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.

Ovechkin vs. Lindros as of Summer 2000

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-15-2012, 11:55 AM
  #76
JackSlater
Registered User
 
JackSlater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,798
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Hey, you’re usually on the right side of the argument in this section and I respect you a lot. So I hope you take this invitation seriously. Come to the all-time draft section and check the place out. Maybe join the upcoming AAA draft, where we are trying to select the 1200th-1400th best players in history. You may learn something about comparisons between players old and new, and you might even teach us something too. Consider it a “competitive hockey history study group”. It’s a rewarding experience and even if you doing join, I hope you will refrain from sarcastic dismissive comments like the above.
I have actually creeped the ATD page quite a bit. It's always a good read, and some of the spats are amusing (especially when fake accounts are involved). I've participated in similar projects (basketball, not hockey) and they are generally fun and informative. I have nothing against projects like the ATD, just against the conceit that can apparently overcome someone just from having been a participant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
I don’t see it as being about that at all. I think this is just a classic “peak vs. longevity” debate. You may as well be comparing Ovechkin to Fedorov, Gilmour or Francis. At least that way the accusations of “not appreciating older players” and “being obsessed with old times” would not be flying around.
I agree that it's essentially a peak vs longevity case (although with durability as well in the Lindros case), and in fact alluded to that in part of my post that you did not quote. The issue is that the evidence being thrown forward by the poster I quoted boils down to essentially: "If you only knew more about these old players, you would know how wrong you are!" which is terrible evidence based upon some problematic assumptions. I can accept not picking Ovechkin or Lindros based on longevity issues, but not based on assumptions that those that disagree are ignorant. It is quite apparent that no one here is attacking older players, despite the assumptions that some may make.

Throwing those other guys in: Ovechkin > Lindros > Fedorov > Gilmour > Francis.


Last edited by JackSlater: 10-15-2012 at 12:10 PM.
JackSlater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2012, 02:53 PM
  #77
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,373
vCash: 50
Ovechkin missed the 2005 season due to the lockout and is missing what would then be his 9th season due to the current lockout. Considering how highly someone like Bossy is rated, despite playing only 10 seasons, I'm not sure how much (if at all) it's jumping the gun to say that Ovechkin is a top 100 player of all time. Sure, Bossy may have been more consistent from start to finish, and Ovy's prime is a bit incomplete as of this time, but his peak is higher, except for Bossy's playoff exploits that are largely aided by his being on a dynasty in a smaller league with much less parity. If Ovy had a playoff record like a Thornton, Selanne, Kariya, etc. then that would be a much larger gap. As it is though, even if Bossy has a substantial gap due to playoff performance (primarily team success in large part due to his performance), there's still a lot of room between Bossy and #100 on most people's list. Only someone who focused exclusively on longevity (rather than career value, such as Value Above Replacement Level) and compiled numbers, as well as team post-season success (admittedly a weakness for Ovy, both in NHL and international play) could legitimately leave Ovy out of the top 100, and even then it wouldn't be easy. If Lindros could have just stayed a bit healthier, then I'd say the same for him.

Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2012, 04:56 PM
  #78
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,323
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
Yes, and now do the defensemen. You will find a much lower number are European. The overall talent pool has increased by about 50%, or to put it another way, about 1/3rd of the top-end talent right now is European.



Sorry, but this is just silly. I'm not even sure what you're really trying to argue here, but there is no way that Spezza, Tavares and Stamkos should be counted as "European" players. The vast majority of North Americans have European last names. These are Canadian players. The expansion of the Canadian talent pool through European immigration is already captured in population figures, though you mostly have to subtract Asian/African immigration to arrive at the real number. Besides, we have no way of knowing when these families immigrated. There have been Europeans of all stripes in North America for centuries.
If you go back far enough, all Canadians were of either French or British extraction, not even "European".

Aside from the increase in talent due to European players, you have to account for rapid population growth in Canada, which also increases the talent people.

If you double the North American population, and add in European immigration, the total talent pool is now about 4x larger.

