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.

Norris trophy shares

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-11-2008, 06:05 PM
  #26
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,680
vCash: 500
I don't think Fern Flaman is a very good example considering he was a top-5 defenseman in the league 5 times.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2008, 06:11 PM
  #27
sparr0w
Registered User
 
sparr0w's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 16,384
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
I don't think Fern Flaman is a very good example considering he was a top-5 defenseman in the league 5 times.
Unless I counted wrong, so's Gonchar.

sparr0w is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2008, 07:15 PM
  #28
Airborne Troll*
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,862
vCash: 500
Outstanding work as usual Hockey Outsider

Airborne Troll* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2008, 07:45 PM
  #29
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,680
vCash: 500
Well, Gonchar's been 4th, 4th, 4th, 5th, and Flaman has been 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 5th, 5th. So it's close... Flaman is certainly one of the least-deserviong HHOFers but he's deserving. Gonchar, on the other hand, could wind up a player who many people talk about as a possibility. Housley gets plenty of talk and his top-5 finishes are 3rd, 5th, 5th, 5th. Gonchar has already exceeded that. I'd say Gonchar is more accomplished offensively, it just doesn't show in his numbers because of the era. He's definitely more accomplished defensively and physically, mainly because everyone is, and by virtue of his two finals appearances he has enjoyed considerably more team success than Housley.

So, I guess what I'm trying to say is, to say that Flaman hasn't achieved much more than Gonchar isn't far from true, and their status as hall of fame material really isn't that far apart.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2008, 07:54 PM
  #30
sparr0w
Registered User
 
sparr0w's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 16,384
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Well, Gonchar's been 4th, 4th, 4th, 5th, and Flaman has been 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 5th, 5th. So it's close... Flaman is certainly one of the least-deserviong HHOFers but he's deserving. Gonchar, on the other hand, could wind up a player who many people talk about as a possibility. Housley gets plenty of talk and his top-5 finishes are 3rd, 5th, 5th, 5th. Gonchar has already exceeded that. I'd say Gonchar is more accomplished offensively, it just doesn't show in his numbers because of the era. He's definitely more accomplished defensively and physically, mainly because everyone is, and by virtue of his two finals appearances he has enjoyed considerably more team success than Housley.

So, I guess what I'm trying to say is, to say that Flaman hasn't achieved much more than Gonchar isn't far from true, and their status as hall of fame material really isn't that far apart.
But at the end of it all you can list Flaman as a HOFer that competed with Harvey but you can't yet, if ever, say that Gonchar is a HOFer that competed in the current era. And some would leave it at that without every digging any deeper into the matter.

sparr0w is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2008, 09:52 PM
  #31
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
 
Hockey Outsider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,942
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by norrisnick View Post
I'm not necessarily asking for specifics dealing with particular players. I'm just questioning the ease with which some can shrug off accomplishments or comparisons based on some loose generalizations and fuzzy logic. But go right ahead as I am interested in the reasoning involved.
I wrote a very long post about Kelly for the HOH Top 100 project. To summarize, they were both regarded as outstanding defensive players (though their styles were completely different). Kelly was far more disciplined (4-time Lady Byng winner with a career high of 39 PIM vs one of the dirtiest players in the modern league). He was far more durable (through 14 years Kelly appeared in 96.7% of his team's games vs 84.2% for Pronger). Kelly was the best offensive defenseman in the league by a wide margin (see my post for analysis) while Pronger is 8th in defensemen scoring since he entered the league. In terms of awards, Kelly has a lead in Hart trophy nominations (4-1), all-star selections (8-4). Pronger had back-to-back Smythe-calibre playoffs but had a choker reputation before the lockout; Kelly was the 2nd best player on the Wings dynasty and a solid support player on the Leafs dynasty. I think that's a pretty good case for Kelly and it doesn't make any reference to quality of competition.

Now this might not have been the best example because almost every hockey fan knowledgeable about the 1950s-present would rank Kelly ahead of Pronger. Park and Pronger are pretty close in terms of raw accomplishments; but that's when a subjective adjustment would come in to play (based on the fact that Park was essentially shut out from the Norris four times in five years thanks to Orr).

