and more top lines guys in the league with a greater chance to score over 100 points than the guys on 21 teams in Wayne's prime so there must be other reasons right?

Some people here would seem to believe that Wayne slips only a little while the other 77 guys perhaps slip alot or the other 77 guys were better offensively than the 25 post lockout.

Frankly it's hard to keep up with it because it doesn't really fit.

The fact of the matter is that it's plain and simple alot ahrder to score post lockout than in the early 80's and that would hold true for every player in the early 80's, even Wayne.

The 170-180 in Vancouver or Detroit that R71 is pulling out is almost impossible to even speculate possible when you look at the lay of the land post lockout.
It is inane to believe that Gretzky could score 180 in the current league. That would mean that he singlehandedly would outscore a team (Wild and Devils) in each of the last two seasons, something he never accomplished in a much more imbalanced league in the 80s. Not to mention that he wouldn't have as much TOI in today's game.

bambamcam4ever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 12:12 AM
  #348
Nalyd Psycho
Registered User
 
Nalyd Psycho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: No Bandwagon
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,717
vCash: 500
While he may not have looked like one of the best. History shows us that high scoring undersized forwards are always a gamble that should be taken. Granted, they are gambles that should be taken after the 3rd round or later.

__________________
Every post comes with the Nalyd Psycho Seal of Approval.
Nalyd Psycho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 12:26 AM
  #349
Canadiens1958
Moderator
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,733
vCash: 500
The Qualifier

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nalyd Psycho View Post
While he may not have looked like one of the best. History shows us that high scoring undersized forwards are always a gamble that should be taken. Granted, they are gambles that should be taken after the 3rd round or later.
The all important qualifier. When did the small player look like a high scoring forward? At the age of 17/18 or 20/21?

Bobby Lalonde was drafted when he was 20 and the draft was a 20 year old draft. At the age of 17/18, two seasons earlier he does not get drafted either:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...lalonbo01.html

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-21-2012, 03:44 AM
  #350
Theokritos
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,661
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Sure Wayne blew away the field but the same field was collectivity blowing out everyone before and afterwards as well.
Then let's take a look at "the field" and compare the second to tenth best scorers in Gretzky's NHL and in today's NHL:

1981-1982:
147+139+136+129+119+117+114+106+106 = 1113 / 9 = 123.67 points per player (=100%)
Gretzky: 212 points (=171.4%)

1982-1983:
124+121+118+107+107+106+105+104+104 = 996 / 9 = 110.67 points per player (=100%)
Gretzky: 196 points (=177.1%)

1983-1984:
126+121+119+118+116+113+111+107+105 = 1036 / 9 = 115.1 points per player (=100%)
Gretzky: 205 points (=178.1%)

1984-1985:
135+130+126+121+117+105+105+103+102 = 1044 / 9 = 116 points per player (=100%)
Gretzky: 208 points (=179.3%)

1985-1986:
141+138+131+123+122+116+110+105+105 = 1091 / 9 = 121.2 points per player (=100%)
Wayne Gretzky: 215 points (=177.39%)

1986-1987:
108+107+107+105+103+100+96+95+95 = 916 / 9 = 101.78 points per player (=100%)
Wayne Gretzky: 183 points (=179.8%)

So prime Gretzky outscored the all-outscoring field by margins of 171.4-179.8%. "The field" in today's NHL:

2006-2007:
114+108+105+102+100+100+96+96+95 = 916 / 9 = 101.78 points per player (=100%)
*Exactly the same as in 1986-1987 when Gretzky scored 183 points!*
Prime Gretzky 171.4-179.8% = 174-183 points

2007-2008:
106+98+97+96+92+92+92+89+87 = 849 / 9 = 94.33 points per player (=100%)
Prime Gretzky 171.4-179.8% = 161-169 points

2008-2009:
110+103+97+94+91+91+89+88+88 = 851 / 9 = 94.56 points per player (=100%)
Prime Gretzky 171.4-179.8% = 162-170 points

2009-2010:
109+109+101+95+94+91+89+88+86 = 862 / 9 = 95.78 points per player (=100%)
Prime Gretzky 171.4-179.8% = 164-172 points

2010-2011:
99+98+94+91+86+85+80+80+77 = 790 / 9 = 87.78 points per player (=100%)
Prime Gretzky 171.4-179.8% = 150-157 points

2011-2012:
97+93+84+83+82+81+81+81+78 = 760 / 9 = 84.4 points per player (=100%)
Prime Gretzky 171.4-179.8% = 144-151 points

It looks as if prime Gretzky would be a perennial 150-170 points scorer in today's NHL when nobody else ever tops 115. And maybe a 180 points scorer in the two seasons after the lockout when Thornton, Jįgr and Crosby hit 120.

Theokritos 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 09:45 PM.

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.