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.

Ogopogo's Greatest Goal Scorers - Updated for '05 - '06

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-22-2006, 10:55 AM
  #1
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,951
vCash: 500
Ogopogo's Greatest Goal Scorers - Updated for '05 - '06

I have bolded the players who have moved up based on this regular season.

Of note, Ilya Kovalchuk made a significant jump, Jonathan Cheechoo made a big move and Alexander Ovechkin joins the list as a rookie.

Enjoy.

Greatest Goal Scorers

1 Gordie Howe
2 Bobby Hull
3 Maurice Richard
4 Phil Esposito
5 Wayne Gretzky
6 Mike Bossy
7 Cy Denneny
8 Cecil Dye
9 Nels Stewart
10 Mario Lemieux
11 Howie Morenz
12 Jean Beliveau
13 Charlie Conacher
14 Brett Hull
15 Roy Conacher
16 Jaromir Jagr
Bill Cook
Frank Mahovlich
19 Ted Lindsay
20 Pavel Bure
Stan Mikita
22 Guy Lafleur
23 Bernie Geoffrion
Marcel Dionne
25 Teemu Selanne
26 Bryan Hextall
27 Peter Bondra
28 Gordie Drillon
Joe Malone
30 Newsy Lalonde
31 Steve Yzerman
32 Jari Kurri
33 Harvey Jackson
34 Aurel Joliat
35 Dickie Moore
36 Camille Henry
Michel Goulet
38 Norm Ullman
Tim Kerr
40 Cecil Dillon
41 Marty Barry
Doug Bentley
43 David Schriner
44 Andy Bathgate
John LeClair
46 Jarome Iginla
Hector Blake
48 Herb Cain
Lanny McDonald
50 Rick Martin
51 Alexander Mogilny
52 Odie Cleghorn
53 Joe Sakic
Billy Burch
Max Bentley
Sid Abel
57 Steve Shutt
Reg Noble
Ken Hodge
Ed Litzenberger
61 Ilya Kovalchuk
Gaye Stewart
63 Sid Smith
Frank Nighbor
Carson Cooper
Mickey Redmond
Charlie Simmer
Lynn Patrick
69 Luc Robitaille
70 Ken Wharram
Bill Boucher
72 Ralph Weiland
Bill Mosienko
Owen Nolan
Keith Tkachuk
Tony Amonte
Wally Hergesheimer
78 Markus Naslund
79 Cam Neely
Robert Hamill
Syl Apps
82 Rick MacLeish
Bronco Horvath
Tod Sloan
Lorne Carr
86 Glenn Anderson
Danny Gare
88 Reggie Leach
89 Aubrey Clapper
Ace Bailey
Jack Adams
Ted Kennedy
Claude Provost
Blaine Stoughton
Glen Murray
96 Milan Hejduk
97 Johnny Bucyk
Elmer Lach
Syd Howe
Corb Denneny
101 Jonathan Cheechoo
Garry Unger
Clint Smith
Harry Broadbent
Dino Ciccarelli
106 Paul Thompson
Joe Nieuwendyk
Yvan Cournoyer
109 Rick Vaive
Bill Thoms
Larry Aurie
Bobby Bauer
113 Theoren Fleury
Joe Benoit
115 Milt Schmidt
116 Bryan Trottier
Georges Mantha
Craig Simpson
Bernie Nicholls
Pat Lafontaine
Ray Sheppard
Kevin Stevens
Zigmund Palffy
Marian Hossa
Rick Nash
126 Alex Shibicky
127 Harry Oliver
Jimmy Carson
Brendan Shanahan
Vic Hadfield
Alex Delvecchio
Woody Dumart
133 Pierre Larouche
134 Dany Heatley
Todd Bertuzzi
Bill Guerin
Mats Sundin
Alexei Yashin
Sergei Fedorov
Dennis Maruk
Bill Goldsworthy
Jean Ratelle
Carl Liscombe
Melville Keeling
Jimmy Herberts
146 Alexander Ovechkin
Didier Pitre
Jeremy Roenick
Gary Roberts
Brian Bellows
Jean Pronovost
Jim Conacher
Harry Watson
154 Lawrence Northcott
155 Paul Kariya
Alexei Zhamnov
Dave Andreychuk
Guy Chouinard
Danny Grant
Jacques Lemaire
Rod Gilbert
Dean Prentice
Metro Prystai
Dave Trottier
Reginald Smith
Frank Boucher
167 Patrik Elias
Martin St. Louis
John Ogrodnick
Rick Kehoe
Andy Hebenton
Bruce MacGregor
Frederick Cook
174 Johnny Pierson
175 Dennis Hull
176 Jack Darragh
Harry Cameron
George Hay
Ebbie Goodfellow
Hec Kilrea
John Sorrell
Modere Bruneteau
Fleming Mackell
Real Chevrefils
Henri Richard
Gilles Tremblay
Parker MacDonald
Wayne Connelly
Joe Mullen
Alexei Kovalev
Mike Gartner
Bill Flett
193 Bill Barber
Gilbert Perreault
195 Frank Finnigan
Neil Colville
Don Grosso
Bobby Rousseau
Danny Lewicki
200 Brian Gionta
Lowell McDonald
Bobby Orr
Wilf Paiement
Darryl Sittler
Wayne Babych
Al Secord
Don McKenny
Adam Graves
George Boucher
Dick Irvin
Frank Fredrickson
Bill Cowley
Mickey Roach
214 Alf Skinner
Amos Arbour
George Prodgers
Joe Lamb
Johnny Gagnon
Joe Carveth
Johnny Wilson
Jim McFadden
Dave Keon
Dave Taylor
Stephane Richer
Pierre Turgeon
226 Eric Lindros
227 Simon Gagne
Carol Wilson
Red Green
Bill Carson
Art Gagne
Billy Taylor
Earl Reibel
Vic Stasiuk
Ralph Backstrom
Ron Ellis
Jim Pappin
Jacques Richard
Dale Hawerchuk
Rick Middleton
Hakan Loob
242 Eddie Burke
Tony Leswick
Howie Meeker
245 Herbie Lewis
Bud Poile
Gerry Couture
Cal Gardner
Ken Mosdell
Red Berenson
Mike Bullard
Bobby Carpenter
Paul Coffey
Rob Brown
Gary Leeman
Eric Daze
257 Billy Reay
Grant Warwick
Bob Nevin
Peter McNab
Miroslav Satan
Jeff O'Neill
263 Doug Mohns
Tomas Sandstrom
John MacLean

Ogopogo* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-22-2006, 12:46 PM
  #2
revolverjgw
Registered User
 
revolverjgw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,483
vCash: 500
Nice job, always interesting. Just wondering, can current players move back down the list if they have a bad season?

