HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Was Jagr better than Lemieux in 1995-96?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-18-2013, 07:40 PM
  #176
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,537
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
We all know that Mario was the best offensive player in the league in 96.

What is unknown is what do all his points mean?

Reckoning has attempted to quantify exactly how each and every point was made and what it meant which is much better than simply looking at the total number of points and assuming that each point has the same value, which everyone should know that it doesn't.

Even if Mario plays in thoe 12 missed games, where the Pens already did quite well in, I still think Feds and his defensive game make him more value in 96 than Mario.

Your refusal to look at all of the data tells more of bias than trying to actually determine what actually happened in 96 here IMO.
How do you figure that?
Detroit was +83 at even strength and +61 on the special Teams index
Pens were +41 at even strength and +37 special Teams

I *** guarantee you that the Pens would miss Mario more than the Wings would miss Fedorov.
The year Fedorov sits for 3/4's of it proves that that team functioned just as well without.
Or how about the year Fedorov leaves for the Ducks...Wings scored 14 less but also allowed 14 less goals.

For a guy that constantly argues that certain members of the late 70's Habs are overrated because of the team and the disparity of the League.
You sure as hell are quick to laud Fedorov under the same circumstances.
Detroit in the 90's till the LO were the Have's while about 70% of the League were the Have Nots.

The Wings were spending close to 70mill and more in salary during those years while more than half of the League were just trying to survive at or around the 20 mill mark at most.


Last edited by Rhiessan71: 05-18-2013 at 07:50 PM.
Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-18-2013, 08:32 PM
  #177
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,572
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by reckoning View Post
About the idea of stat padding: one way of accounting for it that I've heard of is to go through each game a team won and give the players points based on how many of the teams goals they contributed in that win. For example: a team wins a game and gets 2 points. If a player figured on all his teams goals, he'd get 2 points. If he figured on half, he'd get one. 30% would be 0.6 points, etc. For ties, cut it in half because the team only gets one point. For OT wins, use one point for regulation, and the other point for the OT goal.

Using this system, all points a player scored in wins and ties would count towards his score, but a goal in a 1-0 or 2-1 game would get more weight than one in a 7-0 game. It's not perfect, but it should reward clutch play and consistency in many wins over running up a similar number of points in a fewer number of wins. More wins should logically equate to more value.

Applying this to the 95-96 season: Jagr and Fedorov do in fact end up slightly more points than Lemieux. But considering that Jagr needed to play 12 more games (and Fedorov 8 more) than Lemieux to do it, I'd still be inclined to put Mario ahead of them for that season.

Top 10 in 95-96 with this system:

Sergei Fedorov44.7
Jaromir Jagr43.8
Eric Lindros43.0
Mario Lemieux42.9
Steve Yzerman39.7
Mark Messier37.8
John Leclair37.7
Peter Forsberg37.5
Joe Sakic36.7
Paul Kariya36.3
Interesting system. As far as the names it produced, it includes nine of my top-ten forwards for that season (the difference is Leclair vs. Francis). But it seems like the system leaves out something important. What happens to points scored in a loss? Wayne Gretzky played 62 games and scored 81 points for Los Angeles before he was traded to the Blues. LA was the 4th-worst team that season, and only won 24 games, and only tied 18 (66 points).

So it's highly likely that a significant portion of Gretzky's offense ended up coming in losses. Which would mean that he wouldn't register points for those games based on your method.

Or even better. Joe Sakic finished tied for 10th in scoring in 1990 with 102 points. Quebec won 12 games and tied seven, for 31 points. The next season Quebec won 16 and tied 14 (46 points) and Sakic jumped to 6th in scoring with 109. He also was 3rd in postseason all-star voting and was 7th in Hart voting. How would he do under your system for those two seasons?

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-18-2013, 08:57 PM
  #178
blogofmike
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,125
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
We all know that Mario was the best offensive player in the league in 96.

What is unknown is what do all his points mean?

Reckoning has attempted to quantify exactly how each and every point was made and what it meant which is much better than simply looking at the total number of points and assuming that each point has the same value, which everyone should know that it doesn't.
I applaud the effort, but think it will unjustly favour guys who played on 62-win powerhouses. In reckoning's table, Feds has 66 GP. Jagr has 53 GP and Lemieux has 46 GP.

I agree that it gives 1 point in a 2-1 win, more value than 3 points in a 7-0 blowout. I assume this is because the goals are less meaningful in a 7-0 game; however, there is no accounting for the 7-6, 6-5, and 5-4 games that were fairly common for Pittsburgh.