Quote:
Originally Posted by norrisnick View Post
My post isn't directed only at you. Or even mostly. But all too often I see some debate or comparison pop up and all of a sudden there's a listing of the HOFers or top-however players this player competed with and the other competed with. And agree or not but some HOF inductions are created less equal than others. Espcially wnen you encounter some of these guys with middling numbers/stories that get inducted 20-30-40+ years after their playing days are over. How do we know that 30 years from now Foote, Gonchar, St. Louis, Naslund, etc... don't become HOFers? I'm sure if forums like these existed in the 40s/50s they'd have sworn up and down that Fern Flaman wouldn't get a sniff of the HOF unless he bought a ticket then come 1990 he gets that jacket and ring.
You're right, this is a valid point. I'll admit that sometimes I count the number HOF players as competition, but it's more a "shortcut" than anything.

It's starting to look like Mark Howe will never make the HOF, but I'd take him ahead of several dozen HOF players. Similarly, it may be literally true that John McKenzie beat Gordie Howe for an all-star spot, but Howe at age 41 wasn't exactly the same player as Howe at age 23 or 33. Furthermore, even though Robitaille's toughest competiton for the AS spot in 1992 isn't a HOFer, Stevens was certainly playing like a HOF player that year. Anyway, I agree. Counting HOF competition is a shortcut but (like any other stat) has flaws.

Quote:
Originally Posted by norrisnick View Post
That year he was. And if you've got two guys that are unbelievably close in a comparison the guy that managed to beat the odds and be the best one year probably ought to get the nod.
We disagree here. I think that, occasionally, the 3rd best player in one year could have been better than the best player in another year. (I stand by the example of Yzerman in '89 vs St. Louis in '04). This is definitely subjective, though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by norrisnick View Post
In the end I guess I would just like to see something consistent. I realize that's impossible when comparing players in a league that's spanned 90+ years now, but yeah it's just something that bugs the way my brain works. And believe me I realize that I'm likely being less than coherent and at times I get a big argumentative because it irritates me, but yeah. The sweeping generalizations of one group of players vs another could stand to be fleshed out at times rather than simply being taken for granted to the point that it couldn't possibly anything but the truth.
I've been tough on players from two eras (1918-1925, when North America's professional talent was spread over multiple leagues and 1943-45, when around half the league was in the Armed Forces).

Beyond that it's on a case-by-case basis which understandably can be a bit frustrating. Here's a great example of post arguing about the relative weakness of a certain era. It would be great if more posts about the strengths/weaknesses of a certain era could be based on this post.


Last edited by Hockey Outsider: 09-11-2008 at 10:16 PM.
Hockey Outsider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2008, 10:02 PM
  #32
sparr0w
Registered User
 
sparr0w's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 16,384
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider View Post
working on this...



You're right, this is a valid point. I'll admit that sometimes I count the number HOF players as competition, but it's more a "shortcut" than anything.

It's starting to look like Mark Howe will never make the HOF, but I'd take him ahead of several dozen HOF players. Similarly, it may be literally true that John McKenzie beat Gordie Howe for an all-star spot, but Howe at age 41 wasn't exactly the same player as Howe at age 23 or 33. Furthermore, even though Robitaille's toughest competiton for the AS spot in 1992 isn't a HOFer, Stevens was certainly playing like a HOF player that year. Anyway, I agree. Counting HOF competition is a shortcut but (like any other stat) has flaws.



We disagree here. I think that, occasionally, the 3rd best player in one year could have been better than the best player in another year. (I stand by the example of Yzerman in '89 vs St. Louis in '04). This is definitely subjective, though.



I've been tough on players from two eras (1918-1925, when North America's professional talent was spread over multiple leagues and 1943-45, when around half the league was in the Armed Forces).

Beyond that it's on a case-by-case basis which understandably can be a bit frustrating. Here's a great example of post arguing about the relative weakness of a certain era. It would be great if more posts about the strengths/weaknesses of a certain era could be based on this post.
Extreme cases generally warrant exceptions. But nothing would lead to a legitimate comparison between Yzerman and St. Louis anyway. One has 2 top 10 scoring finishes and the other 6. I wouldn't think it gets to the tie breaker of St. Louis actually having a title and Steve only finishing 3rd (with the highest scoring total not produced by a guy named Wayne or Mario).

