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.

Round 2, Vote 2 (HOH Top Centers)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-06-2013, 03:00 PM
  #176
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 13,323
vCash: 500
Mikita vs Detroit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkey Town 18 View Post
Do you also have the numbers for Mikita against delvecchio and ullman to complete the analysis?
Yes, Stan Mikita 20-7-12-19.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2013, 03:08 PM
  #177
Hawkey Town 18
Moderator
 
Hawkey Town 18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 5,349
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Yes, Stan Mikita 20-7-12-19.
Thank you

Hawkey Town 18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2013, 03:11 PM
  #178
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,558
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...&postcount=143


Gee, after all that research on Messier's longevity prior to joining the Canucks in response to the Trottier's/Clarke's last years vs. Messier's last years argument, I was at least hoping to hear someone tell me to take off the Rangers jersey and that I wasn't persuasive.
Really the onlt thing bigger and more likely to pump up the Moose would be his ego.

I hate him as a player, it's a bias I still carry over from him chopping down my Gradin when I was a kid, but he has to be a lock for top 4 here right?

His only real weakness in this group is that others have better offensive peaks.

Similar guys are Clarke and Nighbor but does anyone have them as being better than Moose?

If so why?

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2013, 03:28 PM
  #179
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 13,323
vCash: 500
Compelling

Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...&postcount=143


Gee, after all that research on Messier's longevity prior to joining the Canucks in response to the Trottier's/Clarke's last years vs. Messier's last years argument, I was at least hoping to hear someone tell me to take off the Rangers jersey and that I wasn't persuasive.
Persuasive perhaps but not compelling.

Specifically Messier's leadership stems from his role with the Oilers defeating the championship Islanders in 1984. 1990 and 1994 the SC wins were against hopefuls not champions or former champions.

Contrast to Jean Beliveau and Henri Richard in 1956, 1965, 1971 eliminating reigning SC champions en route to winning SCs

Perhaps a slight playoff edge to Messier over Clarke, Trottier, Yzerman, Esposito, Sakic, Mikita but these players' regular season performances tend to equal if not surpass Messier.

Internationally, nice to have, preferable to Steve Yzerman, better than Mikita, short of Esposito, Sakic, Clarke unless 1972 is heavily penalized.


Last edited by Canadiens1958: 11-06-2013 at 03:37 PM.
Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2013, 03:44 PM
  #180
quoipourquoi
Moderator
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 5,103
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Specifically Messier's leadership stems from his role with the Oilers defeating the championship Islanders in 1984. 1990 and 1994 the SC wins were against hopefuls not champions or former champions.

Contrast to Jean Beliveau and Henri Richard in 1956, 1965, 1971 eliminating reigning SC champions en route to winning SCs
Well, when you play in a six-team league, aren't you more likely to run into a former champion in the Finals than you are in a 21/26-team league? The difference, of course, being that the Finalist in the 21/26-team league has already won three rounds compared to the Finalist in the six-team league having only won one? I'm not sure that playing against "hopefuls" who are hot enough to have won three rounds is necessarily less impressive...

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2013, 03:49 PM
  #181
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 13,323
vCash: 500
1971

Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
Well, when you play in a six-team league, aren't you more likely to run into a former champion in the Finals than you are in a 21/26-team league? The difference, of course, being that the Finalist in the 21/26-team league has already won three rounds compared to the Finalist in the six-team league having only won one? I'm not sure that playing against "hopefuls" who are hot enough to have won three rounds is necessarily less impressive...
1971 was a 14 team league, three rounds. Beating the SC champions in any round is sufficient.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2013, 04:36 PM
  #182
quoipourquoi
Moderator
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 5,103
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
1971 was a 14 team league, three rounds. Beating the SC champions in any round is sufficient.
I don't think that one season (Beliveau's last - who if I am not mistaken, was already named the third center on the list) changes my point as to why it's a silly complaint.

