Register FAQ Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
 Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
 Notices Please do not post or solicit links to illegal game streams.

 By The Numbers Hockey Analytics... the Final Frontier. Explore strange new worlds, to seek out new algorithms, to boldly go where no one has gone before.

01-02-2009, 12:02 AM
#1
Hockey Outsider
Registered User

Join Date: Jan 2005
Country:
Posts: 3,579
vCash: 500

Most of you are aware of BM67’s adjusted scoring system (link). Basically, the player who finishes second in a scoring category receives one point, and all other statistics are compared to that amount.

Quote:
 Example: Iginla 52 goals= 1.268293 points, Guerin, Sundin & Murray 41 goals= 1 point each, Naslund 40 goals= 0.97561 points
The main benefit of this system is that it put all players from all seasons on an even playing field. Since all players are compared to their peers in a given year, any major variables (ie length of the NHL schedule, level of offense, average ice time per player) are automatically taken into account by the statistic. Still, I think there are two weaknesses with his approach, and I’ve tried to improve on them.

The first weakness is that the results are a bit confusing. For example, when I’m told that Stan Mikita scored 14.913 career points and averaged 3.26 points per season over his prime, it’s hard to intuitively understand the number. The second weakness is that not all second place finishes are created equal – sometimes there’s really only one player who’s ahead of the pack (ie Gretzky scoring 183 points when there were several players 100-110 points) and other times there are a few players well ahead of the pack (ie Lemieux & Jagr each scoring 149+ points, when nobody else exceeded 120 points). The numbers may be skewed if you’re comparing a season with a strong player who finishes 2nd in scoring, to a season with a weak 2nd place finish.

Essentially my “revised BM67 scoring” system is calculated as follows:
• I take the average of second through fourth place in goals. My rationale is that if you average a few top spots, the result is unlikely to be skewed by a single really strong or weak performance from whoever finishes in 2nd. The average is then awarded 50 goals. Each player’s total goals in a season is compared to this number.
• Example: in 2002, the average of 2nd through 4th place was 41 goals. We pro-rate all goals by 50/41 = 1.219. So Iginla’s 52 goals are worth 63, Sundin, Guerin & Murray’s 41 goals are worth 50, Naslund’s 40 are worth 49, etc.
• I do the same calculation for assists (fixing the average of 2nd to 4th place as 75 assists). Then I add goals and assists together to get total adjusted points.

Why this method makes sense:
• Players are compared to their peers, so it doesn’t matter whether they played in a low- or high-scoring era, and other variables (ie length of schedule, average ice time, etc) are rendered irrelevant
• The results make sense intuitively since they are all benchmarked to 50 goal & 75 assist milestones.
• Since I use the average of 2nd through 4th place, it’s unlikely that a really good/bad performance by a single player will skew the results in any way

• There is no adjustment for quality of era, so even obviously weaker eras (ie pre-consolidation from 1918-1925 and WWII from 1943-1945) are treated equally to eras with strong talent pools
• Obviously this method looks at regular season scoring statistics only -- so playoff performances, defensive play, etc, are not included in this analysis

Last edited by Hockey Outsider: 01-02-2009 at 01:12 AM.

01-02-2009, 12:03 AM
#2
Hockey Outsider
Registered User

Join Date: Jan 2005
Country:
Posts: 3,579
vCash: 500

 Player Games Goals Assists Points GPG APG PPG PeakG PeakA PeakPts Gordie Howe 2061 1161 1739 2900 0.56 0.84 1.41 69 84 151 Wayne Gretzky 1543 796 1882 2678 0.52 1.22 1.74 66 127 186 Stan Mikita 1529 668 1237 1905 0.44 0.81 1.25 52 87 136 Alex Delvecchio 1765 630 1258 1889 0.36 0.71 1.07 39 73 107 Mark Messier 1808 645 1205 1850 0.36 0.67 1.02 40 71 104 Phil Esposito 1369 780 1053 1833 0.57 0.77 1.34 66 86 151 Ron Francis 1778 524 1295 1819 0.29 0.73 1.02 28 75 101 Jean Beliveau 1292 702 1103 1805 0.54 0.85 1.4 54 79 130 John Bucyk 1709 683 1098 1781 0.4 0.64 1.04 44 63 104 Jaromir Jagr 1307 671 1066 1737 0.51 0.82 1.33 52 80 131 Steve Yzerman 1561 649 1085 1734 0.42 0.69 1.11 49 66 109 Joe Sakic 1400 626 1099 1724 0.45 0.78 1.23 47 74 113 Marcel Dionne 1388 669 1042 1710 0.48 0.75 1.23 50 77 125 Norm Ullman 1584 650 1053 1703 0.41 0.66 1.07 48 66 113 Maurice Richard 1255 854 800 1654 0.68 0.64 1.32 70 60 122 Bobby Hull 1203 820 819 1640 0.68 0.68 1.36 73 65 133 Mario Lemieux 926 612 977 1590 0.66 1.06 1.72 58 83 140 Raymond Bourque 1665 380 1153 1534 0.23 0.69 0.92 23 68 88 Henri Richard 1420 489 1005 1494 0.34 0.71 1.05 38 73 109 Ted Lindsay 1327 603 888 1491 0.45 0.67 1.12 51 85 131 Frank Mahovlich 1328 682 799 1482 0.51 0.6 1.12 53 59 109 Andy Bathgate 1236 494 984 1477 0.4 0.8 1.19 46 82 124 Mark Recchi 1447 521 946 1467 0.36 0.65 1.01 38 69 104 Adam Oates 1379 326 1136 1462 0.24 0.82 1.06 26 82 105 Jean Ratelle 1371 535 921 1456 0.39 0.67 1.06 41 71 109 Paul Coffey 1459 359 1094 1453 0.25 0.75 1 32 77 108 Brett Hull 1309 730 699 1429 0.56 0.53 1.09 62 51 102 Mats Sundin 1338 575 850 1424 0.43 0.63 1.06 41 59 99 Luc Robitaille 1471 652 749 1401 0.44 0.51 0.95 46 53 96 Brendan Shanahan 1527 653 748 1401 0.43 0.49 0.92 45 50 93 Doug Gilmour 1518 423 977 1400 0.28 0.64 0.92 31 72 99 Mike Modano 1343 534 833 1366 0.4 0.62 1.02 41 61 98 Red Kelly 1565 424 941 1365 0.27 0.6 0.87 30 67 93 Pierre Turgeon 1335 504 849 1354 0.38 0.64 1.01 38 60 93 Bryan Trottier 1309 471 878 1349 0.36 0.67 1.03 41 76 115 Guy Lafleur 1161 524 803 1328 0.45 0.69 1.14 53 79 131 Dave Andreychuk 1687 611 703 1314 0.36 0.42 0.78 39 45 80 Gilbert Perreault 1228 480 832 1312 0.39 0.68 1.07 40 66 101 Aurel Joliat 1280 558 746 1304 0.44 0.58 1.02 48 65 106 Bernie Geoffrion 1029 576 717 1292 0.56 0.7 1.26 52 66 113 Jari Kurri 1295 527 749 1277 0.41 0.58 0.99 51 58 108 Nels Stewart 1164 649 627 1276 0.56 0.54 1.1 55 52 102 Dale Hawerchuk 1222 456 819 1275 0.37 0.67 1.04 41 67 102 Al MacInnis 1453 327 947 1274 0.23 0.65 0.88 25 61 83 Howie Morenz 1062 526 741 1267 0.5 0.7 1.19 54 74 123 Jeremy Roenick 1347 503 762 1265 0.37 0.57 0.94 41 58 95 Dave Keon 1417 486 769 1255 0.34 0.54 0.89 40 55 87 Rod Gilbert 1156 470 779 1249 0.41 0.67 1.08 40 66 102 Vincent Damphousse 1420 418 827 1245 0.29 0.58 0.88 32 59 86 Dean Prentice 1566 527 717 1244 0.34 0.46 0.79 36 56 86 Bobby Clarke 1185 348 895 1244 0.29 0.76 1.05 33 79 107 Teemu Selanne 1096 560 680 1241 0.51 0.62 1.13 52 64 109 Sergei Fedorov 1226 488 741 1229 0.4 0.6 1 40 56 95 Phil Housley 1542 317 911 1228 0.21 0.59 0.8 24 60 76 Mike Gartner 1480 633 593 1226 0.43 0.4 0.83 43 43 82 Denis Savard 1245 422 802 1224 0.34 0.64 0.98 36 71 104 Milt Schmidt 1087 420 784 1204 0.39 0.72 1.11 39 70 108 Bill Cowley 910 370 825 1194 0.41 0.91 1.31 41 89 125 Larry Murphy 1668 267 917 1183 0.16 0.55 0.71 20 56 72 Elmer Lach 917 356 826 1182 0.39 0.9 1.29 38 88 123 Syd Howe 1190 470 706 1176 0.39 0.59 0.99 42 66 103 Hooley Smith 1299 403 768 1171 0.31 0.59 0.9 36 69 101 Frank Boucher 1025 309 858 1167 0.3 0.84 1.14 33 88 117 Rod Brind'Amour 1360 425 741 1166 0.31 0.55 0.86 31 54 82 Joe Nieuwendyk 1296 554 605 1160 0.43 0.47 0.89 42 44 82 Theoren Fleury 1120 458 686 1144 0.41 0.61 1.02 44 60 95 Bernie Nicholls 1177 430 700 1129 0.37 0.59 0.96 40 57 97 Dino Ciccarelli 1279 547 570 1116 0.43 0.45 0.87 41 46 84 Peter Stastny 1002 391 724 1115 0.39 0.72 1.11 39 72 110 Darryl Sittler 1131 451 656 1107 0.4 0.58 0.98 39 62 100 Toe Blake 941 442 659 1101 0.47 0.7 1.17 46 64 108 Busher Jackson 1087 479 612 1091 0.44 0.56 1 48 57 105 George Armstrong 1368 426 664 1090 0.31 0.49 0.8 30 49 77 Keith Tkachuk 1085 523 560 1083 0.48 0.52 1 45 49 91 Brian Leetch 1244 248 832 1080 0.2 0.67 0.87 20 67 85 Alexander Mogilny 1023 464 612 1076 0.45 0.6 1.05 44 49 90 Billy Harris 1812 394 682 1076 0.22 0.38 0.59 27 45 70 Doug Weight 1162 270 803 1073 0.23 0.69 0.92 24 70 92 Cy Denneny 917 497 575 1072 0.54 0.63 1.17 57 78 129 Doug Bentley 827 378 687 1065 0.46 0.83 1.29 45 78 122 Dit Clapper 1436 437 628 1064 0.3 0.44 0.74 41 50 84 Bobby Orr 700 293 764 1057 0.42 1.09 1.51 39 103 142 Paul Kariya 936 410 642 1053 0.44 0.69 1.12 44 65 105 Max Bentley 876 421 627 1048 0.48 0.72 1.2 47 76 120 Bernie Federko 1025 326 718 1044 0.32 0.7 1.02 32 65 95 Doug Mohns 1572 346 696 1043 0.22 0.44 0.66 32 48 78 Nicklas Lidstrom 1280 223 819 1042 0.17 0.64 0.81 18 66 83 Bryan Hextall 1302 470 571 1040 0.36 0.44 0.8 50 56 103 Mike Bossy 771 508 530 1038 0.66 0.69 1.35 57 61 115 Pat Verbeek 1471 491 544 1035 0.33 0.37 0.7 38 38 74 Michel Goulet 1110 477 557 1034 0.43 0.5 0.93 47 51 97 Denis Potvin 1089 284 738 1022 0.26 0.68 0.94 26 67 93 Reg Noble 1248 327 686 1013 0.26 0.55 0.81 38 68 102 Ted Kennedy 907 375 636 1011 0.41 0.7 1.12 42 66 100 Bert Olmstead 995 269 742 1011 0.27 0.75 1.02 27 75 98 Ken Hodge 1086 392 613 1005 0.36 0.56 0.93 43 57 100 Peter Forsberg 739 267 738 1004 0.36 1 1.36 29 78 107 Yvan Cournoyer 1039 477 526 1003 0.46 0.51 0.97 43 49 90 Glenn Anderson 1173 443 556 999 0.38 0.47 0.85 41 48 88 Murray Oliver 1253 352 644 996 0.28 0.51 0.8 31 58 86