I know there's no "value" in a loss, but no one knows it's a loss until the final buzzer. We shouldn't reward Fedorov for scoring only 11 points in his 12 losses. Had he scored more, they may not have been losses.

Lemieux had 34 points in 24 losses. Yes, the result was bad, but his PPG from losses (1.41) is about the same as Fedorov's PPG in wins (1.49), and thus we're failing to recognize strong play in defeats that may have been victories if he had Red Wing level support.

Quote:
Even if Mario plays in thoe 12 missed games, where the Pens already did quite well in, I still think Feds and his defensive game make him more value in 96 than Mario.

Your refusal to look at all of the data tells more of bias than trying to actually determine what actually happened in 96 here IMO.
In four road games without Fedorov, the Wings were 3-1 with 4.00 GFA and 2.00 GAA.
In road games with Fedorov, the Wings averaged 3.70 GFA and 2.51 GAA.

I know it's only four games, but I would hope to see even a small improvement in Fedorov's games, since his otherworldly defense is supposed to personally prevent enough goals to make him more valuable than Mario Lemieux.

Fedorov dropped 20 plus/minus points between 2003 and 2004. Is it more reasonable to say he became 20 goals less valuable as an individual player overnight, or that he had lesser team support in Anaheim than he did in Detroit?

blogofmike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-18-2013, 09:00 PM
  #179
shazariahl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,922
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by reckoning View Post
About the idea of stat padding: one way of accounting for it that I've heard of is to go through each game a team won and give the players points based on how many of the teams goals they contributed in that win. For example: a team wins a game and gets 2 points. If a player figured on all his teams goals, he'd get 2 points. If he figured on half, he'd get one. 30% would be 0.6 points, etc. For ties, cut it in half because the team only gets one point. For OT wins, use one point for regulation, and the other point for the OT goal.

Using this system, all points a player scored in wins and ties would count towards his score, but a goal in a 1-0 or 2-1 game would get more weight than one in a 7-0 game. It's not perfect, but it should reward clutch play and consistency in many wins over running up a similar number of points in a fewer number of wins. More wins should logically equate to more value.

Applying this to the 95-96 season: Jagr and Fedorov do in fact end up slightly more points than Lemieux. But considering that Jagr needed to play 12 more games (and Fedorov 8 more) than Lemieux to do it, I'd still be inclined to put Mario ahead of them for that season.

Top 10 in 95-96 with this system:

Sergei Fedorov44.7
Jaromir Jagr43.8
Eric Lindros43.0
Mario Lemieux42.9
Steve Yzerman39.7
Mark Messier37.8
John Leclair37.7
Peter Forsberg37.5
Joe Sakic36.7
Paul Kariya36.3
My problem with this system is two fold:
1. Players only get points for winning efforts - you could have 3 pts and lose 4-3 and not get any credit whatsoever. Someone already mentioned this above, but it was something that I thought of immediately when reading this method.

2. Points in blowouts are still important. I remember the Oilers going into the 3rd period leading the Kings 5-0 and then giving up 5 goals in the 3rd and losing in OT. Maybe if Gretzky would have scored another to make it 6-0 that never happens? Who knows. Point is, teams have come back from crazy deficits before and will again. I don't see why having the 2nd assist on the game winner in a 2-1 game is somehow more important than scoring a hatrick in a 4-0 game where a teammate scored the actual game winner.

shazariahl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-18-2013, 09:12 PM
  #180
Hardyvan123
[email protected]
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
How do you figure that?
Detroit was +83 at even strength and +61 on the special Teams index
Pens were +41 at even strength and +37 special Teams

I *** guarantee you that the Pens would miss Mario more than the Wings would miss Fedorov.
The year Fedorov sits for 3/4's of it proves that that team functioned just as well without.
Or how about the year Fedorov leaves for the Ducks...Wings scored 14 less but also allowed 14 less goals.

For a guy that constantly argues that certain members of the late 70's Habs are overrated because of the team and the disparity of the League.
You sure as hell are quick to laud Fedorov under the same circumstances.
Detroit in the 90's till the LO were the Have's while about 70% of the League were the Have Nots.

The Wings were spending close to 70mill and more in salary during those years while more than half of the League were just trying to survive at or around the 20 mill mark at most.
Still no attempt to explain how Mario's 76 points in 16 games helps the Pens win in the other 54 games Mario played in?

