Eyes are not the perfect analytical tool that has been suggested.
That's a straw man Iain. Nobody is saying observation is perfect.
Do you think actually watching a hockey game with your own two eyes will give you a better idea of how a player performed than looking at a box score the next day? Or is it the other way around?
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.
No, just 88%, 85%, 89%, 82% and 81% of the lowest scoring teams through 81/82-85/86. Taking his peak of 89% and low of 81% over that time, then going through the last 7 years since the LO gives us the ranges of...
Hmmm...well, would you look at that, not so far fetched after all eh
BTW, this is the third different method, other than adjusted stats, I have tried to predict Gretzky's points with and they all come out to around 150-170 points.
I previously took the 85/86 Oilers outscoring the next highest team by 20% and Gretzky scoring 50.5% of those points. I then took last years Pens, who scored 282 goals, added 20% for 338 and took 50.5% of that total to arrive at 171. Or to be fair, I could take the second highest scoring team, the Bruins@ 269, do the same thing and end up with 163 points for Gretz.
I have also taken the second leading scorer (Stamkos @ 97 last year) and then used the 85/86 season where Gretzky outscored the next highest non-teammate by 53% (it was Lemieux @ 141 BTW just to show I'm not cherry picking and used someone even higher than today would have). Multiplying Stamkos' 97 by 1.53 gives us 148.
Seriously, math is fun and I can do this all day long. Hell, I could of used 86/87 (a season Gretz didn't even top 200 points btw, only 183) where he outscored the next highest non-teammate by 71% (again, it was Lemieux@107). That would of given us 166 points on Stamkos' second place 97.
Allllll day long
Quote:
Not to mention that he wouldn't have as much TOI in today's game.
According to who, you?
Gretzky averaged over 21 minutes a game in his final season as a 38 year old. That would have squarely put him in the top 12 among forwards last season with the likes of Malkin, Stamkos and Getzlaf and that was Gretz at 38 with a bad back, not a fully healthy 22.
Kovalchuk was the leader at 24:26 and there is absolutely no reason to believe that a 22 year old Gretzky couldn't be in the same range, if not more.
Last edited by Rhiessan71: 08-21-2012 at 07:38 AM.
That's a straw man Iain. Nobody is saying observation is perfect.
But you did say that observation cannot be improved upon by using numbers. This is false.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ot92s
Do you think actually watching a hockey game with your own two eyes will give you a better idea of how a player performed than looking at a box score the next day? Or is it the other way around?
The first, most likely. Now, all I have to do is watch every game that is played all year long, at every level I'm interested in. Or rather, I need about a dozen of me to watch every game that is played all year long, at every level I'm interested in, because I cannot watch every player all the time at a particular game. Are you still missing this point?
I remember pops telling me that everyone thought wayne would be DESTROYED when he came into the NHL back in the day.
He was weak, he couldn't shoot. His game won't translate he'll get mutilated by bigger bodies.
Some things never change it seems.
(edit: Ad hominem, hoc, straw man. Is this an HF debate or a youtube pissing contest? Just because you discovered all these cool new terms doesn't mean you guys have to make them a starting point for your rebuttal. Seems redundant and silly at this point).
I remember pops telling me that everyone thought wayne would be DESTROYED when he came into the NHL back in the day. He was weak, he couldn't shoot. His game won't translate he'll get mutilated by bigger bodies.... Some things never change it seems.
.. oh good grief ya. Pretty much from Brantford to the Nats in Toronto, the WHA & of course the NHL. Well, good luck trying to get a piece of him. Like chasing a Poltergeist. Wind up getting seriously slimed with ectoplasm, the puck either off his own or another players stick & in the net.... whats really scary is that every now and again, a new Wunderkind comes along & surpasses even the greatest of the greats, the ethereal & unreal like Gretzky at Centre; Orr in reintroducing the role of Rover to the game. Who or whats next?
.. oh good grief ya. Pretty much from Brantford to the Nats in Toronto, the WHA & of course the NHL. Well, good luck trying to get a piece of him. Like chasing a Poltergeist. Wind up getting seriously slimed with ectoplasm, the puck either off his own or another players stick & in the net.... whats really scary is that every now and again, a new Wunderkind comes along & surpasses even the greatest of the greats, the ethereal & unreal like Gretzky at Centre; Orr in reintroducing the role of Rover to the game. Who or whats next?
In the era of goaltending maybe we will see someone come along and put Hasek' stats to shame?
who knows, whatever the position it really would be nice to see another one come out of the woodworks.
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.
Please direct me to the research on shot quality in the 1980s.
all I have to do is watch every game that is played all year long, at every level I'm interested in.
Another straw man Iain. you don't need to watch every game, you just need to watch a decent sample against top level opponents. One of us is missing the point, its not me.
Another straw man Iain. you don't need to watch every game, you just need to watch a decent sample against top level opponents. One of us is missing the point, its not me.
If all you want is a superficial look into a handful players then it might be enough.
If you're interested in every single player, in several different leagues and want to compare their performances during the same or different seasons you really need to watch a lot of hockey.
