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.

Lidstrom's place in history - ALL DISCUSSIONS OF LIDSTROM'S "ALL TIME RANKING" HERE

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-04-2012, 09:54 AM
  #551
OrrNumber4
Registered User
 
OrrNumber4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 7,394
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I see 6 post-expansion defensemen a clear step up from Lidstrom offensively: Orr, Coffey, Bourque, Potvin, MacInnis, and Leetch. That's it.

Among pre-expansion defensemen, Kelly was definitely better offensively. Pilote probably was. You can make a case for Shore and Gadsby.

I don't think it's out of the bounds of reason to have Lidstrom on the fringe of the top 10 offensive defensemen of all time, though he probably wouldn't make my cut.
What about king Clancy? I am sure this has been discussed before.

OrrNumber4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2012, 10:50 AM
  #552
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
God, some posters here just can't help but give Bourque as much extra credit as they can throw at him, while simultaneously taking away from Lidstrom. Bourque's teams were weaker than Lidstrom or Potvin's. Bourque also played 89% of his team's PPs in his prime, and 87% over his career. Lidstrom played 78% of his team's PPs in his prime, and 72% over his career. That is not a small difference.

I think Bourque was definitely a better even strength producer than Lidstrom (he also took more chances). But I don't think it's clear at all that he was better on the powerplay.
Devil...you know that those PP%'s are not how much of their team's PP time they played, it's the % of their teams PP goals that they were on the ice for.

Quote:
PP%: The percentage of the team’s power play goals for which the player was on the ice.

TmPP+: The strength of the player’s team on the power play. 1.00 is average, higher is better.

SH%: The percentage of the team’s power play goals against for which the player was on the ice.

TmSH+: The strength of the player’s team on the penalty kill. 1.00 is average, lower is better.
I have a feeling you may want to re-evaluate some of your points based on this correction

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2012, 11:20 AM
  #553
OrrNumber4
Registered User
 
OrrNumber4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 7,394
vCash: 500
Alright, new table. This is like before, except with two new columns. One takes the sum of the points, and divides by PP strength. The other takes the sum of the ES points + the PP points/PP strength. This is supposed to be a way of compensating for team strength. So in the first calculation we are making the assumption that the strength of the PP reflects on the strength of the team.

career:
Player Start End GP EV% R-ON R-OFF $ESP/S $PPP/S Adj. Total Adj PP Total PP% TmPP+ SH% TmSH+
Bobby Orr 1968 1979 596 49% 2.15 1.09 75 55 86 111 96% 1.52 63% 0.76
Paul Coffey 1981 2001 1409 43% 1.23 1.21 46 35 72 77 78% 1.13 28% 0.82
Ray Bourque 1980 2001 1612 42% 1.37 0.95 39 39 70 74 87% 1.11 58% 0.88
Denis Potvin 1974 1988 1060 43% 1.49 1.23 40 41 69 75 86% 1.18 53% 0.82
Brian Leetch 1988 2006 1205 45% 1.06 0.97 36 39 67 71 87% 1.12 50% 1.03
Phil Housley 1983 2003 1495 38% 1.06 0.97 35 33 67 68 84% 1.01 11% 0.95
Al MacInnis 1982 2004 1416 38% 1.41 1.12 32 42 63 68 86% 1.18 39% 0.93
Brad Park 1969 1985 1115 42% 1.4 1.2 36 32 59 64 80% 1.16 43% 0.84
Sergei Zubov 1993 2009 1068 42% 1.25 1.13 33 34 59 63 82% 1.14 33% 0.86
Larry Murphy 1981 2001 1615 39% 1.2 1.02 34 25 56 58 65% 1.05 32% 0.92
Scott Niedermayer 1992 2010 1263 39% 1.25 1.22 31 26 55 56 64% 1.04 40% 0.94
Nicklas Lidstrom 1992 2011 1494 40% 1.4 1.18 33 34 54 60 72% 1.25 52% 0.8
Borje Salming 1974 1990 1148 43% 1.14 0.82 31 22 54 53 62% 0.98 55% 1.09
Rob Blake 1990 2010 1270 37% 1.03 1.03 30 26 54 55 66% 1.04 50% 1
Chris Pronger 1994 2011 1154 39% 1.22 0.99 27 29 50 53 67% 1.12 54% 0.91
Scott Stevens 1983 2004 1635 42% 1.31 1.19 31 14 48 46 40% 0.94 56% 0.88
Larry Robinson 1973 1992 1384 43% 1.6 1.34 35 19 47 52 49% 1.14 45% 0.85
Chris Chelios 1984 2010 1651 39% 1.27 1.18 27 20 46 47 52% 1.02 57% 0.85
Guy Lapointe 1969 1984 884 42% 1.41 1.66 31 28 46 53 64% 1.29 52% 0.76
J.C. Tremblay 1968 1972 358 45% 1.37 1.33 32 22 41 49 69% 1.31 64% 0.85
Zdeno Chara 1998 2011 928 40% 1.16 1.04 24 17 39 40 42% 1.05 52% 0.95
Jacques Laperriere 1968 1973 435 47% 1.53 1.31 26 9 29 33 35% 1.22 73% 0.84
Serge Savard 1968 1983 1038 43% 1.44 1.52 25 9 26 32 24% 1.32 58% 0.82
Rod Langway 1979 1993 994 35% 1.29 1.2 20 3 23 23 10% 1.02 53% 0.83