Discussion
• Peak goals refers to the average number of adjusted goals a player scored over their five best season (not necessarily consecutive).
• Howe is so far ahead of everyone else in goal-scoring that it nearly defies description; he was in the top five in 14 different seasons. Adjusted for era, Richard and Hull join the 800-goal category while Gretzky drops down into the 700 goal club. Beliveau leaps from 507 to 702 goals.
• Nels Stewart (who was the NHL's all-time leading goal scorer as late as 1952) soars to 649 goals.
• If you're surprised at seeing Mikita in 3rd place, you shouldn't be. He routinely scored 80-95 points per year in the low-scoring, short-length early 1960s; this translate to an average of 131 points per year in the six seasons leading up to expansion. Throw in a few more 100+ point seasons after expansion, then nearly a full decade as a solid point-per-game player, and you end up with over 1,800 career points.
• As expected, Jagr looks even better due to adjusted scoring. He picks up around 150 points, or nearly 10% of his career total.
• In adjusted scoring, Sakic is 10 points behind Yzerman despite playing 161 fewer games. Even if you argue that Yzerman had a better peak (which is debatable), Sakic was definitely more consistent.

Last edited by Hockey Outsider: 01-02-2009 at 01:13 AM.

01-02-2009, 12:05 AM
#3
Hockey Outsider
Registered User

Join Date: Jan 2005
Country:
Posts: 3,579
vCash: 500

 Player Games Goals Assists Points GPG APG PPG PeakG PeakA PeakPts Bill Mosienko 937 421 575 996 0.45 0.61 1.06 43 62 101 Tony Amonte 1206 433 554 987 0.36 0.46 0.82 42 49 88 Frank Nighbor 924 281 706 987 0.3 0.76 1.07 37 86 122 Dave Taylor 1135 381 600 982 0.34 0.53 0.87 36 54 90 Alex Kovalev 1104 385 593 978 0.35 0.54 0.89 36 54 89 Joe Mullen 1109 448 528 977 0.4 0.48 0.88 40 44 83 Syl Apps Sr 681 396 580 976 0.58 0.85 1.43 44 72 113 Phil Goyette 1070 281 692 973 0.26 0.65 0.91 30 67 95 Bobby Rousseau 1047 324 646 970 0.31 0.62 0.93 35 65 97 Chris Chelios 1660 174 789 962 0.1 0.48 0.58 14 51 61 Eric Lindros 790 390 570 960 0.49 0.72 1.22 44 60 103 Bill Gadsby 1493 198 760 958 0.13 0.51 0.64 17 64 78 Peter Bondra 1114 526 429 955 0.47 0.39 0.86 49 38 82 Pit Martin 1181 366 587 954 0.31 0.5 0.81 32 55 85 Lanny McDonald 1141 451 500 951 0.4 0.44 0.83 44 48 89 Daniel Alfredsson 853 350 601 951 0.41 0.7 1.11 37 60 97 Dale Hunter 1459 290 660 950 0.2 0.45 0.65 23 48 67 Sweeney Schriner 819 418 528 946 0.51 0.64 1.15 47 67 108 Bob Nevin 1243 384 561 945 0.31 0.45 0.76 36 49 81 Bobby Smith 1102 313 631 944 0.28 0.57 0.86 29 58 85 Dickie Moore 840 374 568 943 0.45 0.68 1.12 47 71 113 Brian Bellows 1232 436 503 939 0.35 0.41 0.76 37 40 76 Markus Naslund 1043 399 538 936 0.38 0.52 0.9 45 62 103 Sid Abel 850 329 605 934 0.39 0.71 1.1 42 71 110 Steve Thomas 1276 405 528 933 0.32 0.41 0.73 33 44 75 Steve Larmer 1056 393 539 932 0.37 0.51 0.88 38 52 85 Bob Pulford 1228 390 541 931 0.32 0.44 0.76 33 46 77 Charlie Conacher 796 447 483 930 0.56 0.61 1.17 63 53 110 Rick Middleton 1030 401 528 929 0.39 0.51 0.9 40 52 91 Brad Park 1154 205 724 929 0.18 0.63 0.81 20 59 78 Greg Adams 1655 405 524 929 0.24 0.32 0.56 36 48 83 Pat LaFontaine 893 419 507 926 0.47 0.57 1.04 42 51 92 Marty Barry 885 393 532 925 0.44 0.6 1.05 48 63 102 Kirk Muller 1393 329 591 920 0.24 0.42 0.66 29 50 77 Larry Robinson 1422 188 731 919 0.13 0.51 0.65 15 58 73 Rick Tocchet 1180 413 506 918 0.35 0.43 0.78 34 40 74 John LeClair 998 431 482 913 0.43 0.48 0.92 48 51 98 Jacques Lemaire 894 381 532 912 0.43 0.59 1.02 38 56 92 Doug Harvey 1315 133 779 912 0.1 0.59 0.69 11 66 75 Cliff Ronning 1169 303 609 912 0.26 0.52 0.78 24 49 71 Gary Roberts 1207 420 491 911 0.35 0.41 0.76 37 37 72 Lorne Carr 978 395 510 905 0.4 0.52 0.93 43 54 95 Phil Watson 960 273 631 905 0.28 0.66 0.94 29 73 97 Brian Propp 1037 371 533 904 0.36 0.51 0.87 35 47 81 Woody Dumart 1089 397 507 904 0.37 0.47 0.83 41 50 87 Ray Ferraro 1303 395 506 901 0.3 0.39 0.69 32 40 71 Butch Goring 1144 357 541 898 0.31 0.47 0.79 32 50 80 Owen Nolan 1102 405 492 897 0.37 0.45 0.81 40 45 83 Trevor Linden 1420 371 524 895 0.26 0.37 0.63 30 38 66 Ralph Backstrom 1165 369 525 894 0.32 0.45 0.77 35 45 77 Claude Provost 1158 364 529 893 0.31 0.46 0.77 36 53 88 Scott Stevens 1684 180 710 890 0.11 0.42 0.53 15 51 62 Don McKenney 931 336 553 889 0.36 0.59 0.95 37 59 94 Mush March 1306 308 579 887 0.24 0.44 0.68 28 53 76 Johnny Gottselig 1022 351 531 882 0.34 0.52 0.86 36 53 85 Bill Cook 843 443 437 881 0.53 0.52 1.04 57 53 102 Alexei Yashin 881 362 517 879 0.41 0.59 1 40 53 92 Scott Mellanby 1472 365 511 876 0.25 0.35 0.6 27 36 60 Paul Thompson 1028 329 546 874 0.32 0.53 0.85 41 