Reckoning's metric isn't perfect, there probably isn't a perfect metric but it was only measuring players points in regards to wins and didn't address defensive contributions either.

We are talking about Mario in 96 and Feds in 96 as well here right?

As for the 70's Habs and 90's Detroit, most people would agree that the disparity between top and bottom or even the average team was greater in the 70's than in the 90's or most eras for that matter, mostly due to rapid expansion and the WHA.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-18-2013, 09:28 PM
  #181
Hardyvan123
[email protected]
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blogofmike View Post
I applaud the effort, but think it will unjustly favour guys who played on 62-win powerhouses. In reckoning's table, Feds has 66 GP. Jagr has 53 GP and Lemieux has 46 GP.

I agree that it gives 1 point in a 2-1 win, more value than 3 points in a 7-0 blowout. I assume this is because the goals are less meaningful in a 7-0 game; however, there is no accounting for the 7-6, 6-5, and 5-4 games that were fairly common for Pittsburgh.

I know there's no "value" in a loss, but no one knows it's a loss until the final buzzer. We shouldn't reward Fedorov for scoring only 11 points in his 12 losses. Had he scored more, they may not have been losses.

Lemieux had 34 points in 24 losses. Yes, the result was bad, but his PPG from losses (1.41) is about the same as Fedorov's PPG in wins (1.49), and thus we're failing to recognize strong play in defeats that may have been victories if he had Red Wing level support.
Sure Reckoning and his metric isn't perfect but it goes alot further than simply comparing Mario's PPG to Jagr's or in this case Federov's.

also Mario has 76 points in 16 games with no carryover affect on any other games and 13 3 point games where he was a mere plus 5.

In a pure one dimensional sense Mario was dominant in 96 offensively but dominance should mean more than just one metric of the game right?



Quote:
In four road games without Fedorov, the Wings were 3-1 with 4.00 GFA and 2.00 GAA.
In road games with Fedorov, the Wings averaged 3.70 GFA and 2.51 GAA.

I know it's only four games, but I would hope to see even a small improvement in Fedorov's games, since his otherworldly defense is supposed to personally prevent enough goals to make him more valuable than Mario Lemieux.
4 games is a pretty small sample and it would be hard to draw too much of a conclusion from it.

We also have the 12 game sample in the games Mario missed 11 road games and most of them the 2nd game in 2 nights where the Pens went 5-5-2 which would be better than expected if the msot dominant player in the league were out of the lineup.



Quote:
Fedorov dropped 20 plus/minus points between 2003 and 2004. Is it more reasonable to say he became 20 goals less valuable as an individual player overnight, or that he had lesser team support in Anaheim than he did in Detroit?
both things could and probably did happen, feds was 34 in that season and players do decline over time. It's hard to draw too many conclusions from the 20 point drop as he did change teams and his plus 5 for the ducks that year is pretty decent given the situation right?

I mean if you were to look at that Ducks lineup an Feds age going into the season a plus 5 for feds would have seemed pretty darn good to most people.

Heck even the plus 5 in 04 for Feds is decent stacked up to Mario's plus 10 in 96 if we really stop to think about it for what it is worth.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-18-2013, 09:31 PM
  #182
Morgoth Bauglir
Master Of The Fates
 
Morgoth Bauglir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Angband via Utumno
Posts: 3,700
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
SAs for the 70's Habs and 90's Detroit, most people would agree that the disparity between top and bottom or even the average team was greater in the 70's than in the 90's or most eras for that matter, mostly due to rapid expansion and the WHA.
Prove it.

Morgoth Bauglir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-18-2013, 09:37 PM
  #183
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,537
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Still no attempt to explain how Mario's 76 points in 16 games helps the Pens win in the other 54 games Mario played in?
I'll say this for the THIRD time now...just as soon as you show us all how Fedorov didn't pad his stats as well. Please show us how a goal prevented when it's 6-0 in the third really matter anymore than Mario adding a 4th point in a 6-2 game.
AGAIN, JUST SHOW US HOW FEDOROV'S EFFORTS MEANT MORE TO THE +144 WINGS THAN MARIO'S DID TO THE +78 PENS!!!

Quote:
Reckoning's metric isn't perfect, there probably isn't a perfect metric but it was only measuring players points in regards to wins and didn't address defensive contributions either.