Thanks for well-reasoned reply to a bit of a rant.

sparr0w is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-12-2008, 11:34 AM
  #33
Dark Shadows
Registered User
 
Dark Shadows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Country: Japan
Posts: 7,986
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reds4Life View Post
I see your point. But you did see them play in their era, under their rules. There is no way you can say (insert name) would win Norris trophy in 2008.
Lidstrom's Norris trophies are as valuable as anyone's. He earned them just like any Norris trophy winner before him - by being the best all-around defenseman.
For example Eddie Shore would not be nearly as effective with his dirty play because he would most probably spend good chunk of the season either suspended or in penalty box.
One can as well point out that game is faster today than it was X years ago. Players are bigger, stronger and faster. Not to mention much better coaching systems, video coach etc etc
And average goalies are more effective today, especially thanks to their big new equipment. Not very long ago forwards could not even shoot high. Goalies did not wear masks. Players were not pro-athletes etc etc
Season is longer which requires better conditioning etc
Now, some players from earlier eras would thrive in today's game, some would not. And vice versa. Some today's players would not even 'survive' a season in the rough days.
I mean for example imagine Ovechkin in 1944. Could he beat Maurice Richard? Would he had the same shot he has now? Impossible to say.

Thanks for very interesting material HO


No, his Norris trophies are not full value. Taking them at face value like that would imply he was better than Bourque, who only won 5, or much better than Potvin or Robinson or Red Kelly, who only won 3 and 2 and 1. And Lidstrom was NOT better than Bourque, and he was just a hair over Potvin and Robinson and Red Kelly. Or Brad Park is another guy who would get shafted in this manner. He was close to all of the above in skill, but has 0 Norris trophies and 6 Runner up's.

This is why I never believe in taking trophies at face value. Hockey Outsider used a good comparison when he mentioned StLouis having a Hart, but Yzerman not having one, etc.

Your era argument holds some merit in some cases, but not all for the fact that some of these players were from recent era's where the changes were visible and easily comparable across era's for me.

I can say without a shadow of a doubt that Bourque, Macinnis, and Chelios were far better players in the 80's/early90's than they were when they went runner up to Lidstrom for the Norris at age 40-41.


Quote:
Originally Posted by norrisnick View Post
What's your argument against bilros? Domination of peers? Is that just a sham to get him to shut up?
No idea what you are trying to get at here. My arguments against Bilros are almost identical to every argument I use with you, except you are much better to debate with because you employ logic instead of prejudice.
I barely even argue with Bilros anymore. I just cut and paste FissionFire's post that defeats his "All old players are bad" argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider View Post
I wrote a very long post about Kelly for the HOH Top 100 project. To summarize, they were both regarded as outstanding defensive players (though their styles were completely different). Kelly was far more disciplined (4-time Lady Byng winner with a career high of 39 PIM vs one of the dirtiest players in the modern league). He was far more durable (through 14 years Kelly appeared in 96.7% of his team's games vs 84.2% for Pronger). Kelly was the best offensive defenseman in the league by a wide margin (see my post for analysis) while Pronger is 8th in defensemen scoring since he entered the league. In terms of awards, Kelly has a lead in Hart trophy nominations (4-1), all-star selections (8-4). Pronger had back-to-back Smythe-calibre playoffs but had a choker reputation before the lockout; Kelly was the 2nd best player on the Wings dynasty and a solid support player on the Leafs dynasty. I think that's a pretty good case for Kelly and it doesn't make any reference to quality of competition.

Now this might not have been the best example because almost every hockey fan knowledgeable about the 1950s-present would rank Kelly ahead of Pronger. Park and Pronger are pretty close in terms of raw accomplishments; but that's when a subjective adjustment would come in to play (based on the fact that Park was essentially shut out from the Norris four times in five years thanks to Orr).