61 100 Roy Conacher 696 423 450 873 0.61 0.65 1.25 52 63 108 Jarome Iginla 860 406 464 871 0.47 0.54 1.01 45 50 95 Jason Arnott 999 353 517 870 0.35 0.52 0.87 30 45 70 King Clancy 1217 275 593 868 0.23 0.49 0.71 27 59 81 Joe Thornton 754 259 609 868 0.34 0.81 1.15 32 81 110 Vic Hadfield 1097 372 491 864 0.34 0.45 0.79 33 48 81 Bill Barber 929 390 471 861 0.42 0.51 0.93 40 47 84 Eric Nesterenko 1395 354 505 860 0.25 0.36 0.62 25 37 59 Sergei Zubov 1082 161 698 860 0.15 0.65 0.79 14 58 70 Don Marshall 1346 372 486 858 0.28 0.36 0.64 34 41 73 Neal Broten 1148 256 600 857 0.22 0.52 0.75 26 57 81 Garry Unger 1151 419 434 853 0.36 0.38 0.74 41 42 82 Bill Guerin 1138 413 436 849 0.36 0.38 0.75 41 41 80 Herb Cain 961 393 455 848 0.41 0.47 0.88 45 51 88 Ivan Boldirev 1084 334 513 847 0.31 0.47 0.78 31 44 73 Dick Duff 1181 396 445 841 0.34 0.38 0.71 37 37 71 Ray Whitney 936 301 536 837 0.32 0.57 0.89 31 55 84 Wayne Cashman 1068 271 563 834 0.25 0.53 0.78 27 52 79 Dennis Maruk 910 319 513 832 0.35 0.56 0.91 38 55 90 Pavel Bure 731 443 389 831 0.61 0.53 1.14 55 46 99 Gary Suter 1189 191 640 831 0.16 0.54 0.7 17 53 69 Vyacheslav Kozlov 1076 336 492 828 0.31 0.46 0.77 30 48 74 John MacLean 1236 393 431 824 0.32 0.35 0.67 36 35 69 Clint Smith 794 300 524 824 0.38 0.66 1.04 39 66 102 Alex Zhamnov 838 270 553 823 0.32 0.66 0.98 30 56 84 Tom Lysiak 944 267 550 818 0.28 0.58 0.87 27 53 77 Georges Boucher 1130 240 576 815 0.21 0.51 0.72 28 73 98 Tomas Sandstrom 1027 368 446 815 0.36 0.43 0.79 35 40 73 Pavol Demitra 761 308 507 814 0.4 0.67 1.07 37 61 98 Bobby Holik 1287 338 476 813 0.26 0.37 0.63 29 43 71 Bill Thoms 930 287 526 813 0.31 0.57 0.87 34 59 92 Stephane Richer 1121 403 408 811 0.36 0.36 0.72 38 33 69 Pete Mahovlich 924 290 520 810 0.31 0.56 0.88 35 60 88 Jean Pronovost 1039 386 418 804 0.37 0.4 0.77 40 40 77 Andrew Cassels 1047 207 597 804 0.2 0.57 0.77 20 56 74 Ziggy Palffy 707 350 454 804 0.49 0.64 1.14 42 53 93 Harry Watson 1048 393 409 802 0.37 0.39 0.76 38 38 74 Ron Stewart 1544 391 406 798 0.25 0.26 0.52 26 34 58 Babe Siebert 1063 274 522 796 0.26 0.49 0.75 29 53 77 Camille Henry 842 399 394 793 0.47 0.47 0.94 45 42 83 Bun Cook 842 309 483 792 0.37 0.57 0.94 36 58 89

01-02-2009, 12:08 AM
#4
Hockey Outsider
Registered User

Join Date: Jan 2005
Country:
Posts: 3,579
vCash: 500
Highest Peak Value, adjusted scoring (1-100)

 Player PeakG PeakA PeakP Wayne Gretzky 66 127 186 Phil Esposito 66 86 151 Gordie Howe 69 84 151 Bobby Orr 39 103 142 Mario Lemieux 58 83 140 Stan Mikita 52 87 136 Bobby Hull 73 65 133 Jaromir Jagr 52 80 131 Guy Lafleur 53 79 131 Ted Lindsay 51 85 131 Jean Beliveau 54 79 130 Cy Denneny 57 78 129 Marcel Dionne 50 77 125 Bill Cowley 41 89 125 Andy Bathgate 46 82 124 Howie Morenz 54 74 123 Elmer Lach 38 88 123 Maurice Richard 70 60 122 Frank Nighbor 37 86 122 Doug Bentley 45 78 122 Max Bentley 47 76 120 Frank Boucher 33 88 117 Bryan Trottier 41 76 115 Mike Bossy 57 61 115 Norm Ullman 48 66 113 Joe Sakic 47 74 113 Bernie Geoffrion 52 66 113 Syl Apps Sr 44 72 113 Dickie Moore 47 71 113 Joe Thornton 32 81 110 Peter Stastny 39 72 110 Sid Abel 42 71 110 Charlie Conacher 63 53 110 Newsy Lalonde 45 64 110 Jean Ratelle 41 71 109 Steve Yzerman 49 66 109 Henri Richard 38 73 109 Teemu Selanne 52 64 109 Frank Mahovlich 53 59 109 Toe Blake 46 64 108 Sweeney Schriner 47 67 108 Milt Schmidt 39 70 108 Paul Coffey 32 77 108 Jari Kurri 51 58 108 Roy Conacher 52 63 108 Alex Delvecchio 39 73 107 Peter Forsberg 29 78 107 Bobby Clarke 33 79 107 Aurel Joliat 48 65 106 Adam Oates 26 82 105 Busher Jackson 48 57 105 Paul Kariya 44 65 105 Gordie Drillon 51 56 104 John Bucyk 44 63 104 Denis Savard 36 71 104 Mark Recchi 38 69 104 Mark Messier 40 71 104 Joe Primeau 23 81 104 Bryan Hextall 50 56 103 Babe Dye 58 46 103 Markus Naslund 45 62 103 Syd Howe 42 66 103 Eric Lindros 44 60 103 Clint Smith 39 66 102 Bill Cook 57 53 102 Nels Stewart 55 52 102 Reg Noble 38 68 102 Rod Gilbert 40 66 102 Marty Barry 48 63 102 Brett Hull 62 51 102 Dale Hawerchuk 41 67 102 Gilbert Perreault 40 66 101 Hooley Smith 36 69 101 Ron Francis 28 75 101 Bill Mosienko 43 62 101 Darryl Sittler 39 62 100 Ted Kennedy 42 66 100 Lynn Patrick 42 59 100 Ken Hodge 43 57 100 Paul Thompson 41 61 100 Pavel Bure 55 46 99 Mats Sundin 41 59 99 Doug Gilmour 31 72 99 Billy Taylor 29 70 99 Georges Boucher 28 73 98 Bert Olmstead 27 75 98 Mike Modano 41 61 98 Pavol Demitra 37 61 98 John LeClair 48 51 98 Bobby Rousseau 35 65 97 Michel Goulet 47 51 97 Paul Ronty 28 68 97 Bernie Nicholls 40 57 97 Phil Watson 29 73 97 Daniel Alfredsson 37 60 97 Marian Hossa 43 55 96 Luc Robitaille 46 53 96 Theoren Fleury 44 60 95 Bernie Federko 32 65 95 Jeremy Roenick 41 58 95