We are talking about Mario in 96 and Feds in 96 as well here right?
Yeah, Fed's playing for a powerhouse while the Pens were only a powerhouse when Mario played.

Quote:
As for the 70's Habs and 90's Detroit, most people would agree that the disparity between top and bottom or even the average team was greater in the 70's than in the 90's or most eras for that matter, mostly due to rapid expansion and the WHA.
********!!!
5 expansion teams in the previous 5 years.
In 95/96 14 of the 26 teams finished under .500 (54%)
In 75/76 only 7 of 18 finished under .500 (39%)

What MOST intelligent people actually realise and understand is that $$$ had just as much if not more effect on separating the top and bottom teams in the 90's than even rapid expansion and the WHA had in the 70's.
And it's not like there weren't 9 teams added in 9 years during the 90's either eh.


Last edited by Rhiessan71: 05-18-2013 at 09:48 PM.
Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-18-2013, 09:45 PM
  #184
Hardyvan123
[email protected]
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by shazariahl View Post
My problem with this system is two fold:
1. Players only get points for winning efforts - you could have 3 pts and lose 4-3 and not get any credit whatsoever. Someone already mentioned this above, but it was something that I thought of immediately when reading this method.
Sure this is a good criticism of this metric but then again Federov and Mario are also on the opposite ends of the spectrum here in terms of defensive play, one guy is the Selke winner and the other is known as a guy who really didn't care about defense very much.

At the end of the day that difference counts as well in terms of helping one's team win.

Quote:
2. Points in blowouts are still important. I remember the Oilers going into the 3rd period leading the Kings 5-0 and then giving up 5 goals in the 3rd and losing in OT. Maybe if Gretzky would have scored another to make it 6-0 that never happens? Who knows. Point is, teams have come back from crazy deficits before and will again. I don't see why having the 2nd assist on the game winner in a 2-1 game is somehow more important than scoring a hatrick in a 4-0 game where a teammate scored the actual game winner.
sure thsoe point matter but surely not as much right? I ahd a quick look at Mario's top scoring games in 96

7 points in a 10-0 win
7 points in a 8-4 win
5 points in a 9-1 win
5 points in a 9-4 win

At some point one has to realize that in the 16 games that Mario scored 76 points he was indeed dominant but none of the dominance in those 16 games spills over to help him or his team win any other single games.

also it has been mentioned that Mario was facing the other teams top defensive players but something just doesn't jive there in the fact that Mario is only a plus 10.

My guess is that other coaches didn't always think that Mario and Sandstrom were that dominant and they put out some scoring lines against Mario because he didn't play defense and they took their chances shutting down the Francis line with their best defensive players.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-18-2013, 09:55 PM
  #185
Hardyvan123
[email protected]
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
I'll say this for the THIRD time now...just as soon as you show us all how Fedorov didn't pad his stats as well. Please show us how a goal prevented when it's 6-0 in the third really matter anymore than Mario adding a 4th point in a 6-2 game.
AGAIN, JUST SHOW US HOW FEDOROV'S EFFORTS MEANT MORE TO THE WINGS THAN MARIO'S DID TO THE PENS!!!
How can anyone prove something that didn't actually happen?

We do know that Mario padded his offensive stats in those 16 games.

we also know that Feds had exactly (in something we can actually measure)
2 -5 point games
1-4 point game
5-3 point games to Mario's 16, (7,5 and 4 point games) and 13- 3 point games

So Feds wasn't padding his offensive stats in blowout games.

Reckoning's method also points to the same conclusion.

Federov was the reigning Selke winner and did lead all Red wing forwards in plus minus, in spite of playing against the opponents top offensive players in a defensive role.



Quote:
Yeah, Fed's playing for a powerhouse while the Pens were only a powerhouse when Mario played.
Well the Pens weren't always a power house when Mario played so it means teams make a powerhouse more than any single player but so what we already knew that.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-18-2013, 10:15 PM
  #186
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,572
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
Prove it.
In the NHL from 1993-94 through 1997-98 there were 26 teams. In the 70s, there were as many as 32 teams between the NHL and WHA; in 78-79 there were a total of 24 major pro teams - including the WHA's Indianapolis Racers, who folded 25 games into the season after selling off Wayne Gretzky to Edmonton and choosing not to keep Messier after a tryout. Messier was picked up by Cincinnati for the remainder of the season and then drafted by Edmonton post-merger.