Never mind the fact that training methods and diet have improved.


Last edited by DAChampion: 10-15-2012 at 05:03 PM.
DAChampion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2012, 05:19 PM
  #79
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,323
vCash: 500
Top defensemen in the NHL.

In the 2000s, the Norris winners are Nicklas Lidstrom, Zdeno Chara, Erik Karlsson, Duncan Keith, Scott Niedermayer, and Chris Pronger. At least 50% European, though more so because Lidstrom was more dominant.

Top 10 dmen for points last year:
Erik Karlsson, Brian Campbell, Dustin Byfuglien, Zdeno Chara, Alex Pietrangelo, Alexander Edler, Shea Weber, Dan Boyle, Mark Streit, Ryan Suter,
4 Europeans

DAChampion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2012, 05:40 PM
  #80
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,558
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
Top defensemen in the NHL.

In the 2000s, the Norris winners are Nicklas Lidstrom, Zdeno Chara, Erik Karlsson, Duncan Keith, Scott Niedermayer, and Chris Pronger. At least 50% European, though more so because Lidstrom was more dominant.
What if the winner every year was Canadian but the other two finalists were European? That would seem to indicate that 2/3 of the top defensemen are European, but the analysis based on who won wouldn't tell us that; it would tell us all the best defensemen are Canadian.

I guess what I'm saying is, this is a really weak point, because it's very shallow.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2012, 05:55 PM
  #81
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,323
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
What if the winner every year was Canadian but the other two finalists were European? That would seem to indicate that 2/3 of the top defensemen are European, but the analysis based on who won wouldn't tell us that; it would tell us all the best defensemen are Canadian.

I guess what I'm saying is, this is a really weak point, because it's very shallow.
It's one argument out of several I've posted indicating that at least 40% of top NHL talent is European.

It's ok to have a shallow argument if the argument is merely one out of many.

DAChampion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2012, 07:31 PM
  #82
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,373
vCash: 50
The nationality of the top 1-3 defensemen is going to vary a lot. Most of us are concerned with the top tiers of players, as they are the ones frequently compared to each other, or who compete against one another for high placements, awards, etc. If one's looking at total league quality, then the % of non-Canadian players in the entire league is important, although it still varies from top to bottom.

Here is a five year period when non-Canadian d-men really emerged as a force. I used points by d-men, since it's an objective measure, as opposed to voting for Norris or All Star teams.

1996
--------
Top 5: 0 Euro, 3 US
Top 10: 3 Euro, 4 US
Top 20: 7 Euro, 5 US

1997
-------
Top 5: 3 Euro, 2 US
Top 10: 4 Euro, 4 US
Top 20: 9 Euro, 5 US

1998
--------
Top 5: 2 Euro, 0 US
Top 10: 4 Euro, 1 US
Top 20: 10 Euro, 3 US

1999
----------
Top 5: 2 Euro, 1 US
Top 10: 4 Euro, 2 US
Top 20: 6 Euro, 4 US

2000
----------
Top 5: 1 Euro, 1 US
Top 10: 5 Euro, 1 US
Top 20: 10 Euro, 2 US

Euro includes Russia and the countries of former USSR. I did this quickly, so I apologize for any mistakes.

5 Year Totals
-------------------
Top 5: 8 Euro, 7 US (32% Euro, 28% US, 40% Canadian)
Top 10: 20 Euro, 12 US (40% Euro, 24% US, 36% Canadian)
Top 20: 42 Euro, 19 US (42% Euro, 19% US, 39% Canadian)

It's clear that towards the top, non-Canadian players have been a huge force over the past 20 years, much more than their ~25% collective representation would indicate. Whether looking at the overall top X in points, the top Y in points amongst defensemen, or games played by goalies, each of these categories has approached and/or exceeded 50% representation by non-Canadian players. Forwards were the first to become a major force in the early 90s, followed by D-men in the mid-90s, and then goalies over the past decade or more. Forwards and d-men may have peaked around the last lockout, while goalies' representation has only increased since then.