Given the format of the league from the Original Six, how many teams didn't face a recent champion in any round? The 1953, 1957, 1959, and 1960 Montreal Canadiens seem to be the only ones. They were playing 33% of the league in the playoffs. In most seasons, unless a team drew both Chicago and New York, they were probably playing a recent champion.

You're basically arguing that everyone in the Original Six must have been a better leader because 80-90% of them had to face a champion.

When the Oilers dynasty began, the past eight Stanley Cup champions were either New York or Montreal. Before that Philadelphia. They beat New York. They beat Philadelphia in 1985 (but you don't count them because they were too far removed from their Stanley Cup days). What exactly are their options if no other Stanley Cup champions existed - especially not in the Western Conference? Are they supposed to beat themselves in order to fit into your ridiculous requirements for demonstrating leadership?

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2013, 04:39 PM
  #183
Hawkey Town 18
Moderator
 
Hawkey Town 18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 5,349
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
1971 was a 14 team league, three rounds. Beating the SC champions in any round is sufficient.
Either way, the more teams and rounds the less likely you are to get a shot at a former champion. You can't really knock someone for not succeeding at an opportunity they never had.

Also, aren't there other aspects of leadership to consider?...

Maintaining a high standard after losing key pieces (Messier after Gretzky left, Sakic in 01 with Forsberg out injured, Beliveau and Richard losing players from both the 50's and 60's teams and winning later, to a lesser extent Mikita making it to the 73 Finals after Hull leaves)

Another would be bringing a championship culture to a new team (Messier - Edmonton to New York, Nighbor - Vancouver to Ottawa, Gretzky and Esposito came up short with trips to the Finals) This one is something many players simply never had a chance to do because they always remained with the same franchise.

Hawkey Town 18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2013, 05:24 PM
  #184
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 13,323
vCash: 500
Champions

Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
I don't think that one season (Beliveau's last - who if I am not mistaken, was already named the third center on the list) changes my point as to why it's a silly complaint.

Given the format of the league from the Original Six, how many teams didn't face a recent champion in any round? The 1953, 1957, 1959, and 1960 Montreal Canadiens seem to be the only ones. They were playing 33% of the league in the playoffs. In most seasons, unless a team drew both Chicago and New York, they were probably playing a recent champion.

You're basically arguing that everyone in the Original Six must have been a better leader because 80-90% of them had to face a champion.

When the Oilers dynasty began, the past eight Stanley Cup champions were either New York or Montreal. Before that Philadelphia. They beat New York. They beat Philadelphia in 1985 (but you don't count them because they were too far removed from their Stanley Cup days). What exactly are their options if no other Stanley Cup champions existed - especially not in the Western Conference? Are they supposed to beat themselves in order to fit into your ridiculous requirements for demonstrating leadership?

To be a champion it is more impressive to beat the champion. To remain a champion you have to beat everyone.

Championship teams are defined by who they beat. 1984 Oilers have often commented about learning to win from their 1983 loss to the Islanders. What did the 1990 Oilers or 1994 Rangers learn from winning the SC? Nice wins but like the 1953 Canadiens, weaknesses were masked and the team was not ready to defend the championship.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2013, 05:45 PM
  #185
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 10,667
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
Because they are so far ahead of everybody else offensively that it outweighs their relative lack of defensive contributions. This offense/defense balance is somewhat played out not only in how we weigh their careers in this project, but also in where they expended effort during their actual playing days. Both men were so offensively talented that it was generally not the best use of their energy to hustle a lot on defense.

Gretzky, specifically, could play both ways when he really wanted to, and was actually quite good at reading plays, getting his stick into passing lanes, etc. on defense when so inclined, as he often was in the playoffs. But most of the time he glided on defense, like many of those Oilers, because it simply wasn't the best use of his finite energy. Mario, I dunno. I'm not sure I ever saw him backcheck. It is also of course the case that the best defense is a good offense, and the offensive players who are able to drive possession for long periods of time at even strength are playing a form of de facto defense by not letting the other team have the puck. It's an effect that's difficult to quantify, but it's there. Again, this applies moreso to Gretzky than to Lemieux, who was, relatively speaking, more of a powerplay specialist.