So the 70s saw basically the same number of teams as the 90s. Few Europeans were in either the NHL or WHA. The WHA literally had just started as a league, and the NHL only had six teams with more than 3 years of history when the decade started. So let's do some math. 32-6=26. That's 26 brand new teams. Twenty-six expansion teams, effectively. Think about this for a second. The NHL added six teams (doubling in size). Then they added two more, then two more, then another two more, and then Cleveland and Minnesota merged. Every time they added two teams, the previous expansion teams had to give up players. And this was all within seven years. The 1967 expansion teams had to endure three rounds of expansion before they played their eighth season. 1970, 1972, and 1974 all saw two more teams added each.

As for the parity refrenced... the 1974-75 season is a good example.

Top three teamsW-L-TPts
Philadelphia Flyers51-18-11113
Buffalo Sabres49-16-15113
Montreal Canadiens47-14-19113
Bottom three teamsW-L-TPts
Minnesota North Stars23-50-753
Kansas City Scouts15-54-1141
Washington Capitals8-67-521

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-18-2013, 10:16 PM
  #187
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,537
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
How can anyone prove something that didn't actually happen?

We do know that Mario padded his offensive stats in those 16 games.

we also know that Feds had exactly (in something we can actually measure)
2 -5 point games
1-4 point game
5-3 point games to Mario's 16, (7,5 and 4 point games) and 13- 3 point games

So Feds wasn't padding his offensive stats in blowout games.

Reckoning's method also points to the same conclusion.
Oh, how about presenting the scores of Fedorov's multi-point games.


Quote:
Federov was the reigning Selke winner and did lead all Red wing forwards in plus minus, in spite of playing against the opponents top offensive players in a defensive role.
He wasn't the leader on the team though was he? Konstantinov beat him pretty handily with a +60. That defensive dynamo Kozlov was +33 heh.




Quote:
Well the Pens weren't always a power house when Mario played so it means teams make a powerhouse more than any single player but so what we already knew that.
Yes they were, .643 winning % with Mario and one of the most deadly PP's in the league, hell, in history. A PP Mario personally accounted for 72% of despite missing 12 games.
Don't let just a 105 point pace fool ya, that was hard to come by when one team wasn't guaranteed at least 2 points every single game.

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-18-2013, 10:17 PM
  #188
Morgoth Bauglir
Master Of The Fates
 
Morgoth Bauglir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Angband via Utumno
Posts: 3,700
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
In the NHL from 1993-94 through 1997-98 there were 26 teams. In the 70s, there were as many as 32 teams between the NHL and WHA; in 78-79 there were a total of 24 major pro teams - including the WHA's Indianapolis Racers, who folded 25 games into the season after selling off Wayne Gretzky to Edmonton and choosing not to keep Messier after a tryout. Messier was picked up by Cincinnati for the remainder of the season and then drafted by Edmonton post-merger.

So the 70s saw basically the same number of teams as the 90s. Few Europeans were in either the NHL or WHA. The WHA literally had just started as a league, and the NHL only had six teams with more than 3 years of history when the decade started. So let's do some math. 32-6=26. That's 26 brand new teams. Twenty-six expansion teams, effectively. Think about this for a second. The NHL added six teams (doubling in size). Then they added two more, then two more, then another two more, and then Cleveland and Minnesota merged. Every time they added two teams, the previous expansion teams had to give up players. And this was all within seven years. The 1967 expansion teams had to endure three rounds of expansion before they played their eighth season. 1970, 1972, and 1974 all saw two more teams added each.

As for the parity refrenced... the 1974-75 season is a good example.

Top three teamsW-L-TPts
Philadelphia Flyers51-18-11113
Buffalo Sabres49-16-15113
Montreal Canadiens47-14-19113
Bottom three teamsW-L-TPts
Minnesota North Stars23-50-753
Kansas City Scouts15-54-1141
Washington Capitals8-67-521
Problem: The WHA was filled with players who wouldn't have otherwise made NHL rosters hence the existence of the WHA was NOT watering down the NHL product.