Last edited by Czech Your Math: 10-16-2012 at 03:03 PM.
Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2012, 08:13 PM
  #83
Rob Scuderi
Registered User
 
Rob Scuderi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 2,600
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen View Post
Meh, it is just the boring old peak vs longevity debate, which usually just breaks down into a "did you like the player" subjective argument. If you don't like the player, he's labeled as a compiler, if you did, he had a ton of intangibles.
You've read a lot of uncompelling comparisons across era if you think this is how they look.

Quote:
I don't even know how the original statement was even a negative.
His point was it's like saying Jagr played second fiddle to Lemieux.

Rob Scuderi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-16-2012, 03:03 AM
  #84
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,323
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bring Back Scuderi View Post
His point was it's like saying Jagr played second fiddle to Lemieux.
Would Jagr not be less respected if Mario Lemieux had not left the Penguins for a few seasons, and if Jagr had then not played rather well in Washington and New York?

DAChampion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-16-2012, 04:05 AM
  #85
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 7,386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
Here is a five year period when non-Canadian d-men really emerged as a force. I used points by d-men, since it's an objective measure, as opposed to voting for Norris or All Star teams.
Of course, you realize you are using data from the single worst period of Canadian talent in modern history. We have already discussed this. Restricting your analysis to only the 90's only shows that you are using a biased sample.

Sturminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-16-2012, 04:14 AM
  #86
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 7,386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
If you go back far enough, all Canadians were of either French or British extraction, not even "European".
Well...no. The Canadian population is still about 4% First Nations, and there were Dutch immigrants in North America right from the start, and Germans and Italians not long after. Jason Spezza's family could have been in North America for more than 200 years for all we know.

Quote:
Aside from the increase in talent due to European players, you have to account for rapid population growth in Canada, which also increases the talent people.

If you double the North American population, and add in European immigration, the total talent pool is now about 4x larger.
Four times larger compared to what date? It's much more than four times larger if you compare it to the 1890's, when really only Ottawa, Montreal and a few outlying towns comprised the entirety of the hockey-playing world. But hockey spread very rapidly in Canada...

At any rate, you're making an argument that everyone here already assumes.

Quote:
Never mind the fact that training methods and diet have improved.
Irrelevant, as is equipment. Evaluating greatness on a curve taking the talent pool into account is appropriate. Penalizing older players because they didn't have access to modern technology and methodology is just silly.

Sturminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-16-2012, 04:42 AM
  #87
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,323
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
Irrelevant, as is equipment. Evaluating greatness on a curve taking the talent pool into account is appropriate. Penalizing older players because they didn't have access to modern technology and methodology is just silly.
Do you consider Jesse Owens one of the top 10 all-time great sprinters?

DAChampion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-16-2012, 04:45 AM
  #88
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 7,386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JackSlater View Post
I have nothing against projects like the ATD, just against the conceit that can apparently overcome someone just from having been a participant.
You apparently haven't paid attention to who has actually won the ATDs.

Quote:
The issue is that the evidence being thrown forward by the poster I quoted boils down to essentially: "If you only knew more about these old players, you would know how wrong you are!" which is terrible evidence based upon some problematic assumptions. I can accept not picking Ovechkin or Lindros based on longevity issues, but not based on assumptions that those that disagree are ignorant. It is quite apparent that no one here is attacking older players, despite the assumptions that some may make.
You've got your panties in such an enormous bunch about this, but there has been plenty of ignorance thrown around about older players/eras in this thread. When I stop seeing shallow and dismissive analysis of older players like Keon = Toews, or this:

Quote:
You're overrating older players if you think a stanley cup in a 6-team NHL (top 17% of teams) is worth that much more than a 2nd round exit (top 25% of teams) in a 30-team NHL. The first is better, but not by much.
...I will stop chiding people for being uninformed or biased against older players. I actually try as hard as I can not to overrate older players. The ATD was essentially a project of hagiography when I started, and old-timers were consistently and often terribly overrated. I was one of the people who pushed back against that, and had to endure being called a fool for suggesting that Zdeno Chara is similar to Butch Bouchard, for having the audacity to pick Teemu Selanne in the top-150 and for being dumb enough to take Nicklas Lidstrom 18th and suggest that he may be just as good as Denis Potvin. Of course, I won the draft in which Lidstrom was my first rounder (and with a quite modern core - Lidstrom, Sakic, Savard and Fuhr were four of my first six picks), and thankfully the ATD has moved away from the pathological overrating of older players to the much more nuanced discussions one finds today.