Edit- fixd teh typoz


Last edited by revolverjgw: 04-22-2006 at 04:19 PM.
revolverjgw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-22-2006, 12:51 PM
  #3
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,951
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by revolverjgw
Nice job, always interesting. Just wondering, can a current players can move back down the list if they have a bad season?
Excellent question.

Actually, no. Think of it like the NHL scoring race - the points you have earned are permanent, nobody can take them away.

The only way to move down the list is by having other players pass you.

Ogopogo* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-22-2006, 04:11 PM
  #4
revolverjgw
Registered User
 
revolverjgw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,483
vCash: 500
Quote:
Nice job, always interesting. Just wondering, can a current players can move back down the list if they have a bad season?
Urgh, what a deformed sentence. Oh well, you know what I meant.

I was wondering because Jonathan Cheechoo's name sort of jumped out at me and I was thinking ''jeez, this guy scored a grand total of 30-something goals in his first two years, has one star-powered year and he's already pretty much top 100 all-time with TONS of time to move up the list even more... what if he's a one year wonder? A one year wonder in the top 100?''. After thinking about though, it doesn't seem TOO farfetched to me, his name just kind of took me by surprise. The list of goal scoring champs is still a really exclusive one. He deserves massive kudos for it, and I guess if he comes back down to earth, he won't move up the list too much, you can't be THAT controversial if you're down around 90-100. And if he's legit, then... well, he's legit and he'll earn his rise.

revolverjgw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-22-2006, 04:44 PM
  #5
Heat McManus
Registered User
 
Heat McManus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Alexandria, VA
Country: United States
Posts: 10,407
vCash: 500
If the 20th greatest goal scorer in NHL history doesn't deserve to be in the HHOF, I don't know who does.

Heat McManus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-22-2006, 06:27 PM
  #6
kruezer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 6,303
vCash: 500
Excellent job as always. I know you've explained it before, but how do you come up with these lists? Is it just adjusted career goals? Is their any evening out of games played?

Also, man, Bill Barber gets killed on this list, five 40+ goal seasons and he's 193rd?

kruezer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-22-2006, 06:35 PM
  #7
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,951
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kruezer
Excellent job as always. I know you've explained it before, but how do you come up with these lists? Is it just adjusted career goals? Is their any evening out of games played?

Also, man, Bill Barber gets killed on this list, five 40+ goal seasons and he's 193rd?
Actually, the number of goals scored is completely irrelevant to this rating. I even out all players across all eras by using a simple concept - giving players credit for finishing in the top 7 of the goal scoring race. So players of the high scoring 80s do not get huge advantages over the players of the 90s and 2000s. Being born at the right time does nothing for you on my system. Everybody is equal.

Goals per game would not work because players in the 80 would own all of those records. Different eras have different amounts of goals scored so it must be levelled out for fairness.

So although Barber had 5 40 goal seasons, he only cracked the top 7 twice in his career. 3 of those seasons, he was buried behind guys scoring 50 and 60 goals. Of course, 40 goals in 03-04 was worth considerably more than 40 goals in 1976.

Finishing in the top 7 is the key to a good rating.

I hope this makes sense.

Ogopogo* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-22-2006, 07:03 PM
  #8
pappyline
Registered User
 
pappyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Mass/formerly Ont
Country: United States
Posts: 4,273
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo
Actually, the number of goals scored is completely irrelevant to this rating. I even out all players across all eras by using a simple concept - giving players credit for finishing in the top 7 of the goal scoring race. So players of the high scoring 80s do not get huge advantages over the players of the 90s and 2000s. Being born at the right time does nothing for you on my system. Everybody is equal.

Goals per game would not work because players in the 80 would own all of those records. Different eras have different amounts of goals scored so it must be levelled out for fairness.

So although Barber had 5 40 goal seasons, he only cracked the top 7 twice in his career. 3 of those seasons, he was buried behind guys scoring 50 and 60 goals. Of course, 40 goals in 03-04 was worth considerably more than 40 goals in 1976.

Finishing in the top 7 is the key to a good rating.

I hope this makes sense.
Another good job. These lists are interesting and a good basis for discussion. If I remember correctly you use the same formula for "Points" but weight the results for dominant years. Do you also weight the goals & assists lists for dominant years?

pappyline is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-22-2006, 11:17 PM
  #9
chooch*
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 946
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo
. Being born at the right time does nothing for you on my system.
I dont think you even understand your own "system". (Peaking at a time when the NHL expanded by 25% without a corresponding influx of talent and playing in the weakest division....)

chooch* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-23-2006, 02:35 AM
  #10
revolverjgw
Registered User
 
revolverjgw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,483
vCash: 500
Chooch, you rascal!

(congratulations on post #666)

revolverjgw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-23-2006, 02:46 AM
  #11
kruezer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 6,303
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo
Actually, the number of goals scored is completely irrelevant to this rating. I even out all players across all eras by using a simple concept - giving players credit for finishing in the top 7 of the goal scoring race. So players of the high scoring 80s do not get huge advantages over the players of the 90s and 2000s. Being born at the right time does nothing for you on my system. Everybody is equal.

Goals per game would not work because players in the 80 would own all of those records. Different eras have different amounts of goals scored so it must be levelled out for fairness.

So although Barber had 5 40 goal seasons, he only cracked the top 7 twice in his career. 3 of those seasons, he was buried behind guys scoring 50 and 60 goals. Of course, 40 goals in 03-04 was worth considerably more than 40 goals in 1976.

Finishing in the top 7 is the key to a good rating.

I hope this makes sense.
I see, I don't agree completely with that system, but its cool to see nonetheless.

Does anybody have an adjusted goals look at the top goal scorers of all time?

kruezer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-23-2006, 03:34 AM
  #12
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
 
Hockey Outsider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,872
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kruezer
I see, I don't agree completely with that system, but its cool to see nonetheless.

Does anybody have an adjusted goals look at the top goal scorers of all time?
This is a list of adjusted-for-era goals, as of the end of 2006. This makes no attempt to 1) look at playoff production 2) look at dominace 3) look at anything other than career goal-scoring.

(Also, in case anyone's interested, there are still some definite bugs in this model that I'm trying to work out. Specifically, it overrates players from the 20's and late 90's/00's and underrates them from the 40's. Trying to account for this.)