Prime:

Player Start End GP EV% R-ON R-OFF $ESP/S $PPP/S Adj. Total Adj PP Total PP% TmPP+ SH% TmSH+
Bobby Orr 1969 1975 514 50% 2.21 1.1 80 56 86 115 96% 1.59 67% 0.74
Paul Coffey 1982 1987 458 45% 1.47 1.39 60 38 82 92 83% 1.19 34% 0.69
Ray Bourque 1982 1996 1081 43% 1.47 0.93 44 39 76 80 89% 1.09 58% 0.84
Phil Housley 1987 1996 686 42% 1.07 0.95 41 35 74 75 87% 1.03 16% 0.98
Rob Blake 1998 2002 362 43% 1.11 1.08 40 32 73 72 79% 0.99 54% 0.99
Brian Leetch 1989 1997 632 45% 1.2 1.06 40 41 69 75 91% 1.18 51% 0.95
Borje Salming 1976 1982 527 46% 1.26 0.83 41 32 68 71 81% 1.07 58% 1.04
Denis Potvin 1976 1984 623 44% 1.65 1.41 44 47 67 79 95% 1.36 56% 0.74
Brad Park 1970 1978 613 47% 1.53 1.26 46 35 66 74 84% 1.23 49% 0.82
Larry Murphy 1992 1995 292 45% 1.38 1.05 45 28 66 70 80% 1.11 45% 0.94
Al MacInnis 1989 2003 1043 41% 1.42 1.11 34 42 63 69 88% 1.2 43% 0.92
Scott Niedermayer 2004 2007 242 39% 1.27 1.22 37 33 62 66 79% 1.13 47% 0.9
Chris Chelios 1988 1998 803 44% 1.33 1.21 30 30 61 60 79% 0.99 61% 0.86
Nicklas Lidstrom 1998 2008 801 42% 1.42 1.18 36 38 58 66 78% 1.27 61% 0.78
Larry Robinson 1977 1986 731 48% 1.66 1.35 40 28 57 63 66% 1.2 58% 0.83
Chris Pronger 1998 2007 587 42% 1.43 1 32 36 57 62 72% 1.2 61% 0.82
Sergei Zubov 1998 2007 705 41% 1.25 1.16 29 35 56 60 84% 1.14 41% 0.85
Guy Lapointe 1973 1979 499 46% 1.67 1.88 40 34 56 66 75% 1.32 68% 0.74
Zdeno Chara 2003 2011 622 41% 1.38 1.13 30 25 52 54 60% 1.05 53% 0.89
Scott Stevens 1988 2003 1212 42% 1.34 1.2 31 14 48 46 38% 0.93 63% 0.89
J.C. Tremblay 1968 1972 358 45% 1.37 1.33 32 22 41 49 69% 1.31 64% 0.85
Serge Savard 1970 1979 651 45% 1.72 1.67 28 13 31 38 34% 1.33 65% 0.76
Jacques Laperriere 1968 1973 393 47% 1.56 1.31 26 9 28 33 36% 1.23 75% 0.83
Rod Langway 1981 1989 673 38% 1.35 1.21 22 4 26 26 14% 0.99 57% 0.85

Don't think that sorting by total adjustment is fair to Lidstrom, but there it is...

OrrNumber4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2012, 11:31 AM
  #554
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,373
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by superroyain10 View Post
This is supposed to be a way of compensating for team strength. So in the first calculation we are making the assumption that the strength of the PP reflects on the strength of the team.
Here we go with more unit stats used to adjust measurements of individual performance.

Where is the number for how much of the PP strength each of these guys was responsible for? I'm not seeing that..

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2012, 11:36 AM
  #555
OrrNumber4
Registered User
 
OrrNumber4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 7,394
vCash: 500
Sorted by adjusted PP totals (So only the powerplay numbers get divided by the team strength factor).