Morgoth Bauglir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-18-2013, 10:28 PM
  #189
Morgoth Bauglir
Master Of The Fates
 
Morgoth Bauglir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Angband via Utumno
Posts: 3,700
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
Top three teamsW-L-TPts
Philadelphia Flyers51-18-11113
Buffalo Sabres49-16-15113
Montreal Canadiens47-14-19113
Bottom three teamsW-L-TPts
Minnesota North Stars23-50-753
Kansas City Scouts15-54-1141
Washington Capitals8-67-521
1995-96

Detroit Red Wings 62-13-7 131 points
Colorado Avalanche 47-25-10 104 points
Philadelphia Flyers 45-24-13 103 points

New York Islanders 22-50-10 54 points
San Jose Sharks 20-55-7 47 points
Ottawa Senators 18-59-5 41 points

You want to make some sort of statement because of ONE team (the Capitals)? Bear in mind that in 1992-93 the Sharks and the Senators BOTH pulled in a measly 24 points each.

Morgoth Bauglir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-18-2013, 10:49 PM
  #190
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,572
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
1995-96

Detroit Red Wings 62-13-7 131 points
Colorado Avalanche 47-25-10 104 points
Philadelphia Flyers 45-24-13 103 points

New York Islanders 22-50-10 54 points
San Jose Sharks 20-55-7 47 points
Ottawa Senators 18-59-5 41 points

You want to make some sort of statement because of ONE team (the Capitals)? Bear in mind that in 1992-93 the Sharks and the Senators BOTH pulled in a measly 24 points each.
And in 1992-93, the Senators were in their first year and the Sharks were in their second year. That's not exactly comparable.

Also, your "retort" still provides a much more balanced league. If you want to complain about the outlier Capitals, we can always take away the best and worst teams And use the second best and third best, and second worst and third worst.

Point totals for the top #2/#3 in 74-75: 226
Bottom #2/#3: 94

Top #2/#3 in 95-96: 207
Bottom #2/#3 in 95-96: 101

Top #2/#3 in 92-93: 215
Bottom #2/#3 in 92-93: 77

If you haven't already picked up on it, the top teams in the 70s were quite a bit ahead of the bottom teams. It's also noticeable in these seasons because the 70s were 80-game seasons, 92-93 was an 84-game season, and after the 94 lockout has been 82 game seasons. Yet the 74-75 season shows the highest 2/3 point total.

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-18-2013, 10:54 PM
  #191
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,572
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
Problem: The WHA was filled with players who wouldn't have otherwise made NHL rosters hence the existence of the WHA was NOT watering down the NHL product.
Players like Bobby Hull, Gordie Howe, Kent Nilsson, Anders Hedberg, Marc Tardif, Rejean Houle, Mark Howe, Gerry Cheevers, and Dave Keon?

The WHA was certainly weaker, but there were plenty of legitimate players. If the WHA never existed, and the NHL still expanded the way it did, the quality of play would have been much higher. Also, Bobby Hull would own LW scoring records and Bobby Orr would not be considered as dominant as he is.

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-18-2013, 10:55 PM
  #192
Morgoth Bauglir
Master Of The Fates
 
Morgoth Bauglir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Angband via Utumno
Posts: 3,700
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
And in 1992-93, the Senators were in their first year and the Sharks were in their second year. That's not exactly comparable.

Also, your "retort" still provides a much more balanced league. If you want to complain about the outlier Capitals, we can always take away the best and worst teams And use the second best and third best, and second worst and third worst.

Point totals for the top #2/#3 in 74-75: 226
Bottom #2/#3: 94

Top #2/#3 in 95-96: 207
Bottom #2/#3 in 95-96: 101

Top #2/#3 in 92-93: 215
Bottom #2/#3 in 92-93: 77

If you haven't already picked up on it, the top teams in the 70s were quite a bit ahead of the bottom teams. It's also noticeable in these seasons because the 70s were 80-game seasons, 92-93 was an 84-game season, and after the 94 lockout has been 82 game seasons. Yet the 74-75 season shows the highest 2/3 point total.
And it's pretty obvious by the records I posted from 95-96 that the top teams were quite a bit ahead of the bottom teams as well. Spin it all you like but you can find really good and really bad teams in practically every season before the cap. It doesn't matter if it's 1975, 1985, or 1995.

Morgoth Bauglir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-18-2013, 10:57 PM
  #193
Morgoth Bauglir
Master Of The Fates
 
Morgoth Bauglir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Angband via Utumno
Posts: 3,700
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
Players like Bobby Hull, Gordie Howe, Kent Nilsson, Anders Hedberg, Marc Tardif, Rejean Houle, Mark Howe, Gerry Cheevers, and Dave Keon?