1) Gordie Howe, GP: 2061 G: 944
2) Wayne Gretzky, GP: 1543 G: 805
3) Brett Hull, GP: 1309 G: 783
4) Phil Esposito, GP: 1369 G: 702
5) Luc Robitaille, GP: 1471 G: 694
6) Steve Yzerman, GP: 1561 G: 685
7) Jaromir Jagr, GP: 1143 G: 675
8) Mark Messier, GP: 1808 G: 671
9) Bobby Hull, GP: 1203 G: 669
10) Mario Lemieux, GP: 926 G: 656
11) Maurice Richard, GP: 1255 G: 655
12) Brendan Shanahan, GP: 1387 G: 651
13) Mike Gartner, GP: 1480 G: 647
14) Dave Andreychuk, GP: 1687 G: 643
15) Marcel Dionne, GP: 1388 G: 640
16) Joe Sakic, GP: 1274 G: 626
17) Joe Nieuwendyk, GP: 1281 G: 591
18) Jean Beliveau, GP: 1292 G: 589
19) John Bucyk, GP: 1709 G: 579
20) Peter Bondra, GP: 1077 G: 577
21) Frank Mahovlich, GP: 1328 G: 572
22) Nels Stewart, GP: 1173 G: 565
23) Stan Mikita, GP: 1529 G: 563
24) Dino Ciccarelli, GP: 1279 G: 563
25) Mats Sundin, GP: 1189 G: 561
26) Teemu Selanne, GP: 988 G: 558
27) Ron Francis, GP: 1778 G: 551
28) Pierre Turgeon, GP: 1318 G: 544
29) Jari Kurri, GP: 1295 G: 536
30) Norm Ullman, GP: 1584 G: 535
31) Mike Modano, GP: 1202 G: 530
32) Mark Recchi, GP: 1293 G: 523
33) Pat Verbeek, GP: 1471 G: 520
34) Alex Delvecchio, GP: 1767 G: 517
35) Jeremy Roenick, GP: 1208 G: 516
36) Keith Tkachuk, GP: 927 G: 516
37) Alexander Mogilny, GP: 1023 G: 510
38) Guy Lafleur, GP: 1160 G: 500
39) Theo Fleury, GP: 1120 G: 499
40) Sergei Fedorov, GP: 1085 G: 494
41) Pavel Bure, GP: 731 G: 490
42) Mike Bossy, GP: 771 G: 487
43) Aurel Joliat, GP: 1277 G: 481
44) Jean Ratelle, GP: 1371 G: 477
45) Howie Morenz, GP: 1062 G: 476
46) John LeClair, GP: 977 G: 473
47) Bernie Geoffrion, GP: 1029 G: 473
48) Michel Goulet, GP: 1110 G: 472
49) Ted Lindsay, GP: 1327 G: 468
50) Tony Amonte, GP: 1125 G: 462
51) Dale Hawerchuk, GP: 1222 G: 462
52) Joe Mullen, GP: 1109 G: 459
53) Gil Perreault, GP: 1228 G: 456
54) Bryan Trottier, GP: 1309 G: 454
55) Brian Bellows, GP: 1232 G: 451
56) Vincent Damphousse, GP: 1420 G: 449
57) Bernie Nicholls, GP: 1177 G: 445
58) Doug Gilmour, GP: 1518 G: 444
59) Rick Tocchet, GP: 1180 G: 444
60) Pat LaFontaine, GP: 893 G: 442
61) Glenn Anderson, GP: 1173 G: 442
62) Dean Prentice, GP: 1566 G: 437
63) Lanny McDonald, GP: 1141 G: 433
64) Steve Thomas, GP: 1276 G: 430
65) Darryl Sittler, GP: 1131 G: 428
66) Stephane Richer, GP: 1094 G: 425
67) Eric Lindros, GP: 741 G: 424
68) Denis Savard, GP: 1245 G: 424
69) Gary Roberts, GP: 1100 G: 423
70) Yvan Cournoyer, GP: 1039 G: 423
71) Ray Ferraro, GP: 1303 G: 419
72) John MacLean, GP: 1236 G: 417
73) Rod Brind'Amour, GP: 1223 G: 415
74) Rod Gilbert, GP: 1156 G: 411
75) Dave Keon, GP: 1417 G: 409
76) Owen Nolan, GP: 949 G: 405
77) Paul Kariya, GP: 772 G: 405
78) Andy Bathgate, GP: 1236 G: 404
79) Steve Larmer, GP: 1056 G: 403
80) Henri Richard, GP: 1417 G: 399
81) Bill Cook, GP: 845 G: 396
82) Ray Bourque, GP: 1665 G: 391
83) Garry Unger, GP: 1151 G: 389
84) Tomas Sandstrom, GP: 1027 G: 389
85) Zigmund Palffy, GP: 707 G: 389
86) Claude Lemieux, GP: 1236 G: 388
87) Harvey "Busher" Jackson, GP: 1091 G: 387
88) Peter Stastny, GP: 1002 G: 387
89) Cam Neely, GP: 769 G: 385
90) Bill Guerin, GP: 980 G: 384
91) Charlie Conacher, GP: 797 G: 383
92) Rick Middleton, GP: 1030 G: 383
93) Alexei Yashin, GP: 823 G: 381
94) Trevor Linden, GP: 1281 G: 381
95) Ray Sheppard, GP: 851 G: 380
96) Scott Young, GP: 1217 G: 379
97) Geoff Sanderson, GP: 1035 G: 379
98) Scott Mellanby, GP: 1403 G: 379
99) Markus Naslund, GP: 879 G: 378
100) Cy Denneny, GP: 912 G: 377

==

Great work Ogopogo. I definitely realize the effort required to do lists like this. Biggest surprise? Probably seeing Selanne in 25th. How far does Jagr have to go before he cracks your top ten?

Also, is the list you posted NHL only, or did you include the NHA, PCHL, WCHL, etc, stats as well?


Last edited by Hockey Outsider: 04-23-2006 at 03:42 AM.
Hockey Outsider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-23-2006, 04:27 AM
  #13
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 4,841
vCash: 500
Great list!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider
This is a list of adjusted-for-era goals, as of the end of 2006. This makes no attempt to 1) look at playoff production 2) look at dominace 3) look at anything other than career goal-scoring.

(Also, in case anyone's interested, there are still some definite bugs in this model that I'm trying to work out. Specifically, it overrates players from the 20's and late 90's/00's and underrates them from the 40's. Trying to account for this.)