Career:

Player Start End GP EV% R-ON R-OFF $ESP/S $PPP/S Adj. Total Adj PP Total PP% TmPP+ SH% TmSH+
Bobby Orr 1968 1979 596 49% 2.15 1.09 75 55 86 111 96% 1.52 63% 0.76
Paul Coffey 1981 2001 1409 43% 1.23 1.21 46 35 72 77 78% 1.13 28% 0.82
Denis Potvin 1974 1988 1060 43% 1.49 1.23 40 41 69 75 86% 1.18 53% 0.82
Ray Bourque 1980 2001 1612 42% 1.37 0.95 39 39 70 74 87% 1.11 58% 0.88
Brian Leetch 1988 2006 1205 45% 1.06 0.97 36 39 67 71 87% 1.12 50% 1.03
Phil Housley 1983 2003 1495 38% 1.06 0.97 35 33 67 68 84% 1.01 11% 0.95
Al MacInnis 1982 2004 1416 38% 1.41 1.12 32 42 63 68 86% 1.18 39% 0.93
Brad Park 1969 1985 1115 42% 1.4 1.2 36 32 59 64 80% 1.16 43% 0.84
Sergei Zubov 1993 2009 1068 42% 1.25 1.13 33 34 59 63 82% 1.14 33% 0.86
Nicklas Lidstrom 1992 2011 1494 40% 1.4 1.18 33 34 54 60 72% 1.25 52% 0.8
Larry Murphy 1981 2001 1615 39% 1.2 1.02 34 25 56 58 65% 1.05 32% 0.92
Scott Niedermayer 1992 2010 1263 39% 1.25 1.22 31 26 55 56 64% 1.04 40% 0.94
Rob Blake 1990 2010 1270 37% 1.03 1.03 30 26 54 55 66% 1.04 50% 1
Borje Salming 1974 1990 1148 43% 1.14 0.82 31 22 54 53 62% 0.98 55% 1.09
Chris Pronger 1994 2011 1154 39% 1.22 0.99 27 29 50 53 67% 1.12 54% 0.91
Guy Lapointe 1969 1984 884 42% 1.41 1.66 31 28 46 53 64% 1.29 52% 0.76
Larry Robinson 1973 1992 1384 43% 1.6 1.34 35 19 47 52 49% 1.14 45% 0.85
J.C. Tremblay 1968 1972 358 45% 1.37 1.33 32 22 41 49 69% 1.31 64% 0.85
Chris Chelios 1984 2010 1651 39% 1.27 1.18 27 20 46 47 52% 1.02 57% 0.85
Scott Stevens 1983 2004 1635 42% 1.31 1.19 31 14 48 46 40% 0.94 56% 0.88
Zdeno Chara 1998 2011 928 40% 1.16 1.04 24 17 39 40 42% 1.05 52% 0.95
Jacques Laperriere 1968 1973 435 47% 1.53 1.31 26 9 29 33 35% 1.22 73% 0.84
Serge Savard 1968 1983 1038 43% 1.44 1.52 25 9 26 32 24% 1.32 58% 0.82
Rod Langway 1979 1993 994 35% 1.29 1.2 20 3 23 23 10% 1.02 53% 0.83

Prime:

Player Start End GP EV% R-ON R-OFF $ESP/S $PPP/S Adj. Total Adj PP Total PP% TmPP+ SH% TmSH+
Bobby Orr 1969 1975 514 50% 2.21 1.1 80 56 86 115 96% 1.59 67% 0.74
Paul Coffey 1982 1987 458 45% 1.47 1.39 60 38 82 92 83% 1.19 34% 0.69
Ray Bourque 1982 1996 1081 43% 1.47 0.93 44 39 76 80 89% 1.09 58% 0.84
Denis Potvin 1976 1984 623 44% 1.65 1.41 44 47 67 79 95% 1.36 56% 0.74
Phil Housley 1987 1996 686 42% 1.07 0.95 41 35 74 75 87% 1.03 16% 0.98
Brian Leetch 1989 1997 632 45% 1.2 1.06 40 41 69 75 91% 1.18 51% 0.95
Brad Park 1970 1978 613 47% 1.53 1.26 46 35 66 74 84% 1.23 49% 0.82
Rob Blake 1998 2002 362 43% 1.11 1.08 40 32 73 72 79% 0.99 54% 0.99
Borje Salming 1976 1982 527 46% 1.26 0.83 41 32 68 71 81% 1.07 58% 1.04
Larry Murphy 1992 1995 292 45% 1.38 1.05 45 28 66 70 80% 1.11 45% 0.94
Al MacInnis 1989 2003 1043 41% 1.42 1.11 34 42 63 69 88% 1.2 43% 0.92
Scott Niedermayer 2004 2007 242 39% 1.27 1.22 37 33 62 66 79% 1.13 47% 0.9
Nicklas Lidstrom 1998 2008 801 42% 1.42 1.18 36 38 58 66 78% 1.27 61% 0.78
Guy Lapointe 1973 1979 499 46% 1.67 1.88 40 34 56 66 75% 1.32 68% 0.74
Larry Robinson 1977 1986 731 48% 1.66 1.35 40 28 57 63 66% 1.2 58% 0.83
Chris Pronger 1998 2007 587 42% 1.43 1 32 36 57 62 72% 1.2 61% 0.82
Chris Chelios 1988 1998 803 44% 1.33 1.21 30 30 61 60 79% 0.99 61% 0.86
Sergei Zubov 1998 2007 705 41% 1.25 1.16 29 35 56 60 84% 1.14 41% 0.85
Zdeno Chara 2003 2011 622 41% 1.38 1.13 30 25 52 54 60% 1.05 53% 0.89
J.C. Tremblay 1968 1972 358 45% 1.37 1.33 32 22 41 49 69% 1.31 64% 0.85
Scott Stevens 1988 2003 1212 42% 1.34 1.2 31 14 48 46 38% 0.93 63% 0.89
Serge Savard 1970 1979 651 45% 1.72 1.67 28 13 31 38 34% 1.33 65% 0.76
Jacques Laperriere 1968 1973 393 47% 1.56 1.31 26 9 28 33 36% 1.23 75% 0.83
Rod Langway 1981 1989 673 38% 1.35 1.21 22 4 26 26 14% 0.99 57% 0.85