But then again, I'm one of those people who thinks that Mario is somewhat overrated due to being "spectacular". I still rated him second, though I had to think a lot about whether I wanted to put Beliveau there. In retrospect, I probably should have had Beliveau second, although playing lots of defense was also not really his role, either (though he clearly could do it).

If I rephrased it as "I'm not sure why we should weigh goals scored more than goals prevented", would it make more sense to you?
Yes, that is better.

I realize Gretzky & Lemieux are a weird paradox in that they may be the worst defensive centers ever only because you would have to be so great offensively to be able to be playing in NHL with that kind of defense for a center. Neither were good on faceoffs either. I just think a lot of fans don't realize they were both incomparable on more than just the obvious level.

As for the players currently being ranked, I still see offense as the bigger factor in ranking them. Defense next, just above leadership and presence.

Dennis Bonvie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2013, 05:46 PM
  #186
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 13,323
vCash: 500
Opportunity

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkey Town 18 View Post
Either way, the more teams and rounds the less likely you are to get a shot at a former champion. You can't really knock someone for not succeeding at an opportunity they never had.

Also, aren't there other aspects of leadership to consider?...

Maintaining a high standard after losing key pieces (Messier after Gretzky left, Sakic in 01 with Forsberg out injured, Beliveau and Richard losing players from both the 50's and 60's teams and winning later, to a lesser extent Mikita making it to the 73 Finals after Hull leaves)

Another would be bringing a championship culture to a new team (Messier - Edmonton to New York, Nighbor - Vancouver to Ottawa, Gretzky and Esposito came up short with trips to the Finals) This one is something many players simply never had a chance to do because they always remained with the same franchise.
Question of recognizing the difficulty of opportunities. Your point reduces to "not all opportunities are equal". I just recognized this fact.

So if you recognize Sakic for his leadership when Forsberg was injured in 2001 then it is reasonable to recognize a Henri Richard for leadership when Beliveau and Maurice Richard were injured in the 1959 playoffs while Harvey played injured.

Vancouver - 1915, Taylor played for the 1909 Ottawa SC champiosns and Nighbor later integrated the same Ottawa culture.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2013, 05:48 PM
  #187
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 10,667
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
To be a champion it is more impressive to beat the champion. To remain a champion you have to beat everyone.

Championship teams are defined by who they beat. 1984 Oilers have often commented about learning to win from their 1983 loss to the Islanders. What did the 1990 Oilers or 1994 Rangers learn from winning the SC? Nice wins but like the 1953 Canadiens, weaknesses were masked and the team was not ready to defend the championship.
All good points about teams.

Not sure it has anything to do with individuals comparative leadership.

Dennis Bonvie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2013, 06:01 PM
  #188
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 13,323
vCash: 500
Teams

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Bonvie View Post
All good points about teams.

Not sure it has anything to do with individuals comparative leadership.
Teams are collections of individuals. Some individuals lead, most follow.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2013, 06:05 PM
  #189
Hawkey Town 18
Moderator
 
Hawkey Town 18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 5,349
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Question of recognizing the difficulty of opportunities. Your point reduces to "not all opportunities are equal". I just recognized this fact.

So if you recognize Sakic for his leadership when Forsberg was injured in 2001 then it is reasonable to recognize a Henri Richard for leadership when Beliveau and Maurice Richard were injured in the 1959 playoffs while Harvey played injured.

Vancouver - 1915, Taylor played for the 1909 Ottawa SC champiosns and Nighbor later integrated the same Ottawa culture.
Yes, and I had Richard ranked fairly highly on my Round 1 list (top 20), but he is not up for discussion yet. Let's try to stick to making cases for/against the players that are eligible this round.

Hawkey Town 18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2013, 06:06 PM
  #190
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 26,891
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
I don't think that one season (Beliveau's last - who if I am not mistaken, was already named the third center on the list) changes my point as to why it's a silly complaint.