The problem is that it's a huge discussion involving loads of information, and nobody has the time to get into specifics for the sake of this thread. If you want a knock-down, drag-out argument about the top-100 players of all time, I'll give you one, but you'll have to wait either until the next HOH top-100 project (which ended at top-70 last time), or you'll have to join the ATD. I'll give you one specific piece of information, though. In the period of hockey that basically covers the first 40 years of the sport (late 1880's to late 1920's - so, until Howie Morenz came on the scene), I've only got one player who I think is borderline top-20 all-time. Care to guess who that player is?

There are people who think that athletes should be judged against their peers only, regardless or era or level of competition, and that Gretzky-level dominance in 1889 makes you just as good as Gretzky. Iain Fyffe takes precisely this position in his blog, and while his work is otherwise excellent, I find this argument frankly ridiculous. In fact, I waged a campaign of guerilla warfare against "first generation" players (Bowie, et al) in the last ATD because I felt they were becoming quite overrated, and their flaws (specifically the tiny size of the talent pool against which they competed) were being glossed over. The problem is that there are many more people who err in the opposite direction, and dismiss older players whose names they might not even know. This does a disservice to the discussion.


Last edited by Sturminator: 10-16-2012 at 05:00 AM.
Sturminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-16-2012, 04:54 AM
  #89
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 7,386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
Do you consider Jesse Owens one of the top 10 all-time great sprinters?
I don't know enough about the history of track and field to make an informed judgment. But at any rate, the point is that judging athletes based on purely external factors (date of birth, available technology/coaching, etc.) or raw "counting numbers" (size, strength, speed, etc.) will do older players a disservice. There are surely hundreds of sprinters alive today (maybe even thousands, I dunno) who could beat Owens' best times, but that doesn't mean they are actually more talented athletes, ceteris paribus.

There is no clear, empirical way of accounting for differences in era, but completely ignoring them basically makes you Bilros, yammering on about how Bobby Orr would get smoked by Sid Crosby. It's a dead-end argument, and essentially an unhistorical waste of time.


Last edited by Sturminator: 10-16-2012 at 05:01 AM.
Sturminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-16-2012, 10:00 AM
  #90
JackSlater
Registered User
 
JackSlater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,798
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
You apparently haven't paid attention to who has actually won the ATDs.


A nice, healthy round of applause for you champ.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
You've got your panties in such an enormous bunch about this, but there has been plenty of ignorance thrown around about older players/eras in this thread. When I stop seeing shallow and dismissive analysis of older players like Keon = Toews, or this:
Keon = Toews underrates Keon and does not fit stylistically, but is by no means dismissive of Keon. A complete overreaction. That bit of Chamberlain math that you quoted is extremely low hanging fruit that no one took seriously, other than the poster who made the statement. In any event, I suppose I will unbunch my panties when I see fewer smug, dismissive comments bring lobbed around in response to reasonable opinions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
...I will stop chiding people for being uninformed or biased against older players. I actually try as hard as I can not to overrate older players. The ATD was essentially a project of hagiography when I started, and old-timers were consistently and often terribly overrated. I was one of the people who pushed back against that, and had to endure being called a fool for suggesting that Zdeno Chara is similar to Butch Bouchard, for having the audacity to pick Teemu Selanne in the top-150 and for being dumb enough to take Nicklas Lidstrom 18th and suggest that he may be just as good as Denis Potvin. Of course, I won the draft in which Lidstrom was my first rounder (and with a quite modern core - Lidstrom, Sakic, Savard and Fuhr were four of my first six picks), and thankfully the ATD has moved away from the pathological overrating of older players to the much more nuanced discussions one finds today.