1) Gordie Howe, GP: 2061 G: 944
2) Wayne Gretzky, GP: 1543 G: 805
3) Brett Hull, GP: 1309 G: 783
4) Phil Esposito, GP: 1369 G: 702
5) Luc Robitaille, GP: 1471 G: 694
6) Steve Yzerman, GP: 1561 G: 685
7) Jaromir Jagr, GP: 1143 G: 675
8) Mark Messier, GP: 1808 G: 671
9) Bobby Hull, GP: 1203 G: 669
10) Mario Lemieux, GP: 926 G: 656
11) Maurice Richard, GP: 1255 G: 655
12) Brendan Shanahan, GP: 1387 G: 651
13) Mike Gartner, GP: 1480 G: 647
14) Dave Andreychuk, GP: 1687 G: 643
15) Marcel Dionne, GP: 1388 G: 640
16) Joe Sakic, GP: 1274 G: 626
17) Joe Nieuwendyk, GP: 1281 G: 591
18) Jean Beliveau, GP: 1292 G: 589
19) John Bucyk, GP: 1709 G: 579
20) Peter Bondra, GP: 1077 G: 577
21) Frank Mahovlich, GP: 1328 G: 572
22) Nels Stewart, GP: 1173 G: 565
23) Stan Mikita, GP: 1529 G: 563
24) Dino Ciccarelli, GP: 1279 G: 563
25) Mats Sundin, GP: 1189 G: 561
26) Teemu Selanne, GP: 988 G: 558
27) Ron Francis, GP: 1778 G: 551
28) Pierre Turgeon, GP: 1318 G: 544
29) Jari Kurri, GP: 1295 G: 536
30) Norm Ullman, GP: 1584 G: 535
31) Mike Modano, GP: 1202 G: 530
32) Mark Recchi, GP: 1293 G: 523
33) Pat Verbeek, GP: 1471 G: 520
34) Alex Delvecchio, GP: 1767 G: 517
35) Jeremy Roenick, GP: 1208 G: 516
36) Keith Tkachuk, GP: 927 G: 516
37) Alexander Mogilny, GP: 1023 G: 510
38) Guy Lafleur, GP: 1160 G: 500
39) Theo Fleury, GP: 1120 G: 499
40) Sergei Fedorov, GP: 1085 G: 494
41) Pavel Bure, GP: 731 G: 490
42) Mike Bossy, GP: 771 G: 487
43) Aurel Joliat, GP: 1277 G: 481
44) Jean Ratelle, GP: 1371 G: 477
45) Howie Morenz, GP: 1062 G: 476
46) John LeClair, GP: 977 G: 473
47) Bernie Geoffrion, GP: 1029 G: 473
48) Michel Goulet, GP: 1110 G: 472
49) Ted Lindsay, GP: 1327 G: 468
50) Tony Amonte, GP: 1125 G: 462
51) Dale Hawerchuk, GP: 1222 G: 462
52) Joe Mullen, GP: 1109 G: 459
53) Gil Perreault, GP: 1228 G: 456
54) Bryan Trottier, GP: 1309 G: 454
55) Brian Bellows, GP: 1232 G: 451
56) Vincent Damphousse, GP: 1420 G: 449
57) Bernie Nicholls, GP: 1177 G: 445
58) Doug Gilmour, GP: 1518 G: 444
59) Rick Tocchet, GP: 1180 G: 444
60) Pat LaFontaine, GP: 893 G: 442
61) Glenn Anderson, GP: 1173 G: 442
62) Dean Prentice, GP: 1566 G: 437
63) Lanny McDonald, GP: 1141 G: 433
64) Steve Thomas, GP: 1276 G: 430
65) Darryl Sittler, GP: 1131 G: 428
66) Stephane Richer, GP: 1094 G: 425
67) Eric Lindros, GP: 741 G: 424
68) Denis Savard, GP: 1245 G: 424
69) Gary Roberts, GP: 1100 G: 423
70) Yvan Cournoyer, GP: 1039 G: 423
71) Ray Ferraro, GP: 1303 G: 419
72) John MacLean, GP: 1236 G: 417
73) Rod Brind'Amour, GP: 1223 G: 415
74) Rod Gilbert, GP: 1156 G: 411
75) Dave Keon, GP: 1417 G: 409
76) Owen Nolan, GP: 949 G: 405
77) Paul Kariya, GP: 772 G: 405
78) Andy Bathgate, GP: 1236 G: 404
79) Steve Larmer, GP: 1056 G: 403
80) Henri Richard, GP: 1417 G: 399
81) Bill Cook, GP: 845 G: 396
82) Ray Bourque, GP: 1665 G: 391
83) Garry Unger, GP: 1151 G: 389
84) Tomas Sandstrom, GP: 1027 G: 389
85) Zigmund Palffy, GP: 707 G: 389
86) Claude Lemieux, GP: 1236 G: 388
87) Harvey "Busher" Jackson, GP: 1091 G: 387
88) Peter Stastny, GP: 1002 G: 387
89) Cam Neely, GP: 769 G: 385
90) Bill Guerin, GP: 980 G: 384
91) Charlie Conacher, GP: 797 G: 383
92) Rick Middleton, GP: 1030 G: 383
93) Alexei Yashin, GP: 823 G: 381
94) Trevor Linden, GP: 1281 G: 381
95) Ray Sheppard, GP: 851 G: 380
96) Scott Young, GP: 1217 G: 379
97) Geoff Sanderson, GP: 1035 G: 379
98) Scott Mellanby, GP: 1403 G: 379
99) Markus Naslund, GP: 879 G: 378
100) Cy Denneny, GP: 912 G: 377

==

Great work Ogopogo. I definitely realize the effort required to do lists like this. Biggest surprise? Probably seeing Selanne in 25th. How far does Jagr have to go before he cracks your top ten?

Also, is the list you posted NHL only, or did you include the NHA, PCHL, WCHL, etc, stats as well?
I can see how a small league with a much shorter schedule could distort stats for players before the 50s (or even 60s), but I'm curious... why do you think your list overrates players from the 90s/00s? If this is due to expansion, I would think the late 60s/early 70s players would be similarly overrated. Also, wouldn't the 118 games missed due to labor disputes (94/95, 04/05) be a factor? That would put Jagr 4th and Sakic top 10 in adjusted all-time goals. Thanks again!

edit: Can you post an adjusted list of all-time point leaders? If not, I will post one when I can.


Last edited by Czech Your Math: 04-23-2006 at 04:34 AM.
Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-23-2006, 10:06 AM
  #14
Snap Wilson
Registered User
 
Snap Wilson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,838
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider
(Also, in case anyone's interested, there are still some definite bugs in this model that I'm trying to work out. Specifically, it overrates players from the 20's and late 90's/00's and underrates them from the 40's. Trying to account for this.)
Probably due to the higher percentages of goals scored by one player on a given team. At least, that's the case in the 20s and definitely needs to be adjusted for in that era. Not sure about the 90s-00s, but it wouldn't surprise me. You can probably adjust by figuring out the average percentage of goals accounted for by their top goal scorers and adjusting accordingly.

Snap Wilson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-23-2006, 11:28 AM
  #15
reckoning
Registered User
 
reckoning's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,884
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider
(Also, in case anyone's interested, there are still some definite bugs in this model that I'm trying to work out. Specifically, it overrates players from the 20's and late 90's/00's and underrates them from the 40's. Trying to account for this.)
The one main flaw with career adjusted marks is that it doesn`t take into account the quality of the league. With every expansion, the quality drops the following year. For example in `92 there were only 4 50-goal scorers, the next year there were 14; yet the overall NHL GPG was only 4% higher. The reason was that Ottawa and San Jose were brutal defensively and everybody ran up the score on them, yet at the same time since those new teams couldn`t score; thus the overall GPG used for adjusted stats remained roughly the same.