Discussion
• Note the absence of Turgeon, Andreychuk, Gartner, Ciccarelli, Nieuwendyk and others who had long, consistent careers but were rarely (or never) elite offensive players. Also note the huge discrepancies for Robitaille (29th in career points but only 97th in peak value and Francis (7th in career points but 74th in peak value).
• Conversely, this metric really helps players who had dominant peaks but short careers. Bobby Orr soars from 82nd in career scoring to 4th (!) in peak value; Frank Nighbor jumps from 103rd to 19th; Syl Apps rises from 107th to 28th. The most extreme example might be Newsy Lalonde who is 449th in career scoring but ranks 34th in peak value.
• Joe Thornton is already in the top thirty according to this metric -- he's been a truly stunning, consistent playmaker over past several years and, if not for a weak playoff resume, would likely already be a lock for the Hall of Fame.
• This statistic shows how dominant Gordie Howe really was. Trapped in a low-scoring era with shorter season lengths, Howe's raw statistics are artificially distorted. In his best year he scored 95 points when only a single player (his linemate Ted Lindsay) scored more than 61 points -- this works out to 168 adjusted points, more points than any player other than Gretzky scored in a single season.

Last edited by Hockey Outsider: 01-02-2009 at 12:30 AM.

01-02-2009, 12:10 AM
#5
Hockey Outsider
Registered User

Join Date: Jan 2005
Country:
Posts: 3,579
vCash: 500
Total Milestone Seasons (1-100)

 Player Goals Assists Points Total Wayne Gretzky 5 16 16 37 Gordie Howe 11 6 19 36 Mario Lemieux 5 7 10 22 Phil Esposito 7 7 8 22 Bobby Hull 9 10 19 Maurice Richard 8 10 18 Jaromir Jagr 5 4 9 18 Jean Beliveau 4 5 9 18 Stan Mikita 3 6 9 18 Andy Bathgate 1 7 9 17 Frank Boucher 7 7 14 Guy Lafleur 4 4 6 14 Ted Lindsay 3 3 7 13 Marcel Dionne 3 4 6 13 Joe Sakic 1 2 9 12 Mike Bossy 5 7 12 Bill Cowley 5 7 12 Bobby Orr 6 6 12 Cy Denneny 4 3 5 12 Elmer Lach 1 4 6 11 Doug Bentley 2 2 6 10 Frank Mahovlich 5 5 10 Howie Morenz 4 1 5 10 Max Bentley 1 4 5 10 Adam Oates 6 4 10 Frank Nighbor 4 5 9 Teemu Selanne 5 4 9 Steve Yzerman 3 5 8 Toe Blake 2 1 5 8 Sid Abel 2 2 4 8 Joe Thornton 4 4 8 Paul Coffey 4 4 8 Charlie Conacher 5 3 8 Newsy Lalonde 3 2 3 8 Babe Dye 6 2 8 Roy Conacher 5 1 2 8 Jean Ratelle 1 6 7 Bernie Geoffrion 2 5 7 Alex Delvecchio 2 5 7 Bryan Trottier 2 5 7 Peter Stastny 2 5 7 Peter Forsberg 3 4 7 Brett Hull 4 3 7 Bryan Hextall 3 1 3 7 Dickie Moore 2 2 3 7 Norm Ullman 1 5 6 Aurel Joliat 2 4 6 Jari Kurri 2 4 6 Denis Savard 2 4 6 Syl Apps Sr 2 4 6 Sweeney Schriner 1 2 3 6 Bobby Clarke 3 3 6 Joe Primeau 3 3 6 Bill Cook 4 2 6 Nels Stewart 4 2 6 Busher Jackson 1 4 5 Billy Boucher 2 3 5 Joe Malone 2 3 5 Gordie Drillon 1 1 3 5 Milt Schmidt 1 1 3 5 Henri Richard 2 3 5 Ron Francis 2 3 5 Jarome Iginla 3 2 5 Marty Barry 2 1 2 5 Art Chapman 3 2 5 Bert Olmstead 3 2 5 Pavel Bure 4 1 5 Ace Bailey 1 3 4 Bill Thoms 1 3 4 Dany Heatley 1 3 4 John Bucyk 1 3 4 Kenny Wharram 1 3 4 Lynn Patrick 1 3 4 Markus Naslund 1 3 4 Clint Smith 1 3 4 Hooley Smith 1 3 4 Rod Gilbert 1 3 4 John LeClair 2 2 4 Bill Mosienko 1 1 2 4 Cecil Dillon 1 1 2 4 Reg Noble 1 1 2 4 Buddy O'Connor 2 2 4 Doug Gilmour 2 2 4 Harry Cameron 2 2 4 Jack Darragh 2 2 4 Mark Messier 2 2 4 Pete Mahovlich 2 2 4 Herb Cain 2 1 1 4 Dale Hawerchuk 3 3 Gilbert Perreault 3 3 Ken Hodge 3 3 Mike Modano 3 3 Paul Kariya 3 3 Pavol Demitra 3 3 Alex Ovechkin 1 2 3 Alexei Yashin 1 2 3 Bernie Nicholls 1 2 3 Bronco Horvath 1 2 3 Gaye Stewart 1 2 3 Larry Aurie 1 2 3 Lorne Carr 1 2 3 Mats Sundin 1 2 3 Paul Thompson 1 2 3 Rick MacLeish 1 2 3 Theoren Fleury 1 2 3 Todd Bertuzzi 1 2 3 Vincent Lecavalier 1 2 3 Billy Taylor 1 2 3 Bobby Rousseau 1 2 3 Darryl Sittler 1 2 3 Jason Allison 1 2 3 Mark Recchi 1 2 3 Martin St. Louis 1 2 3 Paul Ronty 1 2 3 Sidney Crosby 1 2 3 Ted Kennedy 1 2 3 Ilya Kovalchuk 2 1 3 Mickey Redmond 2 1 3 Tony Amonte 2 1 3 Punch Broadbent 1 1 1 3 Phil Watson 2 1 3

Discussion
• This table shows the total 50+ goal seasons, 75+ assist seasons, and 100+ point seasons and is fairly strongly correlated with the chart above (showing highest peak value)
• I like how Jagr, Beliveau and Mikita all ended up at the same level. A lot of modern fans (correctly) note that Jagr was stuck in a low scoring era but fail to acknowledge that the same was true for Mikita and (especially) Beliveau.
• Despite Hull and (especially) Richard's relatively mediocre playmaking, they each ended up with ten 100+ point seasons.
• This list is a testament to Sakic's quiet consistency and versatility. Despite having only one adjusted 50-goal season (2001) and two adjusted 75-assist seasons (1995 and 2002) he had nine 100+ point seasons (1991, 1995, 1996, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004, 2007). He's one of the most balanced and well-rounded elite scorers in NHL history.
• Crosby & Ovechkin each have three "milestone" seasons through three years...