I think this is a better way of measuring the players' offensive worths.

Career wise, I think this is fair to Lidstrom. Doing this on a per-game basis hurts himi. For example, I do not think Zubov was as good as Lidstrom offensively. However, we also have to include Fetisov....so Lidstrom is around 10/11 post-expansion.

Prime, Lidstrom gets hurt, no question. But I disagree with the primes here. No problem with most of them, but Blake, Murphy, Niedermayer, and Lapointe have very small primes. This is not fair to Lidstrom.

Again, it is interesting to note in any case. Murphy's numbers hint at the idea that given equal teammates to Lidstrom, he could produce just as much. For a 4 year stretch, I would argue that Niedermayer was as good as Lidstrom ever was offensively. So too was Blake. But that is too short a stretch.

OrrNumber4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2012, 11:37 AM
  #556
OrrNumber4
Registered User
 
OrrNumber4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 7,394
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
Here we go with more unit stats used to adjust measurements of individual performance.

Where is the number for how much of the PP strength each of these guys was responsible for? I'm not seeing that..
Hmm...well, PP% shows how much of their team's powerplay scoring they were in on. But that would hurt players like Lidstrom even more. He was a smaller contribution to his team's strong PP than a player like Potvin.

OrrNumber4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2012, 11:49 AM
  #557
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,373
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by superroyain10 View Post
Hmm...well, PP% shows how much of their team's powerplay scoring they were in on. But that would hurt players like Lidstrom even more. He was a smaller contribution to his team's strong PP than a player like Potvin.
So, in other words, Lidstrom would get penalized for his team, again. How many times is that now?

Secondly, if he was a smaller contribution to his team's strong PP, why are his points being divided by a powerplay strength he supposedly wasn't as responsible for?

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2012, 11:57 AM
  #558
OrrNumber4
Registered User
 
OrrNumber4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 7,394
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
So, in other words, Lidstrom would get penalized for his team, again. How many times is that now?

Secondly, if he was a smaller contribution to his team's strong PP, why are his points being divided by a powerplay strength he supposedly wasn't as responsible for?
Yeah, I know Lidstrom gets penalized again, which is why I didn't make that calculation.

On your second point:

A player can be less responsible for the strength of the specials teams, but can still benefit statistically from it.

Player A scores 100 points on the PP. His team gets 200. That is 50%.
Player B scores 75 points on the PP. His team gets 125. That is 60%.

Player A had a smaller contribution to his teams powerplay, but got more absolute PP points anyways. Player A is less responsible for the "strength" of his team's powerplay than player B. This is of course making the assumption that the contribution can be linearly followed, even though diminishing gains definitely exists.

OrrNumber4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2012, 11:59 AM
  #559
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,930
vCash: 500
Any metric that would purport to say that Chris Chelios was better offensively than Nicklas Lidstrom should be thrown in the rubbish on sight.

Especially when the reason is that the formula used actually considers it a major negative that the powerplays Lidstrom quarterbacked for over a decade were consistently strong.

In other words, Lidstrom is a worse offensive player than Chelios because he consistently QBed better PPs than Chris.

I thought Habs fans were a lot more reasonable using the reverse argument - Andre Markov was arguably the best PP QB in the league for a spell because of how strong the PP was when he was healthy.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2012, 12:10 PM
  #560
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
So, in other words, Lidstrom would get penalized for his team, again. How many times is that now?
Actually all it means is what he said, that Potvin was more directly responsible for his teams PP success than Lidstrom was for his.
Which, for me, certainly matches the eye test.

Quote:
Secondly, if he was a smaller contribution to his team's strong PP, why are his points being divided by a powerplay strength he supposedly wasn't as responsible for?
I think you have a point here and this happens far too often when someone tries to make "simple" mathematical equations to explain things.
There's too much info missing IMO which makes such an equation extremely subjective.
It's like using Adjusted Stats at face value as an answer when it doesn't even include Era Tier scoring rate changes, Era PP rate changes or Era rule changes just to name a few.