If the NHL had remained at 21 teams, then Robitaille and Andreychuk would`ve had to retire long before they did and their totals would be much smaller. Likewise, if the league expanded in the 50s, a lot of guys who retired then would`ve stayed around longer and padded their totals.

How to gauge the quality of play in a year is the $64,000 question. I was working something where you take the adjusted totals of all the players who played in two straight seasons and compare the two seasons. For example if it was 20% higher when WWII broke out, then you could assume that the quality was 20% lower. This would be a good way to compare the WHA and PCHA to the NHL. Going backwards and forwards you could figure out every season. Unfortunately, it would take forever.

reckoning is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-23-2006, 11:58 AM
  #16
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
 
Hockey Outsider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,872
vCash: 500
Here are the top-100 point scorers...

1) Wayne Gretzky, GP: 1543 Pts: 2518
2) Gordie Howe, GP: 2061 Pts: 2148
3) Mark Messier, GP: 1808 Pts: 1769
4) Ron Francis, GP: 1778 Pts: 1738
5) Steve Yzerman, GP: 1561 Pts: 1685
6) Mario Lemieux, GP: 926 Pts: 1578
7) Jaromir Jagr, GP: 1143 Pts: 1558
8) Joe Sakic, GP: 1274 Pts: 1558
9) Phil Esposito, GP: 1369 Pts: 1517
10) Marcel Dionne, GP: 1388 Pts: 1508
11) Stan Mikita, GP: 1529 Pts: 1475
12) Ray Bourque, GP: 1665 Pts: 1447
13) Brett Hull, GP: 1309 Pts: 1432
14) Adam Oates, GP: 1379 Pts: 1414
15) Alex Delvecchio, GP: 1767 Pts: 1407
16) Luc Robitaille, GP: 1471 Pts: 1392
17) John Bucyk, GP: 1709 Pts: 1386
18) Paul Coffey, GP: 1459 Pts: 1370
19) Jean Beliveau, GP: 1292 Pts: 1366
20) Doug Gilmour, GP: 1518 Pts: 1348
21) Pierre Turgeon, GP: 1318 Pts: 1338
22) Mark Recchi, GP: 1293 Pts: 1318
23) Norm Ullman, GP: 1584 Pts: 1292
24) Brendan Shanahan, GP: 1387 Pts: 1286
25) Dave Andreychuk, GP: 1687 Pts: 1284
26) Mats Sundin, GP: 1189 Pts: 1252
27) Bobby Hull, GP: 1203 Pts: 1246
28) Mike Modano, GP: 1202 Pts: 1238
29) Al MacInnis, GP: 1453 Pts: 1219
30) Vincent Damphousse, GP: 1420 Pts: 1217
31) Dale Hawerchuk, GP: 1222 Pts: 1215
32) Jari Kurri, GP: 1295 Pts: 1213
33) Bryan Trottier, GP: 1309 Pts: 1195
34) Maurice Richard, GP: 1255 Pts: 1192
35) Jean Ratelle, GP: 1371 Pts: 1191
36) Jeremy Roenick, GP: 1208 Pts: 1183
37) Mike Gartner, GP: 1480 Pts: 1177
38) Aurel Joliat, GP: 1277 Pts: 1172
39) Guy Lafleur, GP: 1160 Pts: 1169
40) Phil Housley, GP: 1542 Pts: 1164
41) Joe Nieuwendyk, GP: 1281 Pts: 1150
42) Denis Savard, GP: 1245 Pts: 1147
43) Frank Mahovlich, GP: 1328 Pts: 1146
44) Gil Perreault, GP: 1228 Pts: 1144
45) Theo Fleury, GP: 1120 Pts: 1142
46) Howie Morenz, GP: 1062 Pts: 1138
47) Teemu Selanne, GP: 988 Pts: 1136
48) Sergei Fedorov, GP: 1085 Pts: 1129
49) Henri Richard, GP: 1417 Pts: 1117
50) Larry Murphy, GP: 1668 Pts: 1114
51) Bernie Nicholls, GP: 1177 Pts: 1094
52) Nels Stewart, GP: 1173 Pts: 1094
53) Andy Bathgate, GP: 1236 Pts: 1093
54) Dino Ciccarelli, GP: 1279 Pts: 1083
55) Alexander Mogilny, GP: 1023 Pts: 1083
56) Ted Lindsay, GP: 1327 Pts: 1071
57) Bobby Clarke, GP: 1185 Pts: 1062
58) Brian Leetch, GP: 1244 Pts: 1053
59) Frank Boucher, GP: 1010 Pts: 1046
60) Rod Brind'Amour, GP: 1223 Pts: 1024
61) Pat Verbeek, GP: 1471 Pts: 1024
62) Peter Stastny, GP: 1002 Pts: 1023
63) Rod Gilbert, GP: 1156 Pts: 1000
64) Dave Keon, GP: 1417 Pts: 978
65) Red Kelly, GP: 1571 Pts: 977
66) Keith Tkachuk, GP: 927 Pts: 972
67) Reg "Hooley" Smith, GP: 1305 Pts: 967
68) Darryl Sittler, GP: 1131 Pts: 966
69) Peter Bondra, GP: 1077 Pts: 965
70) Michel Goulet, GP: 1110 Pts: 964
71) Bernie Geoffrion, GP: 1029 Pts: 963
72) Doug Weight, GP: 1013 Pts: 959
73) Tony Amonte, GP: 1125 Pts: 951
74) Glenn Anderson, GP: 1173 Pts: 942
75) Joe Mullen, GP: 1109 Pts: 941
76) Eric Lindros, GP: 741 Pts: 938
77) Dean Prentice, GP: 1566 Pts: 935
78) Bernie Federko, GP: 1025 Pts: 931
79) Mike Bossy, GP: 771 Pts: 928
80) Pat LaFontaine, GP: 893 Pts: 928
81) Peter Forsberg, GP: 673 Pts: 924
82) Steve Thomas, GP: 1276 Pts: 921
83) Rick Tocchet, GP: 1180 Pts: 917
84) Brian Bellows, GP: 1232 Pts: 916
85) John LeClair, GP: 977 Pts: 913
86) Cliff Ronning, GP: 1169 Pts: 896
87) Chris Chelios, GP: 1520 Pts: 895
88) Dale Hunter, GP: 1459 Pts: 895
89) Paul Kariya, GP: 772 Pts: 893
90) Kirk Muller, GP: 1393 Pts: 891
91) Steve Larmer, GP: 1056 Pts: 891
92) Dave Taylor, GP: 1135 Pts: 888
93) Ray Ferraro, GP: 1303 Pts: 887
94) Denis Potvin, GP: 1089 Pts: 885
95) Bobby Orr, GP: 700 Pts: 875
96) Nicklas Lidstrom, GP: 1124 Pts: 862
97) Cy Denneny, GP: 912 Pts: 857
98) Trevor Linden, GP: 1281 Pts: 856
99) Bobby Smith, GP: 1102 Pts: 855
100) Lanny McDonald, GP: 1141 Pts: 848

I'm sure some will disagree, but Jagr has a legitimate chance of ending up the third-highest scoring player in NHL history.