Last edited by Hockey Outsider: 01-02-2009 at 12:36 AM.

 01-02-2009, 12:20 AM #6 kruezer Registered User   Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Toronto Posts: 6,284 vCash: 500 Great work HO, as always. With regard to the averaging of second through fourth in goals, seems like a solid way of doing it, I keep trying to think of a solid way to do adjusted scoring using the median NHL scorer and benchmarking from there (and maybe compare the median to the changes in GPG of the league, just to see if it correlates) but I haven't perfected anything. Interesting results though. Gretzky still killed at his peak. I would have intuitively thought this would have helped Mario and hurt Howe more than it did, but it makes Howe look amazing, he gains more of my respect everyday. Beliveau's PPG is pretty eyepopping as well. Could you post the top one hundred sorted by PPG as well? That would be interesting to see. Also: I just had another thought, maybe it would be worth pulling out the defensemen and correlating themselves to each other instead of to the league? pre and post Orr defensemen just can't really compare offensively otherwise.
 01-02-2009, 12:29 AM #7 nik jr Registered User   Join Date: Sep 2005 Country: Posts: 10,798 vCash: 500 very interesting, thanks, HO. we all appreciate your work.
01-02-2009, 12:37 AM
#8
seventieslord
Moderator

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country:
Posts: 26,755
vCash: 500
Nice work as usual, HO. At first glance I think it is an improvement over BM's existing method. However, I think it still inherits what I feel is the biggest problem with that system - I posted this in my ATD series thread but he must have missed it:

Quote:

01-02-2009, 01:02 AM
#9
Hockey Outsider
Registered User

Join Date: Jan 2005
Country:
Posts: 3,579
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by kruezer Could you post the top one hundred sorted by PPG as well? That would be interesting to see.
 Player GPG APG PPG Wayne Gretzky 0.52 1.22 1.74 Mario Lemieux 0.66 1.06 1.72 Newsy Lalonde 0.63 0.89 1.52 Bobby Orr 0.42 1.09 1.51 Sidney Crosby 0.46 0.97 1.44 Syl Apps Sr 0.58 0.85 1.43 Gordie Howe 0.56 0.84 1.41 Jean Beliveau 0.54 0.85 1.4 Bobby Hull 0.68 0.68 1.36 Peter Forsberg 0.36 1 1.36 Mike Bossy 0.66 0.69 1.35 Phil Esposito 0.57 0.77 1.34 Jaromir Jagr 0.51 0.82 1.33 Maurice Richard 0.68 0.64 1.32 Bill Cowley 0.41 0.91 1.31 Alex Ovechkin 0.66 0.65 1.31 Gordie Drillon 0.62 0.68 1.3 Elmer Lach 0.39 0.9 1.29 Doug Bentley 0.46 0.83 1.29 Bernie Geoffrion 0.56 0.7 1.26 Roy Conacher 0.61 0.65 1.25 Stan Mikita 0.44 0.81 1.25 Dany Heatley 0.55 0.69 1.24 Marcel Dionne 0.48 0.75 1.23 Joe Sakic 0.45 0.78 1.23 Eric Lindros 0.49 0.72 1.22 Max Bentley 0.48 0.72 1.2 Andy Bathgate 0.4 0.8 1.19 Howie Morenz 0.5 0.7 1.19 Jason Spezza 0.38 0.81 1.19 Toe Blake 0.47 0.7 1.17 Charlie Conacher 0.56 0.61 1.17 Cy Denneny 0.54 0.63 1.17 Joe Primeau 0.24 0.92 1.16 Sweeney Schriner 0.51 0.64 1.15 Joe Thornton 0.34 0.81 1.15 Guy Lafleur 0.45 0.69 1.14 Frank Boucher 0.3 0.84 1.14 Pavel Bure 0.61 0.53 1.14 Ziggy Palffy 0.49 0.64 1.14 Teemu Selanne 0.51 0.62 1.13 Ilya Kovalchuk 0.59 0.54 1.13 Paul Kariya 0.44 0.69 1.12 Ted Lindsay 0.45 0.67 1.12 Dickie Moore 0.45 0.68 1.12 Harry Cameron 0.36 0.76 1.12 Bobby Bauer 0.47 0.65 1.12 Frank Mahovlich 0.51 0.6 1.12 Ted Kennedy 0.41 0.7 1.12 Daniel Alfredsson 0.41 0.7 1.11 Peter Stastny 0.39 0.72 1.11 Kent Nilsson 0.4 0.71 1.11 Steve Yzerman 0.42 0.69 1.11 Milt Schmidt 0.39 0.72 1.11 Sid Abel 0.39 0.71 1.1 Nels Stewart 0.56 0.54 1.1 Billy Taylor 0.31 0.78 1.09 Brett Hull 0.56 0.53 1.09 Pavel Datsyuk 0.34 0.75 1.09 Rod Gilbert 0.41 0.67 1.08 Norm Ullman 0.41 0.66 1.07 Pavol Demitra 0.4 0.67 1.07 Alex Delvecchio 0.36 0.71 1.07 Frank Nighbor 0.3 0.76 1.07 Gilbert Perreault 0.39 0.68 1.07 Mats Sundin 0.43 0.63 1.06 Bill Mosienko 0.45 0.61 1.06 Jean Ratelle 0.39 0.67 1.06 Adam Oates 0.24 0.82 1.06 Marian Hossa 0.46 0.59 1.06 Joe Malone 0.56 0.5 1.06 Alexander Mogilny 0.45 0.6 1.05 Henri Richard 0.34 0.71 1.05 Bobby Clarke 0.29 0.76 1.05 Jack Darragh 0.29 0.76 1.05 Marty Barry 0.44 0.6 1.05 Bill Cook 0.53 0.52 1.04 Dale Hawerchuk 0.37 0.67 1.04 John Bucyk 0.4 0.64 1.04 Clint Smith 0.38 0.66 1.04 Pat LaFontaine 0.47 0.57 1.04 Bryan Trottier 0.36 0.67 1.03 Henrik Zetterberg 0.44 0.58 1.03 Brad Richards 0.29 0.73 1.03 Alex Tanguay 0.31 0.71 1.03 Buddy O'Connor 0.32 0.7 1.02 Ron Francis 0.29 0.73 1.02 Mark Messier 0.36 0.67 1.02 Bud Poile 0.43 0.6 1.02 Theoren Fleury 0.41 0.61 1.02 Jacques Lemaire 0.43 0.59 1.02 Aurel Joliat 0.44 0.58 1.02 Bernie Federko 0.32 0.7 1.02 Mike Modano 0.4 0.62 1.02 Bert Olmstead 0.27 0.75 1.02 Lynn Patrick 0.39 0.62 1.01 Mark Recchi 0.36 0.65 1.01 Pierre Turgeon 0.38 0.64 1.01 Jarome Iginla 0.47 0.54 1.01 Paul Ronty 0.28 0.73 1.01

Discussion
• Even after taking into account that Gretzky spent more time in a higher-scoring era, he still has the edge of Lemieux in PPG.
• Crosby (5th) and Ovechkin (16th) are off to pretty decent starts to their careers.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by kruezer Also: I just had another thought, maybe it would be worth pulling out the defensemen and correlating themselves to each other instead of to the league? pre and post Orr defensemen just can't really compare offensively otherwise.
That would be useful, but unfortunately I don't have enough data to do this (yet).

Quote:
 Originally Posted by kruezer Interesting results though. Gretzky still killed at his peak.
He has the top six single seasons in NHL history (from 1982 to 1987, he scored 180, 181, 192, 186, 184 and 188 adjusted points).

The only players with multiple 150+ point seasons are Orr (2), Howe (3), Esposito (2) and Gretzky (8).