The problem is that it's a huge discussion involving loads of information, and nobody has the time to get into specifics for the sake of this thread. If you want a knock-down, drag-out argument about the top-100 players of all time, I'll give you one, but you'll have to wait either until the next HOH top-100 project (which ended at top-70 last time), or you'll have to join the ATD. I'll give you one specific piece of information, though. In the period of hockey that basically covers the first 40 years of the sport (late 1880's to late 1920's - so, until Howie Morenz came on the scene), I've only got one player who I think is borderline top-20 all-time. Care to guess who that player is?

There are people who think that athletes should be judged against their peers only, regardless or era or level of competition, and that Gretzky-level dominance in 1889 makes you just as good as Gretzky. Iain Fyffe takes precisely this position in his blog, and while his work is otherwise excellent, I find this argument frankly ridiculous. In fact, I waged a campaign of guerilla warfare against "first generation" players (Bowie, et al) in the last ATD because I felt they were becoming quite overrated, and their flaws (specifically the tiny size of the talent pool against which they competed) were being glossed over. The problem is that there are many more people who err in the opposite direction, and dismiss older players whose names they might not even know. This does a disservice to the discussion.
I don't disagree with anything you said here, and if you want credit for bringing a more appropriate level of discourse to the ATD then I suppose I will give it to you. We still disagree philosophically on comparing these players, and I doubt that a monumental shift is suddenly going to occur in either case.

JackSlater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-16-2012, 01:01 PM
  #91
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,373
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
Of course, you realize you are using data from the single worst period of Canadian talent in modern history. We have already discussed this. Restricting your analysis to only the 90's only shows that you are using a biased sample.
That's your hypothesis, not a proven fact. It's interesting that the supposed "worst period of Canadian talent" happens to coincide with the arrival of stars from overseas. Perhaps it wouldn't have appeared as such a below average group if not for the intense competition from European, Russian and US players.

My point was mainly that the overall representation of non-Canadian players in the NHL does not accurately reflect their impact towards the top. I'm sorry you find my sample "biased". I wasn't trying to imply that those %s were standard, but it's also difficult to say what the right % is, since there's only 15+ years of large scale integration of non-Canadian defensemen to examine.

How about since the lockout?

2006
----------
Top 5: 4 Euro, 0 US
Top 10: 5 Euro, 1 US
Top 20: 8 Euro, 4 US

2007
----------
Top 5: 2 Euro, 0 US
Top 10: 4 Euro, 1 US
Top 20: 7 Euro, 4 US

2008
----------
Top 5: 3 Euro, 0 US
Top 10: 6 Euro, 1 US
Top 20: 10 Euro, 4 US

That's three more seasons, bringing the total to half the seasons from '96-present. If that's not acceptable, then please share with us the official "seasons that are allowed to be examined" list and we can go from there.

A quick look at the top 100 players (all skaters) in total points since the '05 lockout shows 37 Euro/Russian players (I may have missed one or two) and 12 US players. So about half the best players since the lockout are non-Canadian. Are you claiming that there's an ongoing 15-20 year trough in Canadian talent that happens to coincide with the mass exodus of players from overseas? I guess it couldn't be that all the great players from overseas and the US have made it much more difficult for Canadian stars to shine?


Last edited by Czech Your Math: 10-16-2012 at 03:01 PM.
Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-16-2012, 02:24 PM
  #92
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 7,386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
That's your hypothesis, not a proven fact.
Ok, first of all, let's introduce a bit of methodological sense here if we're going to look into the numbers. Going down to the top-20 is simply too deep, because it captures a lot of guys who may have gotten only a single Norris or all-star vote in any given season...a fact you surely noticed, right?