1) Wayne Gretzky, GP: 1543 A: 1714
2) Gordie Howe, GP: 2061 A: 1204
3) Ron Francis, GP: 1778 A: 1187
4) Mark Messier, GP: 1808 A: 1098
5) Adam Oates, GP: 1379 A: 1062
6) Ray Bourque, GP: 1665 A: 1055
7) Paul Coffey, GP: 1459 A: 1006
8) Steve Yzerman, GP: 1561 A: 1000
9) Joe Sakic, GP: 1274 A: 932
10) Mario Lemieux, GP: 926 A: 922
11) Stan Mikita, GP: 1529 A: 912
12) Doug Gilmour, GP: 1518 A: 904
13) Alex Delvecchio, GP: 1767 A: 891
14) Jaromir Jagr, GP: 1143 A: 883
15) Al MacInnis, GP: 1453 A: 874
16) Marcel Dionne, GP: 1388 A: 868
17) Larry Murphy, GP: 1668 A: 838
18) Phil Housley, GP: 1542 A: 836
19) Phil Esposito, GP: 1369 A: 815
20) John Bucyk, GP: 1709 A: 806
21) Mark Recchi, GP: 1293 A: 795
22) Pierre Turgeon, GP: 1318 A: 795
23) Brian Leetch, GP: 1244 A: 784
24) Jean Beliveau, GP: 1292 A: 777
25) Frank Boucher, GP: 1010 A: 774
26) Vincent Damphousse, GP: 1420 A: 768
27) Norm Ullman, GP: 1584 A: 757
28) Dale Hawerchuk, GP: 1222 A: 753
29) Bryan Trottier, GP: 1309 A: 741
30) Bobby Clarke, GP: 1185 A: 734
31) Denis Savard, GP: 1245 A: 723
32) Henri Richard, GP: 1417 A: 718
33) Chris Chelios, GP: 1520 A: 715
34) Jean Ratelle, GP: 1371 A: 714
35) Mike Modano, GP: 1202 A: 708
36) Luc Robitaille, GP: 1471 A: 698
37) Mats Sundin, GP: 1189 A: 691
38) Aurel Joliat, GP: 1277 A: 691
39) Doug Weight, GP: 1013 A: 689
40) Andy Bathgate, GP: 1236 A: 689
41) Gil Perreault, GP: 1228 A: 687
42) Jari Kurri, GP: 1295 A: 677
43) Guy Lafleur, GP: 1160 A: 669
44) Jeremy Roenick, GP: 1208 A: 667
45) Howie Morenz, GP: 1062 A: 662
46) Scott Stevens, GP: 1684 A: 654
47) Brett Hull, GP: 1309 A: 650
48) Bernie Nicholls, GP: 1177 A: 650
49) Theo Fleury, GP: 1120 A: 643
50) Nicklas Lidstrom, GP: 1124 A: 643
51) Peter Forsberg, GP: 673 A: 642
52) Dave Andreychuk, GP: 1687 A: 642
53) Red Kelly, GP: 1571 A: 641
54) Peter Stastny, GP: 1002 A: 636
55) Sergei Fedorov, GP: 1085 A: 635
56) Brendan Shanahan, GP: 1387 A: 635
57) Larry Robinson, GP: 1422 A: 622
58) Reg "Hooley" Smith, GP: 1305 A: 617
59) Bernie Federko, GP: 1025 A: 615
60) Denis Potvin, GP: 1089 A: 615
61) Rod Brind'Amour, GP: 1223 A: 610
62) Bobby Orr, GP: 700 A: 610
63) Ted Lindsay, GP: 1327 A: 603
64) Gary Suter, GP: 1189 A: 600
65) Dale Hunter, GP: 1459 A: 599
66) Brad Park, GP: 1154 A: 590
67) Rod Gilbert, GP: 1156 A: 589
68) Teemu Selanne, GP: 988 A: 578
69) Bobby Hull, GP: 1203 A: 577
70) Sergei Zubov, GP: 958 A: 576
71) Frank Mahovlich, GP: 1328 A: 574
72) Alexander Mogilny, GP: 1023 A: 572
73) Cliff Ronning, GP: 1169 A: 570
74) Dave Keon, GP: 1417 A: 569
75) Joe Nieuwendyk, GP: 1281 A: 559
76) Andrew Cassels, GP: 1047 A: 553
77) Bobby Smith, GP: 1102 A: 550
78) Kirk Muller, GP: 1393 A: 546
79) Neal Broten, GP: 1148 A: 544
80) Doug Harvey, GP: 1315 A: 544
81) Elmer Lach, GP: 917 A: 540
82) Darryl Sittler, GP: 1131 A: 538
83) Maurice Richard, GP: 1255 A: 536
84) Bill Cowley, GP: 910 A: 535
85) King Clancy, GP: 1219 A: 532
86) Craig Janney, GP: 788 A: 531
87) Mike Gartner, GP: 1480 A: 531
88) Borje Salming, GP: 1179 A: 529
89) Nels Stewart, GP: 1173 A: 528
90) Dino Ciccarelli, GP: 1279 A: 521
91) Bill Gadsby, GP: 1493 A: 520
92) Dave Taylor, GP: 1135 A: 517
93) Bert Olmstead, GP: 995 A: 515
94) Eric Lindros, GP: 741 A: 514
95) Milt Schmidt, GP: 1087 A: 512
96) Alexei Zhamnov, GP: 838 A: 509
97) Steve Duchesne, GP: 1155 A: 508
98) Pat Verbeek, GP: 1471 A: 504
99) Glenn Anderson, GP: 1173 A: 500
100) Igor Larionov, GP: 948 A: 499

Hockey Outsider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-23-2006, 12:19 PM
  #17
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
 
Hockey Outsider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,872
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math
I can see how a small league with a much shorter schedule could distort stats for players before the 50s (or even 60s), but I'm curious... why do you think your list overrates players from the 90s/00s? If this is due to expansion, I would think the late 60s/early 70s players would be similarly overrated. Also, wouldn't the 118 games missed due to labor disputes (94/95, 04/05) be a factor? That would put Jagr 4th and Sakic top 10 in adjusted all-time goals. Thanks again!