You're right, this is a valid point. I'll admit that sometimes I count the number HOF players as competition, but it's more a "shortcut" than anything.

It's starting to look like Mark Howe will never make the HOF, but I'd take him ahead of several dozen HOF players. Similarly, it may be literally true that John McKenzie beat Gordie Howe for an all-star spot, but Howe at age 41 wasn't exactly the same player as Howe at age 23 or 33. Furthermore, even though Robitaille's toughest competiton for the AS spot in 1992 isn't a HOFer, Stevens was certainly playing like a HOF player that year. Anyway, I agree. Counting HOF competition is a shortcut but (like any other stat) has flaws.



We disagree here. I think that, occasionally, the 3rd best player in one year could have been better than the best player in another year. (I stand by the example of Yzerman in '89 vs St. Louis in '04). This is definitely subjective, though.



I've been tough on players from two eras (1918-1925, when North America's professional talent was spread over multiple leagues and 1943-45, when around half the league was in the Armed Forces).

Beyond that it's on a case-by-case basis which understandably can be a bit frustrating. Here's a great example of post arguing about the relative weakness of a certain era. It would be great if more posts about the strengths/weaknesses of a certain era could be based on this post.


Last edited by Dark Shadows: 09-12-2008 at 12:20 PM.
Dark Shadows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2009, 10:15 PM
  #34
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
 
Hockey Outsider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,942
vCash: 500
Updated listing of Norris finalists

PLAYER FIRST SECOND THIRD FOURTH FIFTH TOTAL
Ray Bourque 5 6 4 4 0 19
Paul Coffey 3 2 1 1 4 11
Nicklas Lidstrom 6 3 1 0 0 10
Bobby Orr 8 0 1 0 0 9
Doug Harvey* 7 1 0 1 0 9
Pierre Pilote 3 3 0 2 0 8
Larry Robinson 2 1 3 1 1 8
Chris Chelios 3 2 1 1 0 7
Denis Potvin 3 2 1 1 0 7
Brad Park 0 6 0 1 0 7
Bill Gadsby* 0 3 2 1 1 7
Borje Salming 0 2 2 2 1 7
Scott Stevens 0 2 1 2 2 7
Brian Leetch 2 0 1 1 2 6
Al MacInnis 1 3 2 0 0 6
Jacques Laperriere 1 1 0 2 2 6
Chris Pronger 1 0 3 1 1 6
Tim Horton 0 2 2 2 0 6
Guy Lapointe 0 1 1 2 2 6
Rod Langway 2 0 1 0 2 5
Rob Blake 1 0 2 1 1 5
Marcel Pronovost 0 1 2 0 2 5
JC Tremblay 0 1 1 1 2 5
Fern Flaman 0 0 3 0 2 5
Red Kelly* 1 2 1 0 0 4
Scott Niedermayer 1 2 0 0 1 4
Zdeno Chara 1 1 1 1 0 4
Doug Wilson 1 0 1 2 0 4
Mark Howe 0 3 0 0 1 4
Larry Murphy 0 0 2 1 1 4
Phil Housley 0 0 1 0 3 4
Sergei Gonchar 0 0 0 3 1 4
Serge Savard 0 0 0 1 3 4
Tom Johnson 1 0 0 1 1 3
Carl Brewer 0 1 1 1 0 3
Bill White 0 0 3 0 0 3
Pat Stapleton 0 0 1 2 0 3

* Played at least a few peak years before Norris trophy was first awarded in 1954


Last edited by Hockey Outsider: 06-19-2009 at 10:22 PM.
Hockey Outsider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2009, 04:21 PM
  #35
Axxellien
Registered User
 
Axxellien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Sherbrooke, Quebec
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,456
vCash: 500
If the rebuilding Bruins had recognized Pat Stapleton's immense potential & had kept him in their system, he would have peaked & come in to his own at the start if the Orr era..What a dynamic Defense pairing....Could have been....