It's usually better in cases like this when you just present the data and let people figure it out themselves.
You can't get players down to "one number" any where close to the level you can in Baseball. Hockey simply just doesn't have any where close to the same mass amount of data available needed to make such equations accurate enough to be considered creditable.

Like in Hockey, one could find stats on Faceoff wins, Faceoff wins by zone and on special teams but in baseball you would also have stats on whether said player was facing a left handed or right handed player, which linesman or referee was dropping the puck, how many Faceoffs he won cleanly, a % of which direction he won it in, what period it was in, the time of day and what # of shift he was one vs what shift the opposing player was on and may even include said players time of arrival at the rink that day lol


Last edited by Rhiessan71: 12-04-2012 at 12:20 PM.
Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2012, 12:20 PM
  #561
DisgruntledGoat
Registered User
 
DisgruntledGoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,983
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
So, in other words, Lidstrom would get penalized for his team, again. How many times is that now?
Coffey and Orr get penalized for team.

Coffey, Orr and Bourque are all penalized for era.

Why is it somehow sacrilegious to apply the same standards to Lidstrom- who played on dominant, defensivley-sound teams?

Between 1994 and 2010 (Lidstrom's career, essentially), the Selke went to Wing forwards seven times.

His defensive prowess should be as suspect as any 80s era puck-rushing D's offense.

DisgruntledGoat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2012, 12:21 PM
  #562
OrrNumber4
Registered User
 
OrrNumber4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 7,394
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Any metric that would purport to say that Chris Chelios was better offensively than Nicklas Lidstrom should be thrown in the rubbish on sight.
Right, which is what I did. That measure corrects too strongly for team strength:

Another way of looking at it is making the assumption that for every era, every PP goal had 2.8 points associated with it (one goal, 1.8 assists). Divide the PP% contribution by that much, and then subtract that number from the team strength. This gives players credit for their own contributions to a strong PP.

These results show that the top offensive defensemen were more or less-the-same in terms of contributions on the PP. Orr is the huge outlier. Macinnis, Potvin, and Leetch pfollow. Then you have Lidstrom, Zubov, Tremblay, and PArk, followed by Housley and Coffey.

Quote:
Especially when the reason is that the formula used actually considers it a major negative that the powerplays Lidstrom quarterbacked for over a decade were consistently strong.
The above should fix that.


Quote:
In other words, Lidstrom is a worse offensive player than Chelios because he consistently QBed better PPs than Chris.
The stat you are looking at is a prime comparison, not a peak comparison. Also, like I said, it definitely over-corrects for team strength. It even brings Orr down to human levels.


Last edited by OrrNumber4: 12-04-2012 at 12:26 PM. Reason: Fix quote tag
OrrNumber4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2012, 12:36 PM
  #563
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,930
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by superroyain10 View Post
Salming was at 41 for his peak. Which adds some validity to the arguement that Salming was superior to Lidstrom offensively when both were at their best. Surely one can imagine someone who only saw Salming during his prime making this claim...

Looks like a lot of your numbers were off....
Quote:
Originally Posted by superroyain10 View Post
What is particularly interesting about this list is how players like Pronger and Salming fare despite not having played on the best teams vs. players like Lidstrom and Robinson, who almost always were on incredibly dominant teams.

Here are the numbers side by side (prime). You had a bunch of the numbers wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by superroyain10 View Post
Check again. Your salming numbers were off...
So by "a lot" and "a bunch," you mean I had Salming's even strength number wrong (I accidentally doubled counted his PP number).

Thought I did something egregious there at first.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2012, 12:40 PM
  #564
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,930
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by superroyain10 View Post
What about king Clancy? I am sure this has been discussed before.
I used to think Clancy was a candidate for the top 10 offensive defensemen of all-time, but I found his numbers in the defenseman project less impressive than I expected. He was the 2nd best offensive defenseman of his generation, way ahead of 3rd place, but he was also way behind 1st place Shore. Shore is much farther ahead of Clancy than any of Bourque/MacInnis/Leetch/Potvin are ahead of Lidstrom. And I just don't think the evidence points to Shore being significantly better offensively than Bourque/MacInnis/Leetch/Potvin.

On the other hand, Clancy was very well-rounded when I had previously thought of him as offense-first.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2012, 12:43 PM
  #565
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,930
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Devil...you know that those PP%'s are not how much of their team's PP time they played, it's the % of their teams PP goals that they were on the ice for.



I have a feeling you may want to re-evaluate some of your points based on this correction
% of goals on ice for and against have been used as a proxy for ice time and the correlation is very good. I just took it for granted that they could be used like that in this instance.

We have ice time figures starting in 1997-98, so we have 4 years when both Bourque and Lidstrom were in the league to compare their PP% according to overpass against their actual % of icetime on the PP. If the correlation is very strong for all 4 years, I would assume it would hold for their entire careers.