edit: Can you post an adjusted list of all-time point leaders? If not, I will post one when I can.
- I posted a list of the all-time assists and points leaders in the post above this one.
- I made an adjustment for the 94/95 lockout by simply pro-rating their performance over 48 games to the standard 82 game schedule, so there's no disadvantage there.
- I haven't (yet) made any adjustments for the lockout last year. On the one hand, every player who would have played in the NHL last year is at a disadvantage because they lose a year. On the other, I think there's a big difference between adjusting actual performance and estimating what they would have done if they played. I'm not very comfortable with doing that, so, for now, no adjustments are made for last year.
- Saying that players from the 90's and 2000's are overrated is, admittedly, a subjective statement. Players like Selanne, Sundin, Kariya, Lindros, Palffy, etc., seem to be a lot higher than they "should" be. But maybe that's just because I'm used to seeing them relatively low on "unadjusted" lists.
On the other hand, the adjusted point totals of players who aren't league leaders is rising. For example, twentieth-ranked player in points averaged 69 adjusted points in the 70's, 73 in the 80's, 83 in the 90's and 85 in the 2000's. So this allows modern, non-dominant players to rack up huge career numbers, even if they were never dominant.
The other problem (that I can't adjust for) is that nowadays 15- and 20-year careers are far more common than they were in the past. So every career list will be full of modern players, simply because better players like Morenz, Stewart, Cook, etc., didn't play 20-year careers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by moneyp
Probably due to the higher percentages of goals scored by one player on a given team. At least, that's the case in the 20s and definitely needs to be adjusted for in that era. Not sure about the 90s-00s, but it wouldn't surprise me. You can probably adjust by figuring out the average percentage of goals accounted for by their top goal scorers and adjusting accordingly.
Good point. I tried to account for this as best I could by estimating average ice time per player and adjusting accordingly. The problem is, even if I have the average ice time correct, the variance in ice time is a major problem too.

For example, in the 20's, average ice time ranges between 30 and 40 minutes per game, according to my estimates. However, I know that the top stars are recorded as playing 50 and sometimes 60 minutes per game every night, while some "depth" players only got a few minutes per game (ie such as filling in when the stars got a penalty and/or got injured). So in this case, the ice time calculation underestimates the stars' ice time (which overestimates their production). However, in the 50's and 60's, the variance in icetime is a lot lower, so stars get credit for more ice time than they actually receive, and their production underrated.

(I hope that all made sense.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by reckoning
The one main flaw with career adjusted marks is that it doesn`t take into account the quality of the league. With every expansion, the quality drops the following year. For example in `92 there were only 4 50-goal scorers, the next year there were 14; yet the overall NHL GPG was only 4% higher. The reason was that Ottawa and San Jose were brutal defensively and everybody ran up the score on them, yet at the same time since those new teams couldn`t score; thus the overall GPG used for adjusted stats remained roughly the same.

If the NHL had remained at 21 teams, then Robitaille and Andreychuk would`ve had to retire long before they did and their totals would be much smaller. Likewise, if the league expanded in the 50s, a lot of guys who retired then would`ve stayed around longer and padded their totals.

How to gauge the quality of play in a year is the $64,000 question. I was working something where you take the adjusted totals of all the players who played in two straight seasons and compare the two seasons. For example if it was 20% higher when WWII broke out, then you could assume that the quality was 20% lower. This would be a good way to compare the WHA and PCHA to the NHL. Going backwards and forwards you could figure out every season. Unfortunately, it would take forever.
Good idea, have you seen this paper (http://hockeyanalytics.com/Research_...ivalencies.pdf) by Gabriel Desjardins? He proposes a similar method, but only compares non-NHL leagues to the NHL (as opposed to looking at it year-by-year within the NHL).

You're right, this would be a huge task, but with sufficient knowledge of Excel, it could be done. I may give it a shot this spring. I'll need to figure out the details of it though.


Last edited by Hockey Outsider: 04-23-2006 at 12:36 PM.
Hockey Outsider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-23-2006, 12:48 PM
  #18
Snap Wilson
Registered User
 
Snap Wilson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,838
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by reckoning
The one main flaw with career adjusted marks is that it doesn`t take into account the quality of the league. With every expansion, the quality drops the following year. For example in `92 there were only 4 50-goal scorers, the next year there were 14; yet the overall NHL GPG was only 4% higher. The reason was that Ottawa and San Jose were brutal defensively and everybody ran up the score on them, yet at the same time since those new teams couldn`t score; thus the overall GPG used for adjusted stats remained roughly the same.
That's actually fairly easy to account for. just take the z-scores (standard deviations above the mean of goals scored per game for each team) and then adjust them back to the historical standard deviations. It's a simple league wide-adustment for each year.

Snap Wilson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-23-2006, 01:26 PM
  #19
reckoning
Registered User
 
reckoning's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,884
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by moneyp
That's actually fairly easy to account for. just take the z-scores (standard deviations above the mean of goals scored per game for each team) and then adjust them back to the historical standard deviations. It's a simple league wide-adustment for each year.
A lot of the math you mentioned went over my head (Grade 12 was my last year of education), so I may be wrong here, but would that be more of a determination of parity than quality? If you took the six worst teams in the league and put them in their own league, there may be lots of parity but it wouldn`t be high quality.

Here`s the way I look at it: let`s say that the lockout wasn`t solved and the NHL used replacements this season. Assume about 25% of existing players from the previous year crossed the picket line and played. Wouldn`t comparing the marks of only those players be the best way to compare the quality of the two seasons?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider
Good idea, have you seen this paper (http://hockeyanalytics.com/Research...uivalencies.pdf) by Gabriel Desjardins? He proposes a similar method, but only compares non-NHL leagues to the NHL (as opposed to looking at it year-by-year within the NHL).
I`ve seen that and it was very interesting, especially the WHA stuff. I`m just curious about how much losing all those players to the WHA affected the NHL`s quality.

reckoning is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-23-2006, 01:41 PM
  #20
Snap Wilson
Registered User
 
Snap Wilson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,838
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by reckoning
A lot of the math you mentioned went over my head (Grade 12 was my last year of education), so I may be wrong here, but would that be more of a determination of parity than quality?
Yeah, but in the expansion problem that you're talking about, parity is what you're talking about. How the introduction of two really bad teams impacts offensive totals.

Quote:
If you took the six worst teams in the league and put them in their own league, there may be lots of parity but it wouldn`t be high quality.
True enough.

Quote:
Here`s the way I look at it: let`s say that the lockout wasn`t solved and the NHL used replacements this season. Assume about 25% of existing players from the previous year crossed the picket line and played. Wouldn`t comparing the marks of only those players be the best way to compare the quality of the two seasons?
Maybe "the best way" if we can't find a better way. An ideal way? I'm not so sure. First of all, how do you construct those figures? What do you do with players who played 6 games in Year One and 76 games in Year Two?

Snap Wilson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-23-2006, 02:24 PM
  #21
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,951
vCash: 500
The reason I chose not to go with adjusted goals, assists and points is because there are variables that cannot be factored in to those numbers.