Given the format of the league from the Original Six, how many teams didn't face a recent champion in any round? The 1953, 1957, 1959, and 1960 Montreal Canadiens seem to be the only ones. They were playing 33% of the league in the playoffs. In most seasons, unless a team drew both Chicago and New York, they were probably playing a recent champion.

You're basically arguing that everyone in the Original Six must have been a better leader because 80-90% of them had to face a champion.

When the Oilers dynasty began, the past eight Stanley Cup champions were either New York or Montreal. Before that Philadelphia. They beat New York. They beat Philadelphia in 1985 (but you don't count them because they were too far removed from their Stanley Cup days). What exactly are their options if no other Stanley Cup champions existed - especially not in the Western Conference? Are they supposed to beat themselves in order to fit into your ridiculous requirements for demonstrating leadership?
Very fair point, it must be said.

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2013, 06:09 PM
  #191
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 10,667
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Teams are collections of individuals. Some individuals lead, most follow.
True, but doesn't address the question.

Dennis Bonvie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2013, 07:01 PM
  #192
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 13,323
vCash: 500
Question.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Bonvie View Post
True, but doesn't address the question.
No question was phrased. Comes down to recognizing the type, extent and quality of leadership amongst the players, the ability to integrate and mature with a team or in a league.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2013, 07:23 PM
  #193
Hawkey Town 18
Moderator
 
Hawkey Town 18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 5,349
vCash: 500
Longevity As An Impact Offensive Player

In an attempt to get a grasp on the longevity of the eligible candidates I have looked at their vs.#2 scores, and made a table that shows the range of years between their earliest score of 80% and latest score of 80%. The last column shows how many of those years they actually scored 80% or better.

For example: Mark Messier's earliest score of 80% was in 1983 and his latest in 1997, which is a range of 15 years; however, he only hit the 80% mark in 9 of those years.

I have done the exact same thing with a score of 70%.

The first 2 tables will show all eligible candidates this round (excluding Nighbor, Taylor, and Lalonde). The tables that follow will show comparable players whose careers started within a few years of the eligible candidates. This is to try to give some perspective on how each player's longevity compares to his own generation.

Notes Before Reading Tables
- This only measures regular season offensive performance and in no way measures defensive performance or playoffs.
- Vs#2 benchmarks have been changed in some years to account for offensive anomalies (Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr) and their affect on teammates.
- Please use this information as a way to get a GENERAL idea about a player's longevity, not to make tight rankings about players with close numbers...This system is not precise enough for that.

Player Earliest >80 Latest >80 Range Seasons >80
Sakic 1990 2007 18 13
Messier 1983 1997 15 9
Yzerman 1987 2000 14 10
Mikita 1962 1974 13 12
Trottier 1976 1987 12 7
Esposito 1968 1975 8 8
Clarke 1973 1976 4 4

Player Earliest >70 Latest >70 Range Seasons >70
Messier 1983 2001 19 12
Sakic 1990 2007 18 15
Yzerman 1984 2000 17 14
Mikita 1962 1975 14 13
Clarke 1971 1983 13 9
Trottier 1976 1987 12 10
Esposito 1967 1976 10 10


Player Earliest >80 Latest >80 Range Seasons >80
Mahovlich 1961 1974 14 8
Mikita 1962 1974 13 12
Hull* 1960 1972 13 11
Ullman 1965 1974 10 6
Ratelle 1968 1976 9 6
Esposito 1968 1975 8 8
Gilbert 1968 1975 8 5

Player Earliest >70 Latest >70 Range Seasons >70
Ullman 1960 1974 15 11
Mikita 1962 1975 14 13
Mahovlich 1961 1974 14 10
Hull* 1960 1972 13 12
Gilbert 1964 1976 13 10
Esposito 1967 1976 10 10
Ratelle 1968 1977 10 10
*Hull left NHL year after latest