Axxellien is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2009, 12:15 AM
  #36
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
 
Hockey Outsider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,942
vCash: 500
Updated for 2008-2009 season

1 Ray Bourque 901
2 Nicklas Lidstrom 807
3 Bobby Orr 742
4 *Doug Harvey 626
5 Chris Chelios 416
6 Paul Coffey 394
7 Denis Potvin 361
8 Al MacInnis 345
9 Pierre Pilote 335
10 Brian Leetch 284
11 Larry Robinson 276
12 Chris Pronger 275
13 Brad Park 265
14 Scott Niedermayer 238
15 Scott Stevens 231
16 *Bill Gadsby 213
17 Rob Blake 211
18 Zdeno Chara 211
19 Borje Salming 193
20 *Red Kelly 192
21 Rod Langway 185
22 Mark Howe 173
23 Tim Horton 151
24 Jacques Laperriere 139
25 Sergei Gonchar 113
26 Marcel Pronovost 107
27 Doug Wilson 105
28 Harry Howell 102
29 Carl Brewer 91
30 Larry Murphy 87
31 Tom Johnson 85
32 Mike Green 80
33 Guy Lapointe 78
34 JC Tremblay 72
35 Fern Flaman 70
36 Sergei Zubov 65
37 Allan Stanley 63
38 Vladimir Konstantinov 57
39 Dion Phaneuf 55
40 Phil Housley 53
41 Serge Savard 52
42 Bill White 50
43 Eric Desjardins 46
44 Pat Stapleton 41
45 Randy Carlyle 40
46 Derian Hatcher 34
47 Gary Suter 34
48 Elmer Vasko 33
49 Sandis Ozolinsh 33
50 Jim Schoenfeld 33

* Played a significant portion of their career before the Norris trophy was first awarded in 1954.

Keep in mind that a single big season can really skew the numbers (hence Mike Green in 32nd, ahead of Lapointe, Savard and a few other HOF blueliners).

Hockey Outsider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2009, 12:58 AM
  #37
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 28,568
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider View Post
I tried calculating this but I haven't come up with anything reasonable. Subtracting Orr's votes doesn't work, because that doesn't change the maximum number of available votes (ie even if I subtract Orr's 204 votes in 1972, it doesn't change the fact that Park only earned 117 out of a possible 210 votes). Since I base the scores on maximum number of votes (ie number of voters * 5 points for a first-place vote) and not the total number of votes, this method doesn't solve the problem.

I also tried re-distributing the votes proportionately (ie in 1972 Park earned 51.3% of the votes that didn't go to Orr so he'd get 204 * .513 = 105 additional votes. The problem is he already had 117 votes so 117+ 105 = 222 votes, when the maximum is 210. This doesn't make sense because it means Park received more 1st place votes than there are voters! Let me know if you can think of another way of approaching this, it's an interesting problem.
Yeah, it's a tough call as there are numerous cascading problems. I mean, without Orr as competition, who's to say Park doesn't get ALL the 1st place votes, right? But anyway, I think you have to go through this voting rank by voting rank. Take Orr's 1st place votes, and divvy them out to the rest of the list according to what percent of non-Orr 1st place votes they received. Then go to Orr's 2nd place votes, and divvy them out accoring to the percentage of non-Orr 2nd place votes everyone got... and so on and so forth. That might be better (although more of a pain in the butt) than trying to divvy up the whole lot, for reasons including what you've already mentioned. That way, if Park received only 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place votes, you're not needlessly adding on 4th and 5th place votes, making the total over 210.

But then, without Orr, does that make Park's 2nd place votes turn into 1st place votes? Without Orr, those voters might have voted him 1st place, maybe someone else, but who knows? Too many variables to accurately deal with without sitting down and looking at everyone's ballot from each year... yeah right.