If all you want is a superficial look into a handful players then it might be enough.
If you're interested in every single player, in several different leagues and want to compare their performances during the same or different seasons you really need to watch a lot of hockey.
Or you could watch the player you are interested in evaluating with your own two eyes in some game situations . In this case we are talking about wayne gretzky. some video may have survived from his playing days.
What do you think would give you a more superficial concept of how a player would perform in a future game, actually watching a game or reading the box score the next day?
Or you could watch the player you are interested in evaluating with your own two eyes in some game situations . In this case we are talking about wayne gretzky. some video may have survived from his playing days.
You are right but may underestimate the amount of material one needs to watch. It's easy to see that Gretzky was dominant against his peers but accurately estimating the quality of goaltending, lines, pairings, strategies he was facing and doing the same for every player you want to compare him to really requires a lot of effort.
Quote:
What do you think would give you a more superficial concept of how a player would perform in a future game, actually watching a game or reading the box score the next day?
False dilemma. Of course you can get a better idea of a players ability by watching a single game than looking at a single box score. The problem of course is that neither gives you much context. Luckily we usually have more than a a single box score to go by and I'd say that by looking at a players career statistics you can estimate his performance over several games better than by watching a single game. It's very rare to find a game where a player for example scores 0.43 goals and has 0.68 assists.
EDIT: Using both would be preferable. The stats available and what you can get from them give only a rough picture of what happened. Only watching games isn't nearly a perfect way either since most people are really bad at estimating rates at which specific events occur. Probably no one here can tell a 0.43 gpg player from a 0.47 gpg one but the latter will end up scoring more goals in the same amount of games.
EDIT2: If for example we're trying to rank the top 50 goal scorers all time based on peak production (while taking the scoring environment into account) most of them are probably going to be tightly packed together and even small differences can be crucial.
Last edited by ssh: 08-21-2012 at 02:33 PM.
Reason: clarification?
...who knows, whatever the position it really would be nice to see another one come out of the woodworks.
Imagine a guy with Chara's size, Gretzkys' eyes, vision & anticpation, Orr's wheels & hands. Now were talkin. Some kinda cybernaut freak job/show. Im sure a player like thats' either already on the way, born, or will be shortly. Likely several of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssh
When we're looking at a large group of top level NHL players there may be some that separate themselves from the pack but as you go down the list you get increasing numbers of players grouped tightly together and the differences can indeed be very marginal. In order to get a better picture you need to watch more than a few games.
.. not really. The farther down you go the more pronounced & obvious the players shortcomings become. Most are single dimensional, a few multi-dimensional, the weaknesses in their games glaring to anyone who's either played at a high level themselves, Coached or Scouted, Managed a team. You can usually figure them out in 3-5 shifts, over the course of a period, though some observers are slower, like C58 up there needing 10 (shifts). Mebbe 3 full periods, multiple games.
.. not really. The farther down you go the more pronounced & obvious the players shortcomings become. Most are single dimensional, a few multi-dimensional, the weaknesses in their games glaring to anyone who's either played at a high level themselves, Coached or Scouted, Managed a team. You can usually figure them out in 3-5 shifts, over the course of a period, though some observers are slower, like C58 up there needing 10 (shifts). Mebbe 3 full periods, multiple games.
That wasn't what I meant (but you both are more or less correct from your POV, at least IMO).
Last season for example you could tell with a large degree of certainty that Malkin was among the top forwards in the league and "better" than nearly if not completely everyone. There were, however, around 50 forwards in the 40-50 point range. If you wanted to rank them against each other based on how their specific individual abilities projected into various different scenarios the task would be much harder. If there are a dozen players with a very similar talent sets telling them apart certainly requires more than a few shifts or even games.
.. not really. The farther down you go the more pronounced & obvious the players shortcomings become. Most are single dimensional, a few multi-dimensional, the weaknesses in their games glaring to anyone who's either played at a high level themselves, Coached or Scouted, Managed a team. You can usually figure them out in 3-5 shifts, over the course of a period, though some observers are slower, like C58 up there needing 10 (shifts). Mebbe 3 full periods, multiple games.
Observing from an end, up high.
The greats, 1 or 2 shifts. The skating,execution, hockey sense. Wow meter worthy.
Excellent to average 3 to 6 shifts. Below average 6 to 10 shifts. You want to see them coming and going.
Goalies are trickier. The forget abouts are rather easy. Poor - skating, mobility, movement, technique.
The remaining minority is a question of adversity and fall apart moments. Happen to every goalie so it comes down to learning, adapting and changing.
Please direct me to the research on shot quality in the 1980s.
We have to use our grey matter here. Remember that the claim is that by trying harder, the Oilers changed the Islanders' save percentage from .950 to .870. Knowing what we know about shot quality these days gives us an idea of how unlikely that probably is.
The lack of actual shot quality info from the 80s hurts the other side more than me. It makes the claim of shot quality difference between the 83 and 84 finals a right-handed centre argument: sounds good, may have some amount of truth to it, but has no actual evidence behind it.