The WHA was certainly weaker, but there were plenty of legitimate players. If the WHA never existed, and the NHL still expanded the way it did, the quality of play would have been much higher. Also, Bobby Hull would own LW scoring records and Bobby Orr would not be considered as dominant as he is.
And for every over-the-hill Gordie Howe and Bobby Hull you have one or two dozen scrubs filling out the WHA rosters. Sorry, but the WHA was to the NHL of the '70s what the AHL is to the NHL of today.

Morgoth Bauglir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-18-2013, 11:19 PM
  #194
Morgoth Bauglir
Master Of The Fates
 
Morgoth Bauglir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Angband via Utumno
Posts: 3,700
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
and Bobby Orr would not be considered as dominant as he is.
^^^^^ And THAT is just plain bovine excrement

Morgoth Bauglir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-18-2013, 11:23 PM
  #195
Hardyvan123
[email protected]
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
And for every over-the-hill Gordie Howe and Bobby Hull you have one or two dozen scrubs filling out the WHA rosters. Sorry, but the WHA was to the NHL of the '70s what the AHL is to the NHL of today.
So which one is it a ratio of 1:12 or 1:24? do you mean scrubs like Wayne, Mark Howe, Mike Rogers...ect?

The fact of the matter is that in every year of the existence of the WHA there were at least 40 to 50 guys with either prior or future NHL experience. the huge plus/minus ratio's experienced by guys in the early to mid 70's is further proof of the huge disparity between the have and have nots in the NHL.

Most reasonable people can see this when looking at the situation.

What exactly does any of this have to do with feds and Mario in 96 anyways?

It all stemmed from not addressing the 76 points in 16 games question addressed several times and unanswered but the "Mario was totally dominant all season" crowd.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-18-2013, 11:32 PM
  #196
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,572
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
What exactly does any of this have to do with feds and Mario in 96 anyways?
How did we get on to Fedorov, anyway?

Isn't the discussion supposed to be Jagr vs. Mario?

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-18-2013, 11:32 PM
  #197
Morgoth Bauglir
Master Of The Fates
 
Morgoth Bauglir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Angband via Utumno
Posts: 3,700
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
The fact of the matter is that in every year of the existence of the WHA there were at least 40 to 50 guys with either prior or future NHL experience.
Those were known as 'washed-up" in the case of the former and "not ready for the pros" in the case of the latter.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
What exactly does any of this have to do with feds and Mario in 96 anyways?
It has everything to do with the double standard you have regarding players on the stacked Red Wings teams of the '90s compared to players from the stacked Habs of the '70s.

And due to the following gratuitous claim you made >>>>>
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
SAs for the 70's Habs and 90's Detroit, most people would agree that the disparity between top and bottom or even the average team was greater in the 70's than in the 90's or most eras for that matter, mostly due to rapid expansion and the WHA.

Morgoth Bauglir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-18-2013, 11:49 PM
  #198
Hardyvan123
[email protected]
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
Those were known as 'washed-up" in the case of the former and "not ready for the pros" in the case of the latter.
well the fact of the matter that many washed up or not ready for the pros actually were quite good before they left for the WHA or were again quite good when they came to the NHL even if we use your lowest 1:12 ratio.




Quote:
It has everything to do with the double standard you have regarding players on the stacked Red Wings teams of the '90s compared to players from the stacked Habs of the '70s.
Double standard? Hardly but that's besides the point. more below.

Quote:
And due to the following gratuitous claim you made >>>>>
Well the NHL did indeed expand from 6-12 teams, with the 06 teams having quite a good deal in the expansion, then 10 14 team then 16 ect into the mid 70's along with the WHA with little or virtually non existent new streams from which to garner new talent.

In the 90's there were new streams of talent and the Red wings were one of the first and best teams to take advantage of scouting these players, it's pretty obvious to see.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-18-2013, 11:53 PM
  #199
Hardyvan123
[email protected]
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
How did we get on to Fedorov, anyway?

Isn't the discussion supposed to be Jagr vs. Mario?
The OP asked the question regarding if Jagr was better than Mario in 06 largely due to them being 1 and 2 in scoring. The OP never did talk about play but rather offensive stats both at ES and on the PP and in response the phrase "Mario was dominant that season" came about which is questionable if dominance means in totality as a player and not just in scoring (fantasy) terms.

It's pretty obvious that others, mainly Feds, has a legit argument for being the best player in the NHL in 96.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-19-2013, 12:24 PM
  #200
blogofmike
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,125
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Sure Reckoning and his metric isn't perfect but it goes alot further than simply comparing Mario's PPG to Jagr's or in this case Federov's.

also Mario has 76 points in 16 games with no carryover affect on any other games and 13 3 point games where he was a mere plus 5.