01-02-2009, 01:33 AM
#10
overpass
Registered User

Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,676
vCash: 500
Great work HO. I like this system, it definitely catches some things that simply adjusting for league scoring level doesn't.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider I take the average of second through fourth place in goals. My rationale is that if you average a few top spots, the result is unlikely to be skewed by a single really strong or weak performance from whoever finishes in 2nd.
I agree that this is better than benchmarking to 2nd place only. I've run adjusted stats in a similar way before (but only for individual cases) and my preference was for a benchmark of 4rd through 7th or something like that, in case there are a few superstars in the league. This doesn't work as well in the early NHL when there were only a few top scorers, so the 2nd-4th average is probably best for comparing all of NHL history.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider Then I add goals and assists together to get total adjusted points.
I think this is my main quibble with the method. Why not adjust for points in the same way as you adjusted for goals and assists? It seems like you are just introducing more error into the calculation of points by making it the sum of goals and assists.

I can understand if you wanted to keep adjusted goals and adjusted assists summing to adjusted points, although I wouldn't agree, but the peak rates appear to have points calculated separately, not as a sum of peak goals and peak assists.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by kruezer Also: I just had another thought, maybe it would be worth pulling out the defensemen and correlating themselves to each other instead of to the league? pre and post Orr defensemen just can't really compare offensively otherwise.
I calculated numbers for a few defensemen like this in the top 100 project, and I agree that it's certainly an interesting way of calculating defensemen scoring. As I recall, Orr pretty much breaks the system, scoring 120 points in 1970 when the 2nd place defenseman scored 44.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by seventieslord Nice work as usual, HO. At first glance I think it is an improvement over BM's existing method. However, I think it still inherits what I feel is the biggest problem with that system - I posted this in my ATD series thread but he must have missed it: Your thoughts?
I'll be interested to see what HO says about this but for now here are my thoughts.

I don't think it's possible to set up an adjusted scoring system that accounts for the number of scoring line spots available in the league.

"Jim Pappin scored 32 points in 1967, but in 1993 with 24 teams he would have been a 1st line winger and scored 88 points."

"Miroslav Satan scored 75 points in 2003, but in 1964 he would have played in the AHL and been an occasional call-up, scoring 5 points in 15 games for the Detroit Red Wings."

OK, but seriously, if you think that the 10th best player over time is always at about the same level, and the 50th best player over time is always at about the same level, I don't think any adjusted points scoring system will get you there. You're better off just looking at ranking within the league (as I believe you do.) I think this adjusted points system adds a lot more than league rank does when evaluating players who were among the top scorers in the league, and especially in separating the Gretzkys from the Schriners among the league leaders. Of course there's still a ton of context to take into account, but that's the same with any stat - stats can only approach measuring the player's performance, and will never do so exactly.

Last edited by overpass: 01-02-2009 at 01:42 AM.

 01-02-2009, 01:34 AM #11 raleh Registered User     Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Dartmouth, NS Posts: 1,764 vCash: 500 Well done, HO. What I think is the most interesting aspect is how high up all the lists Mikita is. The more info I get about him the more I start to realize that he's probably the front runner for the raleh underrated award (see my original top100 list).
 01-02-2009, 02:15 AM #12 FissionFire Registered User     Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Portland, OR Country: Posts: 11,054 vCash: 500 I like seeing Syd Howe placing pretty well on the lists. Not sure if the overall opinion on him has gone up lately (it seemed pretty low in ATD9) but I feel he's arguably the most underrated player around here. Also love seeing Gordie Howe's showing. I'm on of the few who feels he deserved to be #1 on the Top 100 list and this is just something else for me to use in that debate. Would it be possible to compile something like this for the WHA as well? Might be useful for evaluating some of the players who were in both leagues.
01-02-2009, 02:31 AM
#13
Hockey Outsider
Registered User

Join Date: Jan 2005
Country:
Posts: 3,579
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by overpass I agree that this is better than benchmarking to 2nd place only. I've run adjusted stats in a similar way before (but only for individual cases) and my preference was for a benchmark of 4rd through 7th or something like that, in case there are a few superstars in the league. This doesn't work as well in the early NHL when there were only a few top scorers, so the 2nd-4th average is probably best for comparing all of NHL history.
Good point. I think I started looking at 3rd through 7th, or something like that, but the numbers didn't look right for the early years. As an extreme example it looks like there were only 26 regular skaters in the NHL in 1918, and going down as low as 7th place made the top scorers that year look unrealistically good.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by overpass I think this is my main quibble with the method. Why not adjust for points in the same way as you adjusted for goals and assists? It seems like you are just introducing more error into the calculation of points by making it the sum of goals and assists.
I've struggled with this. So far I just calculated goals and assists and added them together to get total points. I like the idea that total points should be exactly equal to goals and assists.

The disadvantage of what I'm doing is that the scoring race may be shuffled a bit - for example a playmaker who played in a low-assist era might jump a few spots. The most extreme example might be Joe Primeau who, in reality, finished 6th and 2nd in scoring in 1930 and 1931 (seasons that featured very low assist totals). Under my adjusted scoring, he actually jumps to 3rd and 1st during those seasons.

I think it's debatable, though, if that's a disadvantage. One could argue that playmakers like Joe Primeau were penalized in the old day because they gave out so few assists and that my system (where they get full credit for goals, plus full credit for assists) is more fair because I ensure a fixed ratio of goals to assists every year.

(For the record, this has basically no impact on the scoring race for at least the past sixty years).

Quote:
 Originally Posted by overpass I calculated numbers for a few defensemen like this in the top 100 project, and I agree that it's certainly an interesting way of calculating defensemen scoring. As I recall, Orr pretty much breaks the system, scoring 120 points in 1970 when the 2nd place defenseman scored 44.
Even if we compare Orr to the league (and don't specifically look at defensemen), his 1970 season works out to 165 points (10th greatest season ever).

Quote:
 Originally Posted by overpass I don't think it's possible to set up an adjusted scoring system that accounts for the number of scoring line spots available in the league.
I think that Seventieslord's argument is valid but I also agree with Overpass that there probably isn't an easy way to correct it.

Marian Hossa looks really good according to these numbers even though he would have been a 3rd line RW on the Richard/Geoffrion Canadiens; Ralph Backstrom was stuck behind Beliveau & Richard for much of his prime but would easily be a #1 centre on Atlanta. Unfortunately I don't think there's any way for us to quantify these issues. I always advocate that we should quantify as much as possible, but then step back and look at the qualitative factors behind the numbers.

01-02-2009, 02:34 AM
#14
Hockey Outsider
Registered User

Join Date: Jan 2005
Country:
Posts: 3,579
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by raleh Well done, HO. What I think is the most interesting aspect is how high up all the lists Mikita is. The more info I get about him the more I start to realize that he's probably the front runner for the raleh underrated award (see my original top100 list).
Mikita is a personal favourite of mine (not that influenced these calculations...) I did an analysis a few years ago showing that Mikita was virtually equal to Jagr in terms of regular season offense and, based on everything I read, he was very close to Forsberg in terms of defensive & physical play.

I think Mikita gets underrated partially because everyone forgets how great a goal-scorer he was (six years in the top five!). He was just unstoppable between 1962 and 1970 (four Art Ross trophies, eight years in the top three in scoring, and he came in 4th during his "off" year). Personally I have Mikita 5th among centre (behind 99, 66, Beliveau and Morenz).

Quote:
 Originally Posted by FissionFire I like seeing Syd Howe placing pretty well on the lists. Not sure if the overall opinion on him has gone up lately (it seemed pretty low in ATD9) but I feel he's arguably the most underrated player around here.
Seventieslord has been making some great arguments for Syd Howe recently (including one where he shows that he's quite similar to Francis) -- I'm till not sure if he'd be in my top 100, but he'll get some consideration.

I'm going on a tangent here, but my main counter-argument to Seventies' position that Howe got a lot of Hart votes despite getting few all-star votes, is that those Hart votes are less impressive given that so many of them came during WWII. He had one Hart nomination in 11 full seasons prior to WWII, then got two Hart nominations during the three WWII seasons.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by FissionFire Also love seeing Gordie Howe's showing. I'm on of the few who feels he deserved to be #1 on the Top 100 list and this is just something else for me to use in that debate.
You're probably the only person on HFBoards that advocates for Howe more than I do.