Player Earliest >80 Latest >80 Range Seasons >80
Dionne 1973 1987 15 11
Trottier 1976 1987 12 7
Perreault 1971 1980 10 5
Bossy 1979 1986 8 7
Lafleur 1975 1980 6 6
Sittler 1974 1978 5 3
Clarke 1973 1976 4 4
Federko 1984 1986 3 3

Player Earliest >70 Latest >70 Range Seasons >70
Dionne 1973 1987 15 15
Perreault 1971 1984 14 9
Clarke 1971 1983 13 9
Trottier 1976 1987 12 10
Bossy 1978 1987 10 10
Sittler 1973 1981 9 7
Federko 1979 1986 8 7
Lafleur 1975 1980 6 6


Player Earliest >80 Latest >80 Range Seasons >80
Gretzky 1980 1998 19 17
Lemieux 1986 2003 18 10
Francis 1987 2002 16 8
Messier 1983 1997 15 9
Yzerman 1987 2000 14 10
Oates 1990 2002 13 10
Gilmour 1987 1997 11 5
Hawerchuk 1984 1992 9 7
Stastny* 1981 1988 8 6
Savard 1982 1988 7 6
Kurri 1983 1989 7 6

Player Earliest >70 Latest >70 Range Seasons >70
Francis 1983 2002 20 14
Gretzky 1980 1998 19 17
Messier 1983 2001 19 12
Lemieux 1986 2003 18 12
Yzerman 1984 2000 17 14
Oates 1989 2002 14 13
Gilmour 1987 2000 14 10
Hawerchuk 1982 1993 12 11
Stastny* 1981 1989 9 9
Savard 1982 1989 8 8
Kurri 1983 1990 8 8
*Stastny year before earliest stuck behind iron curtain


Player Earliest >80 Latest >80 Range Seasons >80
Selanne 1993 2011 19 9
Sakic 1990 2007 18 13
Jagr* 1994 2007 14 12
Recchi 1991 2004 14 9
Turgeon 1989 2001 13 8
Sundin 1993 2004 12 5
Fedorov 1992 2003 12 4
Modano 1994 2003 10 6
Roenick 1991 2000 10 4
Lindros 1994 2002 9 6
Forsberg 1996 2003 8 6

Player Earliest >70 Latest >70 Range Seasons >70
Selanne 1993 2011 19 10
Sakic 1990 2007 18 15
Sundin 1992 2008 17 13
Modano 1992 2006 15 10
Jagr* 1994 2007 14 13
Recchi 1991 2004 14 10
Fedorov 1992 2004 13 8
Turgeon 1989 2001 13 10
Roenick 1991 2002 12 8
Forsberg 1995 2006 12 8
Lindros 1994 2002 9 7
*Jagr left NHL year after latest


Last edited by Hawkey Town 18: 11-06-2013 at 10:42 PM.
Hawkey Town 18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2013, 08:15 PM
  #194
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 26,891
vCash: 500
Very interesting, and appreciate the work that went into all that. This is going to sound annoying, but hear me out... what does it look like for >90%? I know it's just 10% the other way, but for pre-expansion years there were only about 100 forwards in the league, so top 10% very, VERY loosely aligns with being "top 10", so to speak. I know the number of forwards is double in, say, 1968, but the >90% limit might present an interesting, maybe even similar, picture nonetheless.

Obviously I'm particularly interested in how the 50s/60/70s guys "measure up" against each other.

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2013, 08:46 PM
  #195
Hawkey Town 18
Moderator
 
Hawkey Town 18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 5,349
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
Very interesting, and appreciate the work that went into all that. This is going to sound annoying, but hear me out... what does it look like for >90%? I know it's just 10% the other way, but for pre-expansion years there were only about 100 forwards in the league, so top 10% very, VERY loosely aligns with being "top 10", so to speak. I know the number of forwards is double in, say, 1968, but the >90% limit might present an interesting, maybe even similar, picture nonetheless.

Obviously I'm particularly interested in how the 50s/60/70s guys "measure up" against each other.
It's not percentage of all players...it's percentage of the #2 scorer. So if the #2 scorer gets 100 pts you would have to get 80pts to qualify.