I don't have time to do it now though.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2012, 12:50 PM
  #566
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,930
vCash: 500
In my opinion, the quarterback of a powerplay is the single most important player for the success of the powerplay and should, if anything, get credit for the strength of his powerplay. He certainly shouldn't be punished for quarterbacking a strong powerplay.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2012, 12:59 PM
  #567
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
% of goals on ice for and against have been used as a proxy for ice time and the correlation is very good. I just took it for granted that they could be used like that in this instance.

We have ice time figures starting in 1997-98, so we have 4 years when both Bourque and Lidstrom were in the league to compare their PP% according to overpass against their actual % of icetime on the PP. If the correlation is very strong for all 4 years, I would assume it would hold for their entire careers.

I don't have time to do it now though.
Maybe but a % of PP time can be extremely subjective on its own.
The more successful one is, the higher the % of PP time he will have as obviously, the majority of PP's end when a goal is scored right

What site has total team PP time?
NHL .com only goes back to 02/03.

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2012, 01:39 PM
  #568
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,373
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by superroyain10 View Post
Yeah, I know Lidstrom gets penalized again, which is why I didn't make that calculation.
It is already built into the divisor that you used.

Quote:
On your second point:

A player can be less responsible for the strength of the specials teams, but can still benefit statistically from it.

Player A scores 100 points on the PP. His team gets 200. That is 50%.
Player B scores 75 points on the PP. His team gets 125. That is 60%.

Player A had a smaller contribution to his teams powerplay, but got more absolute PP points anyways. Player A is less responsible for the "strength" of his team's powerplay than player B. This is of course making the assumption that the contribution can be linearly followed, even though diminishing gains definitely exists.
Player A may have been just as good or even better on the powerplay than Player B.

It just depends on whether it was a second unit scoring the majority of the other goals or other players on his unit.


Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Any metric that would purport to say that Chris Chelios was better offensively than Nicklas Lidstrom should be thrown in the rubbish on sight.

Especially when the reason is that the formula used actually considers it a major negative that the powerplays Lidstrom quarterbacked for over a decade were consistently strong.

In other words, Lidstrom is a worse offensive player than Chelios because he consistently QBed better PPs than Chris.

I thought Habs fans were a lot more reasonable using the reverse argument - Andre Markov was arguably the best PP QB in the league for a spell because of how strong the PP was when he was healthy.
Right. I was trying to lead a horse to water but I guess you're even more sick of this than I am hahaha.. and I'm pretty sure both of us would pick Bourque, but someone has to stand up for Lidstrom too.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Actually all it means is what he said, that Potvin was more directly responsible for his teams PP success than Lidstrom was for his.
Which, for me, certainly matches the eye test.
That might be what your eye tells you but it isn't what the number tells you -- at least not without further research.

It is a percentage of a unit stat being used to describe an individual's play. ie. it MAY be pointing in the right direction but that is about it.


Quote:
I think you have a point here and this happens far too often when someone tries to make "simple" mathematical equations to explain things.
There's too much info missing IMO which makes such an equation extremely subjective.
Exactly.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DisgruntledGoat View Post
Coffey and Orr get penalized for team.

Coffey, Orr and Bourque are all penalized for era.

Why is it somehow sacrilegious to apply the same standards to Lidstrom- who played on dominant, defensivley-sound teams?

Between 1994 and 2010 (Lidstrom's career, essentially), the Selke went to Wing forwards seven times.

His defensive prowess should be as suspect as any 80s era puck-rushing D's offense.
Lidstrom was the common factor across that entire time.

None of the Selke winners that you think call into question his defense were there the whole time.

Add to this Hollands post-lockout idea that goaltending was the position that had the easiest replacement value and I think you're barking up the wrong tree altogether.

I mean, you did see Nicklas Lidstrom play?


Quote:
Originally Posted by superroyain10 View Post
Right, which is what I did. That measure corrects too strongly for team strength:

Another way of looking at it is making the assumption that for every era, every PP goal had 2.8 points associated with it (one goal, 1.8 assists). Divide the PP% contribution by that much, and then subtract that number from the team strength. This gives players credit for their own contributions to a strong PP.

These results show that the top offensive defensemen were more or less-the-same in terms of contributions on the PP. Orr is the huge outlier. Macinnis, Potvin, and Leetch pfollow. Then you have Lidstrom, Zubov, Tremblay, and PArk, followed by Housley and Coffey.



The above should fix that.

The stat you are looking at is a prime comparison, not a peak comparison. Also, like I said, it definitely over-corrects for team strength. It even brings Orr down to human levels.

So now that it looks absurd lets massage it just right to still show what we want but not look absurd?



Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
In my opinion, the quarterback of a powerplay is the single most important player for the success of the powerplay and should, if anything, get credit for the strength of his powerplay. He certainly shouldn't be punished for quarterbacking a strong powerplay.
I would agree. Sometimes the powerplay quarterback is a forward in the absence of a good puck moving defenseman too.