So let's just use Norris voting and set the cutoff at the last guy who got at least two top-3 votes. Ok? Fair standard. We'll start in the 1993-94 season, which was the first year that any of the "new Europeans" (Zubov, during his big year with the Rangers) broke into the Norris voting. Although western Europeans had been playing in the NHL for some time, the last european defenseman to make a major impact before Zubov was Borje Salming. The number of defensemen reaching the cutoff standard will vary from year-to-year here, but just remember that it is a minimum of two top-3 Norris votes. Please note, this is a longstanding standard for statistical significance in voting records that we've been using in the ATD for some years now. Whatever the results, I have not fiddled with the standard to suit my argument.

Here are your European Norris vote getters:

1993-94: 1/6 (Zubov)

1994-95: 0/4

1995-96: 2/6 (Lidstrom/Konstantinov)

1996-97: 3/8 (Konstantinov/Lidstrom/Ozolinsh)

1997-98: 1/8 (Lidstrom)

1998-99: 2/12 (Lidstrom/Olausson)

1999-00: 3/9 (Lidstrom/Gonchar/Zubov)

2000-01: 3/10 (Lidstrom/Gonchar/Zubov)

2001-02: 3/8 (Lidstrom/Gonchar/Numminen)

2002-03: 4/9 (Lidstrom/Gonchar/Chara/Zubov)

2003-04: 3/11 (Chara/Lidstrom/Gonchar)

2005-06: 4/10 (Lidstrom/Zubov/Chara/Visnovsky)

2006-07: 4/12 (Lidstrom/Timonen/Gonchar/Zubov)

2007-08: 4/12 (Lidstrom/Chara/Gonchar/Markov)

2008-09: 3/12 (Chara/Lidstrom/Markov)

2009-10: 3/13 (Lidstrom/Chara/Ehrhoff)

2010-11: 3/7 (Lidstrom/Chara/Visnovsky)

2011-12: 3/9 (Karlsson/Chara/Lidstrom)

Grand total: 49/166 = 29.5%

Note that 32% of that 29.5% (16/49) is Nicklas Lidstrom, alone. It should also be noted that the finishes here are somewhat top-heavy for Europeans, also because of Lidstrom. At any rate, the numbers are what they are, and only reinforce what many people sense intuitively, which is that European forwards have had more of an impact in the NHL than have the defensemen.

-----------------------------------------

There is, by the way, no reason to seperate Americans in this analysis. Americans have been playing and starring in the NHL for more than 100 years (Si Griffis is the oldest American HHOFer, I believe). The expansion of population in the American hockey hotbeds needs to be taken into account when one evaluates north america, certainly, but I sort of take it as a given that we're already doing that. American talent has had its own ebb and flow, but seperating it in a discussion about European impact only confuses matters. For all intents and purposes, the north american hockey talent pool is a single entity.

Sturminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-16-2012, 03:00 PM
  #93
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,558
vCash: 500
You guys are talking about two different things: norris voting and defense points leaders.

(and thank the hockey gods there is a difference between the two)

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-16-2012, 03:00 PM
  #94
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,373
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
Ok, first of all, let's introduce a bit of methodological sense here if we're going to look into the numbers. Going down to the top-20 is simply too deep, because it captures a lot of guys who may have gotten only a single Norris or all-star vote in any given season...a fact you surely noticed, right?
I know that top 20 is too deep to count Norris votes. Perhaps you missed that I have been using the objective measure of points by defensemen each season, not Norris or AS votes. I don't find relying on other people's opinions to be an objective measure of quality. While a large part of a d-man's value may be missed by simply counting points, it's still better than using a subjective measure (prone to the bias you are concerned about) where voters only vote for the top 5 at the position. If top 20 in points is too deep, perhaps top 10 is better, but the results are very similar.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
At any rate, the numbers are what they are, and only reinforce what many people sense intuitively, which is that European forwards have had more of an impact in the NHL than have the defensemen.
I agree that non-Canadian forwards have had more impact in NHL than d-men, but still believe the impact at the top is substantially understated by the total % of d-men in the NHL and by Norris/AS voting. It may be overstated by using points as a metric, in which case the true impact of top tier d-men should be somewhere between these measures.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
There is, by the way, no reason to seperate Americans in this analysis. Americans have been playing and starring in the NHL for more than 100 years (Si Griffis is the oldest American HHOFer, I believe). The expansion of population in the American hockey hotbeds needs to be taken into account when one evaluates north america, certainly, but I sort of take it as a given that we're already doing that. American talent has had its own ebb and flow, but seperating it in a discussion about European impact only confuses matters. For all intents and purposes, the north american hockey talent pool is a single entity.
You take it as a given that the great expansion in US hockey talent over the past ~30 years is being factored in already, but because there have been US players in the NHL for a long time, the degree of this expansion is often overlooked. I disagree that the North American hockey talent pool is a single entity, since before the WHA merger the number of US players in the NHL was generally very small. We are examining the growth of the hockey talent pool, so the fact that the US players went from an almost insignificant portion of the NHL to one of the leading non-Canadian countries is easy to overlook if it is not explicitly shown. US-born talent really began to become a major factor in the mid-80s and has remained so since that time. It's definitely an important factor in the growth of the hockey talent pool, and grouping the US with Canada only serves to obfuscate that fact.