The idea of The great ones goal scoring fallen off a cliff because of superior goaltending has more holes than a sinking ship. Are we suppose to believe that players who didn't score 50% of the goals gretzky did in the 80's against poorer goalies were better equipped to score against the more improved goalies of the 90's. There's a giant leap in logic here. The drastically improved goaltending somehow only hurt the greatest goal scorer in league history, and so much so, that he was now being outscored by his 80's rivals that he had just outscored nearly 2-1 for a decade?
Is this really where we're at here? Seriously? The 90's is just a number, goaltending gradually evolved over time, somewhat exponentially in the 90's. The leaps in logic make no sense, they never do with Wayne. Well scoring was easier in the 80's, anyone
Could put up numbers like that, yet he and Lemieux are the only ones to ever get a sniff.
What's more logical here? That goaltending improved to the point where it slowed the greatest offensive player in league history 10 times more than clearly inferior scores of the 80's or, the guy simply had a ton of miles on his body and was going through the natural aging process. I can't believe some posters trying to normalize Wayne's accomplishments here, maybe they weren't around to see him, so it's a case of " my guy is better than yours". Everyone believes there child hood idol is the best.
Gretzky also had a small frame that is unlikely to age well. He eventually wore out, but his performance during his peak years tells you everything you need to know. 4 best on best tourneys and he led them all in scoring, it's really hard to fathom. Crosby will never lead scoring in international competition like that, no one will. He would outscore everyone all of the time during his prime, I mean come on 30 goals now adays because goalies got too good and Michael ryder could potentially outscore him. Some of this is so silly, I feel dirty even discussing it.
We have to use our grey matter here. Remember that the claim is that by trying harder, the Oilers changed the Islanders' save percentage from .950 to .870. Knowing what we know about shot quality these days gives us an idea of how unlikely that probably is.
The lack of actual shot quality info from the 80s hurts the other side more than me. It makes the claim of shot quality difference between the 83 and 84 finals a right-handed centre argument: sounds good, may have some amount of truth to it, but has no actual evidence behind it.
Aside from the obvious straw man here, that is some impressive logic.. that somehow not having shot quality data to give context to your claim based completely on save percentage somehow strengthens it.
Nevermind that no one claimed it was only shot quality that led to the change in the first place.
The idea of The great ones goal scoring fallen off a cliff because of superior goaltending has more holes than a sinking ship. Are we suppose to believe that players who didn't score 50% of the goals gretzky did in the 80's against poorer goalies were better equipped to score against the more improved goalies of the 90's. There's a giant leap in logic here. The drastically improved goaltending somehow only hurt the greatest goal scorer in league history, and so much so, that he was now being outscored by his 80's rivals that he had just outscored nearly 2-1 for a decade?
Is this really where we're at here? Seriously? The 90's is just a number, goaltending gradually evolved over time, somewhat exponentially in the 90's. The leaps in logic make no sense, they never do with Wayne. Well scoring was easier in the 80's, anyone
Could put up numbers like that, yet he and Lemieux are the only ones to ever get a sniff.
What's more logical here? That goaltending improved to the point where it slowed the greatest offensive player in league history 10 times more than clearly inferior scores of the 80's or, the guy simply had a ton of miles on his body and was going through the natural aging process. I can't believe some posters trying to normalize Wayne's accomplishments here, maybe they weren't around to see him, so it's a case of " my guy is better than yours". Everyone believes there child hood idol is the best.
Gretzky also had a small frame that is unlikely to age well. He eventually wore out, but his performance during his peak years tells you everything you need to know. 4 best on best tourneys and he led them all in scoring, it's really hard to fathom. Crosby will never lead scoring in international competition like that, no one will. He would outscore everyone all of the time during his prime, I mean come on 30 goals now adays because goalies got too good and Michael ryder could potentially outscore him. Some of this is so silly, I feel dirty even discussing it.
We have to use our grey matter here. Remember that the claim is that by trying harder, the Oilers changed the Islanders' save percentage from .950 to .870. Knowing what we know about shot quality these days gives us an idea of how unlikely that probably is.
I actually just watched a couple of the games from the '83 and '84 finals not too long ago.
The difference between the '83 Oilers and the '84 Oilers to get "dirty" and go to the nasty area's was night and day.
I swear at least half of the Oilers forwards in '83 were scared to death of Potvin (and rightfully so, he was one mean SoB heh) but in '84 they challenged him more, paid the price for it but did it. The Oilers scored the gritty goals in '84 you didn't see them get in '83.
So whether you want to mock the statement that "they tried harder" or not, it really is what they did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish Invictus
Right. Because nobody large ever tried to hit him during his long career.
Heh, the aforementioned Denis Potvin, who is among the meanest, most proficient, intimidating and brutal hitters the game has ever seen btw, tried forever to clock Gretzky with no luck. Every time he thought he had him, Wayne would turn or sidestep or roll away from the impact and he got nothing or almost nothing.
There's an interview out there somewhere with Denis talking about it where he says he finally just had to stop wasting so much energy trying.