I was actually expecting somebody to comment that Howe's numbers look too good under this system. Here's my pre-emptive defense to those comments:

Six Art Ross trophies: averaged 147 points
Six additional years in 2nd or 3rd place: averaged 121 points
Eight years in 4th or 5th placed: averaged 111 points
His three "early" years: averaged 71 pts
His three "older" years: averaged 64 pts

- I think it's perfectly reasonable to say that a dominant Art Ross winner would score close to 150 points during an average-scoring era. Under this system, an average Art Ross scored 139 adjusted points (and remember that Howe often won his Art Ross trophies by 20-30% so it makes sense that he's above the mean).
- It's reasonable to say that a player who finished 2nd or 3rd in scoring, in an average year, would average around 120 points. Under this system, the average of players in 2nd/3rd place is 119 adjusted points per year.
- Once more I think it's reasonable to say that a player in 4th or 5th would score around 110 points per year. Under this system, the average of players in 4th/5th place is 107 adjusted points per year.
- Throw in a few hundred more points scored in his teens and 40s and you've got yourself a 2,900 point player.

Given Howe's tremendous accomplishments I think it's entirely fair for him to perform so well according to these adjusted stats.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by FissionFire Would it be possible to compile something like this for the WHA as well? Might be useful for evaluating some of the players who were in both leagues.
This could definitely be done if I had all the players' stats in an Excel file. Some of the WHA's ridiculously high-scoring years would be reduced somewhat, but there would still be the issue of cross-league translation (ie this method would tell you that Robbie Ftorek's 59 goals in 1978 were only worth 50, but even that would be too high, I'd imagine).

Last edited by Hockey Outsider: 01-02-2009 at 03:34 AM.

 01-02-2009, 07:53 AM #15 Triffy Registered User   Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Helsinki Country: Posts: 337 vCash: 500 Excellent work, as usual, HO. Things that caught my attention on the 5 year peak list: Norm Ullman — Amazing. I knew he was underrated. But on the list, he's equal to one of my favorites, Syl Apps. And Sakic, who I'm surprised to see that high, too. And like Sakic, Ullman was also a great playoff performer and a good defensive forward. Ullman barely made it to the HOH Top 100 list last time. Hopefully he rises a bit in this year's update. The gap between Sakic & Yzerman & Apps (who I all see quite similar) and him shouldn't be that big. Cy Denneny — There are only 2 LWs (Bobby Hull and Ted Lindsay) ahead of Denneny on the list, which is impressive. But as HO already pointed out using Joe Primeau as an example, this method too has its flaws. Denneny seems to have been dominant in playmaking during his time. That's what the 78 assist peak average tells me. The problem is, no one remembers him as a great playmaker. Or am I wrong here? I should definitely re-evaluate his position among LWs. He stands at #11 now. The Bentleys — This is an interesting discussion. Doug and Max one after the other, like it should be. But wait, not on a list that ranks the players by offensive numbers? This surprises me. I always thought Max had the better offensive numbers. But Doug actually got similar results, while being the more responsible defensively. Of course it needs to be pointed out that Max has easily the better playoff resume, thanks to his years as a Maple Leaf. Again, one of those pairs that shouldn't be that far apart from each other on the HOH Top 100 list. Nels Stewart vs. Frank Boucher — One of my numerous misevaluations, it apperas. I made a statistical comparison between Stewart and Boucher some time ago. I can't remember the details, but I think they seemed to be very close offensively. Here Boucher is way ahead of Stewart. Then I look at Boucher's incredible assist totals. Is that just the same "flaw" once again? Again, very interesting lists. I appreciate your work, HO. Edit: Now that I took a closer look on the Bentleys, it seems that Doug had two excellent seasons during wartime. He was the leading goalscorer in 1943 and 1944. That explains why he is as high as he is on the peak points list. Last edited by Triffy: 01-02-2009 at 01:48 PM.
01-02-2009, 12:09 PM
#16
seventieslord
Moderator

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country:
Posts: 26,755
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by overpass I'll be interested to see what HO says about this but for now here are my thoughts. I don't think it's possible to set up an adjusted scoring system that accounts for the number of scoring line spots available in the league.
I think there has to be a way to do it (there's a way to do almost anything) but it would most likely require the use of exponents after the analysis of models of different league sizes. You would need to compare how many points the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 10th, 20th, 50th, 100th, etc-placed players in various sized leagues tend to have in relation to eachother.

Even so, I think it would have to be based on an assumption that a 2nd line player drops to the 3rd, and then to the 4th, and then to the press box, as the league gets smaller and smaller, and vice versa, even though we know that isn't always true. There are "scoring line or bust" players, and there are elite checkers who would play on a checking line in any sized league. It also wouldn't account for the Terry Yake effect - players getting first line minutes and leading a poor team in scoring simply because there is no one better to put on the ice. But if such a system could be developed, I'd be willing to accept these two deficiencies.

Quote:
 "Jim Pappin scored 32 points in 1967, but in 1993 with 24 teams he would have been a 1st line winger and scored 88 points." "Miroslav Satan scored 75 points in 2003, but in 1964 he would have played in the AHL and been an occasional call-up, scoring 5 points in 15 games for the Detroit Red Wings."
Perfect examples, actually, that illustrate what I'm saying. Middling first-liners who play a decent number of years still end up getting a lot more credit than they deserve under systems like this. Think of guys who frequently were 30th-50th in league scoring... Steve Thomas, Ray Ferraro, Michal Pivonka, Brian Bradley, Murray Craven, Dan Quinn... I could go on forever.

Quote:
 OK, but seriously, if you think that the 10th best player over time is always at about the same level, and the 50th best player over time is always at about the same level, I don't think any adjusted points scoring system will get you there. You're better off just looking at ranking within the league (as I believe you do.)
Looking at ranking within the league is certainly my most preferred method.

I don't think that the 10th best player over time is always at exactly the same level, but.... more or less, they are. At least they can be considered that way when conducting an ATD or discussing who was the most dominant relative to their peers, in their time. Even if hockey has changed, developed, improved, and today's 10th best player is way better than 1960's 10th-best. I certainly don't agree with arguments that state that "the 15th best center today is like the 3rd-best center in the original six era" because it fails to acknowledge that the NHL is the best of the best, and just the tip of the iceberg that is the grand scheme of hockey being played.

Quote:
 I think this adjusted points system adds a lot more than league rank does when evaluating players who were among the top scorers in the league, and especially in separating the Gretzkys from the Schriners among the league leaders. Of course there's still a ton of context to take into account, but that's the same with any stat - stats can only approach measuring the player's performance, and will never do so exactly.
This is true. Not all first place finishes are created equal. I think, though, that the further down you go, as the difference between one placement and the next get smaller and smaller, the closer to being created equal they are. For example, you could almost say "a 10th place is like any other 10th place" when looking at the relation between 2nd and 10th over time... it would be harder to do that for 3rd, 4th, or 5th, and downright wrong when discussing 1sts.

01-02-2009, 12:37 PM
#17
seventieslord
Moderator

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country:
Posts: 26,755
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider Seventieslord has been making some great arguments for Syd Howe recently (including one where he shows that he's quite similar to Francis) -- I'm till not sure if he'd be in my top 100, but he'll get some consideration. I'm going on a tangent here, but my main counter-argument to Seventies' position that Howe got a lot of Hart votes despite getting few all-star votes, is that those Hart votes are less impressive given that so many of them came during WWII. He had one Hart nomination in 11 full seasons prior to WWII, then got two Hart nominations during the three WWII seasons.
I won't be ranking Howe artificially higher to bump him up to consideration - I'll have him where I think he belongs - in the 90's. He probably won't come up for voting either way.

Regarding the Hart votes - that's true. Who was not around in those seasons that would have certainly bumped Howe down in the Hart voting? I'm just curious where his Hart voting finishes would "translate" to in a fully-stocked league. Regardless, it still shows he was considered one of a handful of the most valuable players in hockey.

Right now, more than anything, the linemates issue is what is driving my Syd Howe campaign. He never played with an all-star, ever. That's the part that really gets me. I think his scoring totals are astounding, considering. And he always paced those linemates in scoring.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Triffy Excellent work, as usual, HO. [*]Cy Denneny — There are only 2 LWs (Bobby Hull and Ted Lindsay) ahead of Denneny on the list, which is impressive. But as HO already pointed out using Joe Primeau as an example, this method too has its flaws. Denneny seems to have been dominant in playmaking during his time. That's what the 78 assist peak average tells me. The problem is, no one remembers him as a great playmaker. Or am I wrong here? I should definitely re-evaluate his position among LWs. He stands at #11 now.
I've also noticed lately that Denneny is an underrated playmaker.