I know Mario Lemieux commented in one of the articles I found about Paul Coffey in the most recent all time draft that having Coffey on the team was a big difference in their powerplay for example. He claimed it made his job much easier.

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2012, 01:52 PM
  #569
OrrNumber4
Registered User
 
OrrNumber4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 7,394
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
In my opinion, the quarterback of a powerplay is the single most important player for the success of the powerplay and should, if anything, get credit for the strength of his powerplay. He certainly shouldn't be punished for quarterbacking a strong powerplay.
Alright, maybe this helps.

Assuming that throughout the eras, it has been 2.8 points per goal (1 goal and 1.8 assists per goal), what we have below are:

PPP/game
PP% contribution by the player
PP% adjusted for total scoring (/2.8)
Team PP strength
Player's contribution to the PP strength
PP strength of team if replaced by average player.

Career
Player $PPP/S PP% PP% adj. TmPP+ Player PP Contr. PP% w/o player
Bobby Orr 55 96% 34% 1.52 0.52 1.2
Denis Potvin 41 86% 31% 1.18 0.36 1.02
Al MacInnis 42 86% 31% 1.18 0.36 1.02
Brian Leetch 39 87% 31% 1.12 0.35 0.97
Ray Bourque 39 87% 31% 1.11 0.34 0.97
Brad Park 32 80% 29% 1.16 0.33 1.03
Sergei Zubov 34 82% 29% 1.14 0.33 1.01
Nicklas Lidstrom 34 72% 26% 1.25 0.32 1.13
J.C. Tremblay 22 69% 25% 1.31 0.32 1.19
Paul Coffey 35 78% 28% 1.13 0.31 1.02
Phil Housley 33 84% 30% 1.01 0.3 0.91
Guy Lapointe 28 64% 23% 1.29 0.29 1.2
Chris Pronger 29 67% 24% 1.12 0.27 1.05
Rob Blake 26 66% 24% 1.04 0.25 0.99
Larry Murphy 25 65% 23% 1.05 0.24 1.01
Scott Niedermayer 26 64% 23% 1.04 0.24 1
Borje Salming 22 62% 22% 0.98 0.22 0.96
Larry Robinson 19 49% 18% 1.14 0.2 1.14
Chris Chelios 20 52% 19% 1.02 0.19 1.03
Zdeno Chara 17 42% 15% 1.05 0.16 1.09
Jacques Laperriere 9 35% 13% 1.22 0.15 1.27
Scott Stevens 14 40% 14% 0.94 0.13 1.01
Serge Savard 9 24% 9% 1.32 0.11 1.41
Rod Langway 3 10% 4% 1.02 0.04 1.18
Prime
Player $PPP/S PP% PP% adj. TmPP+ Player PP Contr. PP% w/o player
Bobby Orr 56 96% 34% 1.59 0.55 1.24
Denis Potvin 47 95% 34% 1.36 0.46 1.1
Brian Leetch 41 91% 33% 1.18 0.38 1
Al MacInnis 42 88% 31% 1.2 0.38 1.02
Brad Park 35 84% 30% 1.23 0.37 1.06
Paul Coffey 38 83% 30% 1.19 0.35 1.04
Ray Bourque 39 89% 32% 1.09 0.35 0.94
Nicklas Lidstrom 38 78% 28% 1.27 0.35 1.12
Guy Lapointe 34 75% 27% 1.32 0.35 1.17
Sergei Zubov 35 84% 30% 1.14 0.34 1
Phil Housley 35 87% 31% 1.03 0.32 0.91
Larry Murphy 28 80% 29% 1.11 0.32 0.99
Scott Niedermayer 33 79% 28% 1.13 0.32 1.01
J.C. Tremblay 22 69% 25% 1.31 0.32 1.19
Borje Salming 32 81% 29% 1.07 0.31 0.96
Chris Pronger 36 72% 26% 1.2 0.31 1.09
Rob Blake 32 79% 28% 0.99 0.28 0.91
Chris Chelios 30 79% 28% 0.99 0.28 0.91
Larry Robinson 28 66% 24% 1.2 0.28 1.12
Zdeno Chara 25 60% 21% 1.05 0.23 1.02
Serge Savard 13 34% 12% 1.33 0.16 1.37
Jacques Laperriere 9 36% 13% 1.23 0.16 1.27
Scott Stevens 14 38% 14% 0.93 0.13 1
Rod Langway 4 14% 5% 0.99 0.05 1.14

OrrNumber4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2012, 02:00 PM
  #570
OrrNumber4
Registered User
 
OrrNumber4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 7,394
vCash: 500
Quote:
It is already built into the divisor that you used.
Missing the point. I tried to apply strength of the PP to strength of the team overall, which clearly was a bad idea. The results show that.

