HFBoards RingPoints: A stupid, worthless stat I just made up. Who has the most?
 Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
 Notices Please do not post or solicit links to illegal game streams.

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

# RingPoints: A stupid, worthless stat I just made up. Who has the most?

 10-25-2013, 12:43 PM #1 66871 Registered User     Join Date: May 2009 Location: Maine Country: Posts: 1,864 vCash: 500 RingPoints: A stupid, worthless stat I just made up. Who has the most? You know, I was thinking about one of the 'complaints' you will hear about stars in most sports today -- that they don't have the number of championship rings that so-and-so had from back in the 50s. Obviously, it was 'easier' to win a cup in the O6 era when you just look at it in terms of probability. In a given year 16.67 percent of all players would win the cup (assuming static rosters). Today that percentage is down to 3.33. One way to level the playing field would be to calculate how many rings he won vs. the number of expected rings just based on pure chance. But a stat like that tends to punish longevity in the league. So then I was thinking that instead, you could give a guy a point for each team in the league the year he won a ring. So Gretzky would have 84 RingPoints. But this way seems to be harsh on guys who won it during the O6 era. After all, there is still something to be said for actually winning it. And it hardly seems right that a one-ring guy in today's NHL would automagically be comparable to a five-ring guy in the O6 era. So I think if such a stat was to be calculated, RingPoints should be assigned as the square root of the number of teams in the league (despite the obvious inclusion of decimals). So for instance, a one-ring guy in today's NHL would be roughly equivalent to a two-ring guy in the O6 era. Gretzky's four-rings would be roughly equivalent to a guy winning seven rings in the O6 era or a guy winning 3 rings in today's NHL. So my question is, given that metric, who is the all-time leader in this stupid stat. Is there nybody with a player database who can run a query on this? (If it helps, I can write some pseudoSQL for you -- though without knowing your DB structure it is likely to be of marginal use).
 10-25-2013, 02:26 PM #2 Big Phil Registered User     Join Date: Nov 2003 Country: Posts: 25,301 vCash: 500 I don't know, there are already a lot of stats that have grey areas to them that people try to implement (I still haven't figured out what "goals created" means). This one is filled with grey.
10-25-2013, 04:00 PM
#3
Registered User

Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,510
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Big Phil I don't know, there are already a lot of stats that have grey areas to them that people try to implement (I still haven't figured out what "goals created" means). This one is filled with grey.
Yes but it is already done by our mind with no good metric at all.

I mean everybody give more value to a cup in a high number of teams now than before (and player reaction when they win it changed a lot too).

Maybe if someone would find a good way (a good grey) to do it, would better than the all grey that we do in our mind now.

Everybody would consider a 11 times winner now more special than Henry Richard and at the very least, not winning 1 cup for a great player (say ovechkin win 0 cup) would be less a big thing then a 16 season player not winning it in a 6 team league.

So many team "should" have won the cup post-lockout (Sharks, Cap, Pens, Wings, Senators, Hawks, Bruins etc....) that we have no choice to give a pass at some point, because they are more should have win at least a cup with that team that you have actual year's to win it.

(I.e. you cannot say, the pens must win the cups for giving stuff for Iggy and say the same thing about the Bruins and Jagr without asking for the impossible to happen).

In the 06, the playoff were what 2 rounds, and a tournament having 66% of the best team ? So maybe you could compare winning two playoff rounds now with a stanley cup then ? but in the 06 to win the cup you had to beat the second best team of a 6 team league, so it was better than a conference finals, were you can get there without beating any of top4-5 teams of a 30 team league.

If the best player's on this metric goes with the best player from then (around 8-9-10 cups) maybe this would be a good metric ? (or start from the answer, what metric to use to give the isl's, oiler's player's that same amount of cup than the great winner of the 06?)

Last edited by MadLuke: 10-25-2013 at 04:31 PM.

10-25-2013, 05:18 PM
#4
Big Phil
Registered User

Join Date: Nov 2003
Country:
Posts: 25,301
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by MadLuke Yes but it is already done by our mind with no good metric at all. I mean everybody give more value to a cup in a high number of teams now than before (and player reaction when they win it changed a lot too). Maybe if someone would find a good way (a good grey) to do it, would better than the all grey that we do in our mind now. Everybody would consider a 11 times winner now more special than Henry Richard and at the very least, not winning 1 cup for a great player (say ovechkin win 0 cup) would be less a big thing then a 16 season player not winning it in a 6 team league. So many team "should" have won the cup post-lockout (Sharks, Cap, Pens, Wings, Senators, Hawks, Bruins etc....) that we have no choice to give a pass at some point, because they are more should have win at least a cup with that team that you have actual year's to win it. (I.e. you cannot say, the pens must win the cups for giving stuff for Iggy and say the same thing about the Bruins and Jagr without asking for the impossible to happen). In the 06, the playoff were what 2 rounds, and a tournament having 66% of the best team ? So maybe you could compare winning two playoff rounds now with a stanley cup then ? but in the 06 to win the cup you had to beat the second best team of a 6 team league, so it was better than a conference finals, were you can get there without beating any of top4-5 teams of a 30 team league. If the best player's on this metric goes with the best player from then (around 8-9-10 cups) maybe this would be a good metric ? (or start from the answer, what metric to use to give the isl's, oiler's player's that same amount of cup than the great winner of the 06?)
Oh I agree with you to an extent. I think 11 Cups today is more special than Henri's which 7 of them happened in a 6 team league. But it is still unique because 11 never happened then either.

However the flaw is that you are just Cup counting with this type of method. Kevin Lowe would have a higher number than Denis Potvin with this method wouldn't he? (If I am looking at it right)

10-25-2013, 05:29 PM
#5
Hardyvan123
[email protected]

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country:
Posts: 17,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Big Phil Oh I agree with you to an extent. I think 11 Cups today is more special than Henri's which 7 of them happened in a 6 team league. But it is still unique because 11 never happened then either. However the flaw is that you are just Cup counting with this type of method. Kevin Lowe would have a higher number than Denis Potvin with this method wouldn't he? (If I am looking at it right)
The Lowe to Potvin comp is important, one needs to place some kind of value on any player to his team in winning a SC. It's one thing to be simply a point producer on a SC winning team or a 6 time winner, like Glenn Anderson or were they really good players on those winning teams, ie Wayne being the 31 or 2 guy on his teams.

The "importance" metric would obviously be quite subjective.

Forum Jump

 Bookmarks