 01-02-2009, 12:48 PM #18 MXD Registered User     Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Ottawa Posts: 24,374 vCash: 500 ...Would this method (with the milestones seasons...) sligthly overrate wartime players? Herb Cain and Billy Taylor in Mark Messier's territory just seems wrong to me.
01-02-2009, 01:21 PM
#19
Triffy
Registered User

Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Helsinki
Country:
Posts: 337
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by MXD ...Would this method (with the milestones seasons...) sligthly overrate wartime players? Herb Cain and Billy Taylor in Mark Messier's territory just seems wrong to me.
It does. And not only the milestones list. It affects all of them. Poor talent pool during the wartime affects on Bill Cowley, Elmer Lach and Maurice Richard to name a few. As well as the ones you mentioned.

Same goes for 1918-26, too.

Edit: Ahh, I just thought about it a bit more and it actually doesn't necessarily affect on Rocket's or Lach's peak points. I didn't check but they both might have made their best 5 seasons after 1945.

Last edited by Triffy: 01-02-2009 at 01:40 PM.

 01-02-2009, 01:40 PM #20 seventieslord Moderator     Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Regina, SK Country: Posts: 26,755 vCash: 500 I think the only way to truly adjust scoring stats for a war year, is to do the following: a) assume that the missing star players were still in the league, assume they played whatever percentage of the season they usually did, and determine where you would slot them in among the league leaders in goals, assists, and points. Credit them temporarily with the corresponding amounts of goals, assists, and points. b) adjust the inflated scoring totals by multiplying by the inverse of what factor scoring increased by, compared to the average of the last three pre-war years. i.e. 75 points might only mean 55 points. In other words, assume that if the status quo was maintained, scoring levels would stay the same (you may also want to assume a slight upward trend throughout those seasons to account for scoring getting to the level it was at in 1945-46)
01-02-2009, 01:57 PM
#21
overpass
Registered User

Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,676
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by seventieslord I think there has to be a way to do it (there's a way to do almost anything) but it would most likely require the use of exponents after the analysis of models of different league sizes. You would need to compare how many points the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 10th, 20th, 50th, 100th, etc-placed players in various sized leagues tend to have in relation to eachother. Even so, I think it would have to be based on an assumption that a 2nd line player drops to the 3rd, and then to the 4th, and then to the press box, as the league gets smaller and smaller, and vice versa, even though we know that isn't always true. There are "scoring line or bust" players, and there are elite checkers who would play on a checking line in any sized league. It also wouldn't account for the Terry Yake effect - players getting first line minutes and leading a poor team in scoring simply because there is no one better to put on the ice. But if such a system could be developed, I'd be willing to accept these two deficiencies.
Yeah, I shouldn't have said it couldn't be done, it probably could. However, you would get very different outputs depending on the size of league you chose to benchmark to. Most importantly, the final numbers would be very hypothetical. Adjusted scoring gets knocked by some people for being a what-if...well, that adjusted scoring system would really be a what-if. It would definitely be interesting to see, in any case.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider I've struggled with this. So far I just calculated goals and assists and added them together to get total points. I like the idea that total points should be exactly equal to goals and assists. The disadvantage of what I'm doing is that the scoring race may be shuffled a bit - for example a playmaker who played in a low-assist era might jump a few spots. The most extreme example might be Joe Primeau who, in reality, finished 6th and 2nd in scoring in 1930 and 1931 (seasons that featured very low assist totals). Under my adjusted scoring, he actually jumps to 3rd and 1st during those seasons. I think it's debatable, though, if that's a disadvantage. One could argue that playmakers like Joe Primeau were penalized in the old day because they gave out so few assists and that my system (where they get full credit for goals, plus full credit for assists) is more fair because I ensure a fixed ratio of goals to assists every year.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Triffy Cy Denneny — There are only 2 LWs (Bobby Hull and Ted Lindsay) ahead of Denneny on the list, which is impressive. But as HO already pointed out using Joe Primeau as an example, this method too has its flaws. Denneny seems to have been dominant in playmaking during his time. That's what the 78 assist peak average tells me
I agree that there are points both ways for how to handle the goal-assist ratio over time. Players like Primeau, Boucher, and Denneny are certainly the ones most affected.

Personally, I like to assume that scorers in the early days of hockey were handing out the right number of assists in relation to goals, or at least the goal-assist ratio they used was more correct then a modern goal-assist ratio for their time. If you think about hockey without a forward pass, it certainly seems like passing would be less important and the ability to rush the puck would be the major offensive talent, along with shooting. Descriptions of players from the 1910s and 1920s often name them as great at rushing the puck. For this reason, I don't think that this way of adjusting assists works well for hockey before the late 1920s.

I do think it's possible that scorers should have been handing out more assists in the 1930s. The game was changing rapidly, and they may not have adjusted quickly enough. Because of that, I'd agree that this method may give appropriate credit to Primeau and Boucher's playmaking abilities.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider
 Player GPG APG PPG Wayne Gretzky 0.52 1.22 1.74 Mario Lemieux 0.66 1.06 1.72 Newsy Lalonde 0.63 0.89 1.52 Bobby Orr 0.42 1.09 1.51 Sidney Crosby 0.46 0.97 1.44 Syl Apps Sr 0.58 0.85 1.43
Wow! Very impressed by Syl Apps' per-game numbers. It's not completely surprising, as I knew he missed a few games every year and did very well in per-game metrics, but it's still very impressive to see him in sixth place all-time. This result, along with his high ranking in seventieslord's Hart study, is making me think we may have underrated him in the top 100 list. I'll certainly have him higher on my list.

01-02-2009, 02:04 PM
#22
Kyle McMahon
Registered User

Join Date: May 2006
Location: Evil Empire
Country:
Posts: 7,100
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Triffy [*]Cy Denneny — There are only 2 LWs (Bobby Hull and Ted Lindsay) ahead of Denneny on the list, which is impressive. But as HO already pointed out using Joe Primeau as an example, this method too has its flaws. Denneny seems to have been dominant in playmaking during his time. That's what the 78 assist peak average tells me. The problem is, no one remembers him as a great playmaker. Or am I wrong here? I should definitely re-evaluate his position among LWs. He stands at #11 now.
I was a big propenent of Denneny in the Top 100 project. I think the fact that his exploits came in the 1918-26 era was the main argument against him, but his goal scoring and playmaking dominance caught my eye and I think I indeed ranked him as the third best LW on my list.

01-02-2009, 02:35 PM
#23
seventieslord
Moderator

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country:
Posts: 26,755
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Kyle McMahon I was a big propenent of Denneny in the Top 100 project. I think the fact that his exploits came in the 1918-26 era was the main argument against him, but his goal scoring and playmaking dominance caught my eye and I think I indeed ranked him as the third best LW on my list.
It's too bad that there's a lot of anti-pre-26 sentiment out there. If someone was the top goal-scorer in the NHL, NHA, or PCHA, there is no evidence to suggest that they wouldn't be one of the top 3 or 4 goal-scorers in an imaginary consolidated league. It's not their fault what the state of top-level hockey was in their time.

01-02-2009, 02:52 PM
#24
Triffy
Registered User

Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Helsinki
Country:
Posts: 337
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by seventieslord It's too bad that there's a lot of anti-pre-26 sentiment out there. If someone was the top goal-scorer in the NHL, NHA, or PCHA, there is no evidence to suggest that they wouldn't be one of the top 3 or 4 goal-scorers in an imaginary consolidated league. It's not their fault what the state of top-level hockey was in their time.
I get your point, and agree in general. But I can understand why people drop players like Denneny down: today's game is based mostly on skating, and his skating ability was weak even for his era. It's just hard to imagine a player like that excell in any given conditions.

 01-02-2009, 02:57 PM #25 seventieslord Moderator     Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Regina, SK Country: Posts: 26,755 vCash: 500 For the purposes of "relative to era" comparisons I would consider his skating to be like that of a Tim Kerr or Dave Andreychuk. They still accomplished great things despite their skating. I'm worried more about results, not exactly how they achieved those results.

Forum Jump