In a pure one dimensional sense Mario was dominant in 96 offensively but dominance should mean more than just one metric of the game right?
Even outside those 16 big games, Mario has 54 games at a 1.55 PPG level that's so high Feds never reached it. Why is it bad to produce at a level higher than 3rd place point scorer Joe Sakic, in his worst 54 games?

Take away Fedorov's best 16, and he's an even 1.00, a mark so low that Lemieux didn't reach it until he was 38.

# of X point games in 1995-96 Regular Season
7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
Lemieux 2 4 10 13 14 20 7
Fedorov 2 1 5 22 34 14

I can see taking away 1 or 2 games because they're outliers. But when he does it 16 times, and has a multi-point games far more often than not, maybe that's just the way he plays.

Quote:
4 games is a pretty small sample and it would be hard to draw too much of a conclusion from it.

We also have the 12 game sample in the games Mario missed 11 road games and most of them the 2nd game in 2 nights where the Pens went 5-5-2 which would be better than expected if the msot dominant player in the league were out of the lineup.
True, it is small. While Jagr was relatively strong without Lemieux, the Pens as a whole seemed to explode less often. They had 16 4-goals or-more games on the road with Mario in 31 games, and 2 in 11 without him.

Date Home/Away Opponent Result GF GA Opp Pts
6 Sat, Oct 21, 1995 Los Angeles Kings L OT 2 3 66
10 Fri, Nov 3, 1995 @ Buffalo Sabres T OT 3 3 73
14 Sat, Nov 11, 1995 @ Los Angeles Kings L 2 3 66
16 Fri, Nov 17, 1995 @ Washington Capitals W OT 3 2 89
37 Mon, Jan 1, 1996 @ Washington Capitals L 2 4 89
40 Sat, Jan 6, 1996 @ St. Louis Blues L 2 3 80
45 Wed, Jan 17, 1996 @ Buffalo Sabres W 1 0 73
53 Wed, Feb 7, 1996 @ New Jersey Devils T OT 1 1 86
56 Fri, Feb 16, 1996 @ Winnipeg Jets W 1 0 78
63 Fri, Mar 1, 1996 @ Edmonton Oilers W 5 4 68
72 Sun, Mar 24, 1996 @ New York Rangers W 8 2 96
76 Sun, Mar 31, 1996 @ Philadelphia Flyers L 1 4 103

Quote:
both things could and probably did happen, feds was 34 in that season and players do decline over time. It's hard to draw too many conclusions from the 20 point drop as he did change teams and his plus 5 for the ducks that year is pretty decent given the situation right?

I mean if you were to look at that Ducks lineup an Feds age going into the season a plus 5 for feds would have seemed pretty darn good to most people.

Heck even the plus 5 in 04 for Feds is decent stacked up to Mario's plus 10 in 96 if we really stop to think about it for what it is worth.
-5, not +5. Agree it's still good, no comment on the last sentence...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
I ahd a quick look at Mario's top scoring games in 96

7 points in a 10-0 win
7 points in a 8-4 win
5 points in a 9-1 win
5 points in a 9-4 win

At some point one has to realize that in the 16 games that Mario scored 76 points he was indeed dominant but none of the dominance in those 16 games spills over to help him or his team win any other single games.
Scoring the first 7 points in an 8-4 win seems like a big deal to me. It's not like he knew they's stop at 4 when the Pens made it 6-4, then 7-4.

Also, isn't having a lot of big games a good thing? Pittsburgh was 25-3-1 when Lemieux scored 3 or more points. That seems impactful.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
Problem: The WHA was filled with players who wouldn't have otherwise made NHL rosters hence the existence of the WHA was NOT watering down the NHL product.
It's not often that I disagree with you, but I believe the 1968-79 era was the most unbalanced time in hockey. A lot of those WHA players did make the NHL, though more to your point, the NHL had less interest in many of the Europeans that the WHA went after out of necessity.

Hull, the Howe family, Cheevers, and Keon are HHOFers were were still NHL calibre. Later names like Gretzky, Messier, Ramage, and Gartner were also diverted from the NHL stream.

While the 1990s were a gap between rich and poor, it wasn't so outlandish as when no E6 team had a winning record against any O6 team in 1970.

blogofmike 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 05:31 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2017 All Rights Reserved.