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-01-2010, 11:39 PM
  #38
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
 
Hockey Outsider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,942
vCash: 500
Norris tropy voting record

Updated through 2010

PLAYER FIRST SECOND THIRD FOURTH FIFTH TOTAL
Ray Bourque 5 6 4 4 0 19
Nicklas Lidstrom 6 3 1 1 0 11
Paul Coffey 3 2 1 1 4 11
Bobby Orr 8 0 1 0 0 9
Doug Harvey* 7 1 0 1 0 9
Pierre Pilote 3 3 0 2 0 8
Larry Robinson 2 1 3 1 1 8
Chris Chelios 3 2 1 1 0 7
Denis Potvin 3 2 1 1 0 7
Chris Pronger 1 0 3 1 2 7
Brad Park 0 6 0 1 0 7
Bill Gadsby* 0 3 2 1 1 7
Borje Salming 0 2 2 2 1 7
Scott Stevens 0 2 1 2 2 7
Brian Leetch 2 0 1 1 2 6
Al MacInnis 1 3 2 0 0 6
Jacques Laperriere 1 1 0 2 2 6
Tim Horton 0 2 2 2 0 6
Guy Lapointe 0 1 1 2 2 6
Rod Langway 2 0 1 0 2 5
Rob Blake 1 0 2 1 1 5
Marcel Pronovost 0 1 2 0 2 5
JC Tremblay 0 1 1 1 2 5
Fern Flaman 0 0 3 0 2 5
Red Kelly* 1 2 1 0 0 4
Scott Niedermayer 1 2 0 0 1 4
Zdeno Chara 1 1 1 1 0 4
Doug Wilson 1 0 1 2 0 4
Mark Howe 0 3 0 0 1 4
Larry Murphy 0 0 2 1 1 4
Phil Housley 0 0 1 0 3 4
Sergei Gonchar 0 0 0 3 1 4
Serge Savard 0 0 0 1 3 4
Tom Johnson 1 0 0 1 1 3
Carl Brewer 0 1 1 1 0 3
Bill White 0 0 3 0 0 3
Pat Stapleton 0 0 1 2 0 3

* Played at least a few peak years before Norris trophy was first awarded in 1954

- Players in bold moved up in 2010
- This is not intended to be an all-inclusive ranking. Most importantly, this metric does not take into account quality of competition, or performance in the playoffs.

Hockey Outsider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2010, 04:02 PM
  #39
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,553
vCash: 500
Very interesting list and comments.

I tried the links but both don't work but the last couple of tables shed some light on the situation.

A couple of points to remember though is that voters are human and don't often use the same criteria in evaluating players in voting systems like this.

The Ted Williams not being in the MVP top 10 voting of one writer due to that Beantown writer hating him is probably the best example of this.

Another bias or flaw is in the TV era is that eastern writers often don't stay up to watch western late games and all players under consideration for trophies like the Norris don't get equal viewing time and plain old reputations also make some voters lazy in these discussions and with hockey writers from the past.


Also pre 1967 it was a lot easier to be the top Dman in a 6 team league than in today's current 30 team league.

That being said it was nice to see some current and recently retired guys get their due here.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2010, 04:20 PM
  #40
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,680
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Also pre 1967 it was a lot easier to be the top Dman in a 6 team league than in today's current 30 team league.
No it wasn't. I'd like to see you explain how it was.

HO's Norris Trophy Shares list is only exactly what it claims to be. A Norris Trophy Shares list. It's not trying to be some definitive all-time ranking of defensemen.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2010, 04:35 PM
  #41
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
No it wasn't. I'd like to see you explain how it was.

HO's Norris Trophy Shares list is only exactly what it claims to be. A Norris Trophy Shares list. It's not trying to be some definitive all-time ranking of defensemen.
I couldn't access the links but my point was pretty simple math, if you are one guy in a 6 team league your odds are much better than being one guy in a 30 team league.

I think that if someone wants to rank Dmen all time you need to use stats, context of era, how they compare to piers, analysis of any bias in voting during that era, tons of factors and even then it is way easier and more fair to get groups of players rather than definitive lists.

But I do agree that definitive lists makes for great discussion points.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2010, 05:45 PM
  #42
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,680
vCash: 500
Its not just about the math. Cut out the bottom 4 5ths of the NHL right now. You are left with a six team league. It deosnt get any easier for keith to win the norris. Doughty, green, lidstrom, pronger, and chara are all still there.

Judging dominance of peers is what we do. I have seen many different ways that my colleagues around here do just that, and they are all very interesting and informative and have helped us reach the conclusions that we have reached.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2010, 06:02 PM
  #43
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,553
vCash: 500
yes those guys are still there but if you cut out the bottom 4/5ths of the league guys like Green might not shine as much as they do in a 30 team league.