Last edited by Czech Your Math: 10-16-2012 at 03:07 PM.
Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-16-2012, 03:15 PM
  #95
Sentinel
Registered User
 
Sentinel's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 2,453
vCash: 500
Quote:
except for Bossy's playoff exploits that are largely aided by his being on a dynasty in a smaller league with much less parity
That's just insane. Bossy (largely) made the dynasty, not the other way around! Ovechkin so far hasn't made d*ck.

Sentinel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-16-2012, 03:19 PM
  #96
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,809
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post

There is, by the way, no reason to seperate Americans in this analysis. Americans have been playing and starring in the NHL for more than 100 years (Si Griffis is the oldest American HHOFer, I believe). The expansion of population in the American hockey hotbeds needs to be taken into account when one evaluates north america, certainly, but I sort of take it as a given that we're already doing that. American talent has had its own ebb and flow, but seperating it in a discussion about European impact only confuses matters. For all intents and purposes, the north american hockey talent pool is a single entity.
I'm not so sure about that. There was a fairly significant American talent pool early on, but it basically died out around World War 2 - you had Brimsek come back from the war, but really no knew American talent anymore. And while there were occasionally American NHLers afterwards, the league was 95%+ Canadian all the way through the 1970s and none of the Americans that were there were threats to any awards. There was a huge influx of American talent into the NHL after the Miracle on Ice.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 10-16-2012 at 04:32 PM.
TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-16-2012, 04:11 PM
  #97
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,373
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sentinel View Post
That's just insane. Bossy (largely) made the dynasty, not the other way around! Ovechkin so far hasn't made d*ck.
Of course Bossy was a big reason they were a dynasty... as were Trottier, Potvin, Smith, Gillies and others. So the reason there were rotating dynasties for decades, and now there hasn't really been one for 20+ years is that... what?... since all the players from the US and overseas started playing, there haven't been players near Bossy's level?

If you look at Bossy's per-game goals/points in the playoffs, they don't even stand out among star forwards, given the high scoring era during which he played. It's his playoff season goal totals during 3 consecutive Cup runs that stand out. It's difficult to separate the player's performance from the team's, as each depend on each other to some degree. Without a great team, Bossy doesn't advance and doesn't have the chance to put up high totals in those playoff seasons. It's a lot easier to advance on a stacked team when only a half dozen or fewer teams really have any significant chance of winning the Cup. I'm not downplaying Bossy's contribution, only stating that it was a very different situation for teams and players until the past 20 years. I'm not sure what to say to those who choose to ignore that.

Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-16-2012, 06:33 PM
  #98
LAX attack*
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Danger Zone
Country: United States
Posts: 14,544
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to LAX attack*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
Of course Bossy was a big reason they were a dynasty... as were Trottier, Potvin, Smith, Gillies and others. So the reason there were rotating dynasties for decades, and now there hasn't really been one for 20+ years is that... what?... since all the players from the US and overseas started playing, there haven't been players near Bossy's level?