Hawkey Town 18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2013, 09:42 PM
  #196
quoipourquoi
Moderator
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 5,103
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkey Town 18 View Post
It's not percentage of all players...it's percentage of the #2 scorer. So if the #2 scorer gets 100 pts you would have to get 80pts to qualify.
So Mark Messier's 10th place scoring finish in 1994-95 misses the cut by three points while Bryan Trottier's 14th place scoring finish in 1986-87 makes the cut by one point? And somehow Sakic's 10th place scoring finish in 1989-90 makes the cut in the >80 chart despite actually being 79% of 2nd place's 129 points? Or is Gretzky out of the equation entirely, allowing him to sneak in by a fraction of a point on 3rd place's 127 points?

And what about Mikita? Somehow he only misses one season in his range: Is it 1971 (51.8%) or 1972 (55.5%)? Why does 1973 count, when he's marginally under 80% of 104 points as the 17th scorer? Same in 1974 when he's a good 17 points under 80% of 2nd place's 122 points as the 13th scorer? Bobby Orr becomes an exception in an offensive category? Is Bobby Orr really more of an offensive exception than Jaromir Jagr?

I feel like the chart doesn't tell enough of the story to not be misused with assigning binary good/bad labels to seasons - and you're not even telling us which seasons they are. It looks like Messier is getting boned because Jagr and Lindros shared a scoring title, making the 2nd place scoring finish the same as the high-water mark. I mean, is anyone else losing a top-ten scoring finish on the >80 chart? Because it sure looks like Mikita is gaining years where he was far beyond the top-ten.

Good in theory, but your subjective execution of where to set the 2nd place scorer is leaving me wanting more.

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2013, 09:51 PM
  #197
TheDevilMadeMe
Mod Supervisor
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,402
vCash: 500
I think that if you're going to start removing Gretzky, Lemieux, and Orr from these things to equalize the competition, you have to start removing all Europeans, as well.

Or you could make the "outliers" mathematically based (if anyone in the top 5 scorers has more than 10% more points than the next scorer, etc).

Either way, Messier is someone hurt by seasonal metrics, as he routinely missed about 10 games per season during his prime (and usually no more, which is how he got to so many total games played), while rarely missing games in the playoffs.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2013, 09:58 PM
  #198
quoipourquoi
Moderator
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 5,103
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I think that if you're going to start removing Gretzky, Lemieux, and Orr from these things to equalize the competition, you have to start removing all Europeans, as well.

Or you could make the "outliers" mathematically based (if anyone in the top 5 scorers has more than 10% more points than the next scorer, etc).

Either way, Messier is someone hurt by seasonal metrics, as he routinely missed about 10 games per season during his prime (and usually no more, which is how he got to so many total games played), while rarely missing games in the playoffs.
Which is why when you look at seasons in which the players were top-ten in either points or points-per-game, only Joe Sakic has more seasons than Messier's ten (with Mikita and Esposito having ten as well).

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2013, 10:01 PM
  #199
TheDevilMadeMe
Mod Supervisor
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,402
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
Which is why when you look at seasons in which the players were top-ten in either points or points-per-game, only Joe Sakic has more seasons than Messier's ten (with Mikita and Esposito having ten as well).
It's amazing how good Sakic looks, no matter what metric you use, right? When I started my Round 1 list, I was not expecting Sakic's resume to stand out nearly as much as it does.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2013, 10:08 PM
  #200
quoipourquoi
Moderator
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 5,103
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
It's amazing how good Sakic looks, no matter what metric you use, right? When I started my Round 1 list, I was not expecting Sakic's resume to stand out nearly as much as it does.
The only problem I have with Sakic is the 1999 and 2000 playoffs, and that's only because we're comparing him to some of the absolute best Centers in history. Beyond that, the guy was consistently reliable. Possible top-four this round?

quoipourquoi 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 04:48 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2016 All Rights Reserved.