For example, in the 20s rosters consisted of 10 players. During some of the NHL's history, assists were given out differently than they are today. Rule changes such as the larger goalie equipment of the past decade is a factor. Length of schedule, average time one ice by players, expansion and power play rules all have an effect. At one time, a two minute penalty was a full two minutes no matter how many goals.

The bottom line is this: trying to adjust goals and assists to compare historical players is an intersting exercise but, it is far from exact, IMO. A player like Cy Denneny is buried at 97 on the adjusted points list but, he was DOMINANT in the 20s. Saying Denneny's career was slightly ahead of Trevor Linden's is blasphemy, IMO. Denneny was top 4 in NHL scoring 8 times. Linden never had a sniff of the top 20 in his career.

When you look at historical figures in NHL history Denneny should be rated much higher than that. His relative value in comparison is along the lines of Bobby Hull or Jean Beliveau in the points column. Attempting to adjust points skews the true picture of what players like Denneny accomplished.

I applaud the work of Hockey Outsider, adjusted points is very interesting but, as I have said, it is far from exact. I think it puts past players at an unfair disadvantage.

In short, I think my system effectively eliminates all of the aforementioned variables and gives all players from all eras the recognition they deserve to properly reflect the DOMINANCE they had of their era. Being dominant in the 20s is the same as being dominant in the 80s. Nobody should be penalized for being born at the wrong time. My system is not perfect but, I think it very effectively eliminates the variables that skew the adjusted numbers.

Those who dominate to the greatest extent rise to the top of my lists. Everybody gets a fair shake no matter when they played.

I hope that makes sense.

Great work on the numbers Outsider. Like my lists, yours work makes for intersting discussion.


Last edited by Ogopogo*: 04-23-2006 at 02:38 PM.
Ogopogo* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-23-2006, 02:25 PM
  #22
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,951
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by chooch
I dont think you even understand your own "system". (Peaking at a time when the NHL expanded by 25% without a corresponding influx of talent and playing in the weakest division....)
Consider this an official un-invitiation to this thread.

Thanks.

Ogopogo* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-23-2006, 02:41 PM
  #23
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
 
Hockey Outsider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,872
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by reckoning
I`ve seen that and it was very interesting, especially the WHA stuff. I`m just curious about how much losing all those players to the WHA affected the NHL`s quality.
Good point, it would probably become circular trying to figure out how much the WHA watered down the NHL, then how good the WHA is in comparison to the NHL.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo
The reason I chose not to go with adjusted goals, assists and points is because there are variables that cannot be factored in to those numbers.
I agree with most of the points you made. I try to be upfront about any of the flaws in adjusted scoring (methods or results) and I know they're not perfect, but I'm confident that they're an improvement over unadjusted totals.

The only comment I disagree with is that adjusted scoring would underrate dominant players like Denneny. Keep in mind that the lists I just posted are for career scoring, and aren't made to reflect dominance. Denneny has some monstrous seasons (179 pts; 136 pts) and if you look at peak value (ie the players best 3-5 seasons), Denneny and other players like Stewart, Joliat, Cook, Boucher and Morenz are all in the top fifty and rank alongside Beliveau, Bossy, Hull, LaFleur, etc.

Hockey Outsider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-23-2006, 07:41 PM
  #24
kruezer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 6,303
vCash: 500
Thanks for all the information Outsider, its all very interesting to see despite the many flaws, every stat should be consider based on the situation it occured in for sure.

You would happen to be able to post your 50 most dominant point seasons would you? Just for interests sake.

Also, I like your system a lot Ogopogo, but the main problem I have with it is that, how can a 4th place finish in one season be gauranteed to be better than a 7th place in another year, would there be a way to factor in relative dominance? For example, if the first place and second place guys where one year finished 35% ahead of the third place guy in one season and in another season the second place guy was close with the third while the first place guy was ahead by 35%, shouldn't that second place finish in year 1, be worth more than the second place finish in year two? and perhaps be closer to the first place finish in year 2 in value?

That would likely be a tonne of work though I guess. But thanks for all of the information again.

kruezer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-23-2006, 08:14 PM
  #25
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 4,841
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider
- I posted a list of the all-time assists and points leaders in the post above this one.
- I made an adjustment for the 94/95 lockout by simply pro-rating their performance over 48 games to the standard 82 game schedule, so there's no disadvantage there.
- I haven't (yet) made any adjustments for the lockout last year. On the one hand, every player who would have played in the NHL last year is at a disadvantage because they lose a year. On the other, I think there's a big difference between adjusting actual performance and estimating what they would have done if they played. I'm not very comfortable with doing that, so, for now, no adjustments are made for last year.
- Saying that players from the 90's and 2000's are overrated is, admittedly, a subjective statement. Players like Selanne, Sundin, Kariya, Lindros, Palffy, etc., seem to be a lot higher than they "should" be. But maybe that's just because I'm used to seeing them relatively low on "unadjusted" lists.
On the other hand, the adjusted point totals of players who aren't league leaders is rising. For example, twentieth-ranked player in points averaged 69 adjusted points in the 70's, 73 in the 80's, 83 in the 90's and 85 in the 2000's. So this allows modern, non-dominant players to rack up huge career numbers, even if they were never dominant.
The other problem (that I can't adjust for) is that nowadays 15- and 20-year careers are far more common than they were in the past. So every career list will be full of modern players, simply because better players like Morenz, Stewart, Cook, etc., didn't play 20-year careers.
I figured the fairest thing for the lockout year is to average the season before and after to get an estimate for that season. It is more difficult to decide how to handle players who retired during or shortly after the lost season (Messier, Francis, Br. Hull, Lemieux, etc.). I don't think it's a stretch to do so, especially if you are also doing the same for players of yesteryear who played shorter schedules.

As far as how many adjusted points a 20th ranked player, for example, had in different eras, that doesn't surprise me too much. It might be fairer to compare players ranked in proportion to the number of teams. As the league expands, the number of players who receive steady power play time, etc. also increases. Also, as you have more teams, you have more players, and so it becomes more likely that some players will have higher totals from random chance (rather than actually being better... this should even out over time). I hope this makes sense: It's like having a class with 12 "B students" or a class with 30 such students. In a class with 30, it's more likely that some might score exceptionally high on a given test (appear higher on rankings in a given season) than in the class with 12, but not because they are necessarily better students, they just had "a better chance" to do better (or worse, but we're talking about high scorers, not low ones).

So comparing a 12th ranked player from the early 70s to a 21st ranked player in the 80s to a 30th ranked player of today, or a 24th ranked player from the late 60s to 42nd ranked player from the 80s to a 60th ranked player of recent years, etc. may be a fairer comparison.

Great lists, one can always disagree over method, but to me they're obviously much better than the "actual" lists.

Czech Your Math 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 06:25 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

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.