If you look at Bossy's per-game goals/points in the playoffs, they don't even stand out among star forwards, given the high scoring era during which he played. It's his playoff season goal totals during 3 consecutive Cup runs that stand out. It's difficult to separate the player's performance from the team's, as each depend on each other to some degree. Without a great team, Bossy doesn't advance and doesn't have the chance to put up high totals in those playoff seasons. It's a lot easier to advance on a stacked team when only a half dozen or fewer teams really have any significant chance of winning the Cup. I'm not downplaying Bossy's contribution, only stating that it was a very different situation for teams and players until the past 20 years. I'm not sure what to say to those who choose to ignore that.
This comparison is kinda becoming a joke. You can tout Ovechkin's career playoff numbers all you want, but he is the best player on what has become a notorious playoff underachiever. He has had maybe a handful of series where he has played for the stretch of games nearly as well as he plays during the regular season. The reality is that Washington has not had a significant playoff run, and Ovechkin has never been head and shoulders above the team during their playoff performances.

I'm not sure I can contribute to this discussion since I have not seen Lindros play, but he had a run to the stanley cup finals. As I said in my post, Ovechkin's playoff career has been a disapointment for how good he is, no matter what the statistics look like. I was rooting for him during those years (08-10) because he was such a great player. But it became clear that, other than in a couple of series, he was not going to be a great playoff performer.


Last edited by LAX attack*: 10-16-2012 at 06:43 PM.
LAX attack* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-16-2012, 08:20 PM
  #99
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,373
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by porknbeans1000 View Post
This comparison is kinda becoming a joke. You can tout Ovechkin's career playoff numbers all you want, but he is the best player on what has become a notorious playoff underachiever. He has had maybe a handful of series where he has played for the stretch of games nearly as well as he plays during the regular season. The reality is that Washington has not had a significant playoff run, and Ovechkin has never been head and shoulders above the team during their playoff performances.

I'm not sure I can contribute to this discussion since I have not seen Lindros play, but he had a run to the stanley cup finals. As I said in my post, Ovechkin's playoff career has been a disapointment for how good he is, no matter what the statistics look like. I was rooting for him during those years (08-10) because he was such a great player. But it became clear that, other than in a couple of series, he was not going to be a great playoff performer.
Yes, Ovechkin, Malkin and Crosby have each had plenty of mediocre series. There's a lot more parity than there was ~30 years ago, so there aren't many "gimme" series like there were then.

The whole point was that Ovechkin is a top 100 player IMO. I didn't suggest that he should be ranked above Bossy at this point, only that he's been at least as good as him during the regular season, and good (not great) in the playoffs. As previously stated, there's a lot of room between Bossy and #100, so Ovechkin doesn't need to come close to matching Bossy's playoff record to be in the top 100.

Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 03:34 AM
  #100
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 7,386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
I know that top 20 is too deep to count Norris votes. Perhaps you missed that I have been using the objective measure of points by defensemen each season, not Norris or AS votes. I don't find relying on other people's opinions to be an objective measure of quality. While a large part of a d-man's value may be missed by simply counting points, it's still better than using a subjective measure (prone to the bias you are concerned about) where voters only vote for the top 5 at the position. If top 20 in points is too deep, perhaps top 10 is better, but the results are very similar.
I'm just going to have to say no to this. Measuring a defenseman's value by the number of points he scores misses the point, as scoring is not a defenseman's primary role on a hockey team, rare cases notwithstanding. Yes, I think the composite ratings of the hockey writers over a twenty year period are considerably more valuable in measuring the contributions of European defensemen than are their raw points totals. I completely missed the fact that you were looking at point totals when you started your analysis because I just assume that no one would consider points the best measure of the value of defensemen. We obviously look at this problem from very different perspectives. I think yours is badly misguided, at least in the context of this statistical discussion, but I'll just leave it at that.


Last edited by Sturminator: 10-17-2012 at 04:33 AM.
Sturminator 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 07:12 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.