Quote:
Player A may have been just as good or even better on the powerplay than Player B.
It just depends on whether it was a second unit scoring the majority of the other goals or other players on his unit.
That is true. But we are mostly comparing players who play the same role...#1 D-men getting top minutes and top PP time. Out of the guys we are talking about, only Housley doesn't really fit this category.

OrrNumber4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2012, 02:12 PM
  #571
OrrNumber4
Registered User
 
OrrNumber4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 7,394
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
% of goals on ice for and against have been used as a proxy for ice time and the correlation is very good. I just took it for granted that they could be used like that in this instance.

We have ice time figures starting in 1997-98, so we have 4 years when both Bourque and Lidstrom were in the league to compare their PP% according to overpass against their actual % of icetime on the PP. If the correlation is very strong for all 4 years, I would assume it would hold for their entire careers.

I don't have time to do it now though.
Looks like you might have a very good point. Bourque got a lot more PP time than Lidstrom from that span; over a minute less year-to-year. So it looks like Lidstrom contributing less to the PP can be at least partially attributed to him being out there less.

However, in terms of raw totals (PP/game), Lidstrom has to take a hit as well, as his team's PP was clearly more productive, even when he was off the ice.

Another interesting stat: If you the ratio of Lidstrom PP% to Bourque, and then take the ratio of Bourque's team strength to Lidstroms, they pretty much negate each other.


Last edited by OrrNumber4: 12-04-2012 at 02:22 PM.
OrrNumber4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2012, 02:20 PM
  #572
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,373
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by superroyain10 View Post
Missing the point. I tried to apply strength of the PP to strength of the team overall, which clearly was a bad idea. The results show that.
Right. That *was* the point.


Quote:
That is true. But we are mostly comparing players who play the same role...#1 D-men getting top minutes and top PP time. Out of the guys we are talking about, only Housley doesn't really fit this category.
At a high level, sure.

Bourque was a huge workhorse for his teams, particularly on the PP, though.

However:

SeasonNameMinutesPP Points
97-98Bourque49430
98-99Bourque54339
99-00Bourque46837
00-01Bourque40233
Totals 1907139

So over the four year period where we have stats (mind you this includes one very down year by Bourque and is the end of his career), Bourque registers a point on the powerplay roughly every 13.7 minutes of powerplay time.

SeasonNameMinutesPP Points
97-98Lidstrom38233
98-99Lidstrom43229
99-00Lidstrom36331
00-01Lidstrom44643
Totals 1623136

Meanwhile Lidstrom produces almost the same in almost 300 less PP minutes (5 full games of PP time) or a rate of a point every 11.93 minutes of PP time.

(Hopefully I copied this stuff right, I'm at work right now so I don't have the time)

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2012, 02:50 PM
  #573
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,373
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by superroyain10 View Post
Looks like you might have a very good point. Bourque got a lot more PP time than Lidstrom from that span; over a minute less year-to-year. So it looks like Lidstrom contributing less to the PP can be at least partially attributed to him being out there less.

However, in terms of raw totals (PP/game), Lidstrom has to take a hit as well, as his team's PP was clearly more productive, even when he was off the ice.
Explain to me again how Lidstrom's team helped his totals WHILE HE WAS ON THE BENCH.

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2012, 03:05 PM
  #574
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
Right. That *was* the point.




At a high level, sure.

Bourque was a huge workhorse for his teams, particularly on the PP, though.

However:

SeasonNameMinutesPP Points
97-98Bourque49430
98-99Bourque54339
99-00Bourque46837
00-01Bourque40233
Totals 1907139

So over the four year period where we have stats (mind you this includes one very down year by Bourque and is the end of his career), Bourque registers a point on the powerplay roughly every 13.7 minutes of powerplay time.

SeasonNameMinutesPP Points
97-98Lidstrom38233
98-99Lidstrom43229
99-00Lidstrom36331
00-01Lidstrom44643
Totals 1623136

Meanwhile Lidstrom produces almost the same in almost 300 less PP minutes (5 full games of PP time) or a rate of a point every 11.93 minutes of PP time.

(Hopefully I copied this stuff right, I'm at work right now so I don't have the time)
Need some context for those numbers yet though. Need to know total team PP minutes and the effectiveness of their PP's when they were not on the ice.

And I know you mentioned this but it should be more emphasized that it's a twilight of his career Bourque being compared to a middle of his prime Lidstrom.

Perhaps comparing Lidstrom's last 4 season to Bourque's last 4 would be better and would also eliminate most of the strength of team arguments against Lidstrom as well. Detroit in the last 3 seasons is obviously not on a level with the mid 90's-mid 2000's Detroit teams.

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2012, 03:07 PM
  #575
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
Explain to me again how Lidstrom's team helped his totals WHILE HE WAS ON THE BENCH.
It shows how strong their PP was without him and gives us an idea of how much Lidstrom improved or reduced its effectiveness.

Rhiessan71 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 08:41 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.