The bottom line is that math does come into play and there are a couple of really easy examples of this in modern times.

Take the Olympics or Canada Cups, do all the top scorers stats translate from their current NHL seasons, the answer is no even with the small sample sizes because there is a concentration of skill and talent, different players might have different roles as well.

Pavel Demtira was a top scorer of all things and as a Canuck fan it translated into nothing in the NHL this year.

Also the gap between the top players and worst player in a fictional modern NHL 6 team league is minuscule compared to past eras where the bottom players in the 6 team NHL weren't really all that great talent wise, partly due to the lack of Europeans and USA feeder players available at the time (virtually none). I still remember guys like Milbury and Murzyn who could not even turn properly in the corners and we had great skaters when they played in the NHL.

I was born in 67 so I never saw any original 6 games live but on tape they looked just plain slow to todays games

I know that I'm a bit all over the place here with the argument but I'll leave it to this simple point.

If you had a choice to be in a lottery where everyone had one ticket would u be in one with 6 or 30 guys total?

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2010, 06:07 PM
  #44
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,404
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post

Also pre 1967 it was a lot easier to be the top Dman in a 6 team league than in today's current 30 team league.

That being said it was nice to see some current and recently retired guys get their due here.
You've made comments like this several times, and I don't understand.

The talent pool didn't magically double in 1967; just the number of teams did. Yeah, it was easier for guys like Bobby Orr to own the lesser players who just joined the league. But even if the best appeared more dominant on the surface, they were still the best.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2010, 06:09 PM
  #45
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,404
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
If you had a choice to be in a lottery where everyone had one ticket would u be in one with 6 or 30 guys total?
It's not a lottery. Teams had scouting and farm systems to find the best players and bring them to the NHL. Sure, such a system wasn't perfect, but do you really think a top 5 forward or defenseman in the world would have been missed?

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2010, 06:09 PM
  #46
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,680
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post

I know that I'm a bit all over the place here with the argument but I'll leave it to this simple point.

If you had a choice to be in a lottery where everyone had one ticket would u be in one with 6 or 30 guys total?
Obviously six.

However, the norris and hart trophies are not handed out via lottery.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2010, 06:35 PM
  #47
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
It's not a lottery. Teams had scouting and farm systems to find the best players and bring them to the NHL. Sure, such a system wasn't perfect, but do you really think a top 5 forward or defenseman in the world would have been missed?
No it wasn't a lottery but a a guy would have a way easier time being in the top 5 in a 6 team league than a 30 team league Fern Flanman being an example.

It was way easier for a team to repeat winning the cup with 6 teams why would it have been any different for a guy to repeat as an MVP or any other trophy given 6 teams to 30.

I'm not saying that it was 5 times easier back then or 5 times harder to today but there has to be a difference just placed purely on numbers.

Look at in another way pcik a grouping of the 30-35th best players in the NHL today or 10-15th or whatever comaper them to the same grouping back in the 6 team era.

Are we talking about the same level and type of guys. Not a chance IMO.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2010, 06:59 PM
  #48
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,680
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
It was way easier for a team to repeat winning the cup with 6 teams why would it have been any different for a guy to repeat as an MVP or any other trophy given 6 teams to 30.
Because comparing the probability of being on the best team in the world as opposed to being the best player in the world doesn't make any sense.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2010, 07:04 PM
  #49
jkrx
Registered User
 
jkrx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,337
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
It's not a lottery. Teams had scouting and farm systems to find the best players and bring them to the NHL. Sure, such a system wasn't perfect, but do you really think a top 5 forward or defenseman in the world would have been missed?
Maybe not missed but unable or not intrested to play in the NHL.

jkrx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2010, 07:16 PM
  #50
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,404
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkrx View Post
Maybe not missed but unable or not intrested to play in the NHL.
How is that different than today, though?

I see no reason why a lower percentage of Canada's best athletes would want to play hockey in the 60s than today.

TheDevilMadeMe 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 09:58 AM.

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.