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

Gretzky 88-89 Even Strength

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-12-2010, 07:07 AM
  #51
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,746
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
1. Gretzky was getting old. 28-30 doesn't sound that old, but players of the 80s didn't last as long as today's players. Also, Gretzky had played over 100 playoff games in the previous 6 seasons.
I agree he was probably past his absolute peak but a guy who scores 160+ points two years after the year we're talking about wasn't all that old.

Someone have Gretzky's r-on r-off from 90-91?

I'm curious how he did the other time he had a huge season in LA in comparison.

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2010, 10:01 AM
  #52
JackSlater
Registered User
 
JackSlater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,967
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I find it hard to believe that Gretzky "performed poorly," when the Kings became a significantly better team the instant he arrived, despite whatever statistical smoke anyone wants to blow.

Here are some facts everyone seems to be ignoring:

-Between 88-89 and 89-90, the Kings went from a 68 point team to a 91 point team.
-Gretzky is given so much credit for leading their turnaround that he was awarded the Hart Trophy, despite losing the Art Ross to Mario Lemieux by a pretty wide margin.

Edit: I agree that the numbers are an interesting mystery and suggest a lot of things, but once we make the leap from the raw numbers to "Gretzky performed poorly that season," we are going off the deep end.
I suppose I should have clarified that Gretzky performed poorly... for Gretzky. I think it's somewhat obvious that Gretzky wasn't a below average player that year, but if people want to throw a fit over the statement, feel free. Other than that you're right though, let's ignore objective analysis and instead rely solely on subjective analysis and team record when judging players. I never even knew that Gretzky won the Hart or that the Kings won more games that year!!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
This is actually a really good point because we're really only talking about what.. 6-7 goals here? to sway Gretzky from being behind the rest of the team in GF/GA to the same.

So even if he was on for a few more EN than the others that would basically make up the difference.

If he was on for them all then he would be doing better than the rest of the team in GF/GA.
I'm sure Gretzky also benefitted somewhat from EN situations. If his ratio was the same as the rest of the team it would still be below expectations and worth noting, considering it was Gretzky. You would expect the team to perform quite a bit better with Gretzky on the ice, not just the same or a tiny bit better.

JackSlater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2010, 10:51 AM
  #53
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,007
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyD View Post
Just curious...how did Gretzky compare to his team in these seasons?
that is how gretzky compared to his team those seasons.

In 1990, gretzky had about the same ratio as before: 1.12. the team got worse around him though, and was 1.02 without him. that's where the 1.10 factor came from.

In 1991, The team itself got a lot better and was 1.39 without him. It improved to 1.53 with him - hence the 1.10 factor I quoted.

I should clarify because I've been speaking in two different terms in this thread, and though I've distinguished between the two, maybe not everyone picked up on it.

R-on is the player's on-ice GF:GA ratio.

R-on/R-off is the player's on-ice GF:GA ratio, over the GF:GA ratio of the team without him on the ice. So a player who is 1.50 when the team is 1.25 without him, would be a 1.20 R-on/R-off.

that's why I say your question was already answered before you asked it. make sense?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MS View Post
That'll have more than a minor impact.

11 EN goals in one season is a *huge* amount. For comparison's sake, Washington and Boston lost a similar # of games that year and allowed 2 and 3 EN goals, respectively.

Given that Gretzky would *always* be on the ice for the last minute of the game when these 'free' goals were being scored, I'd guess 9 or 10 of them go against him.

To give up 10 free goals relative to your teammates who didn't play in the last minute is really going to skew the numbers.

I'd be fairly certain that that's a big part of your answer right there.
You're onto something here. Although I agree that it's a certainty Gretzky was on for these goals, so were five other players, so the impact is lessened by that too. Let's dig deeper.

Let's assume that one of those goals went into the books as a PPGA. In all likelihood with 11 goals, one of them was likely just an ES situation without a goalie and was not part of the team's ESGA stats. So that's 10 ESGA for the team.

Next, since our goal isn't to completely eliminate these situations, but to just "normalize" it to make it appear as though LA allowed a more average # of ENG, we'll knock off 4 since the information you provided makes it appear as though 4 should be expected in a season.

Let's assign these 6 GA on a prorated basis in the most logical way possible - the players with the most GF on the team, in any situation, were likely the guys pressing for the equalizers. I say all situations, and not just ES, because an extra man situation is often like a PP and you load up with all your firepower generally.

So, with 36 ESGA to divvy out, and knowing 6 of them go to Gretzky, here's what I came up with for the other 30:

Robitaille 6
Nicholls 6
Duchesne 6
Crossman 4
Laidlaw 2
Tonelli 3
Taylor 3

I think now that I've come this far I realized I didn't need to do all this work - the equation can simply be split into what happened without Gretzky on the ice, and with. So in a normalized situation not thrown out of whack by too many ENG, Gretzky would have had 6 fewer ESGA, for a ratio of 141/120, or 1.18, now marginally better than the rest of the team's 1.12. 5% better, to be exact, which would take this season out of the bottom 10 r-on/r-off seasons of the last 43 years, to a tie for 13th with Crosby's 2009 (see the post from yesterday at 10:11 PM EST)

This by no means makes a major apology for gretzky's figures this season but it does help to explain why it was out of whack compared with the rest of his time in LA.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
Someone have Gretzky's r-on r-off from 90-91?.
I replied to JohnnyD with that info. The reason I say it was the beginning of the end of his time as a dominant ES player was because he never did post an impressive ratio compared to his team again, not until 1996 when the team was very, very bad.

His Edmonton on/off numbers before the trade were 1.96, 1.22, 1.64, 1.24. With very good players as off-ice comparables, like Mark Messier.

His LA on/off numbers were 0.96, 1.10, 0.97, 1.19, 0.86, 0.70 prior to carrying the team in 1996 with a 1.38.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JackSlater View Post
You would expect the team to perform quite a bit better with Gretzky on the ice, not just the same or a tiny bit better.
that's all i'm sayin'.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2010, 10:58 AM
  #54
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,527
vCash: 500
This thread is focused on even strength play. But if we look at Gretzky's overall impact, it's worth noting that Gretzky was just as productive on the power play (relative to league scoring level) as he had been in Edmonton. In fact, Gretzky's power play points stayed high right to the end of his career.

He also played a major role on the penalty kill in LA.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MS View Post
I suspect Gretzky's biggest impact was changing expectations.

He instantly turned that team from an also-ran who expected to lose and had (consistently) for the last decade to a team that suddenly had some expectations, and had the best player in the world skating alongside them. I'm sure that instilled a sense of belief and commitment to all-around play.

When organizations lack direction, the on-ice product tends to suffer, and vice-versa.

Of course, this has nothing to do with how Gretzky *actually* performed, on the ice.
Could be. Similar to Rod Langway in 1982-83.

overpass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2010, 11:35 AM
  #55
Psycho Papa Joe
Porkchop Hoser
 
Psycho Papa Joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Cesspool, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Getting accustomed to playing without the very defensively responsible, Kurri and Tikkanen, might be the cause. With those two guys as linemates, it can be very easy to become lazy defensively and maybe that's what happened to Gretzky in 88-89, since he just assumed the wingers would take up the defensive slack like they had always done.

Psycho Papa Joe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2010, 12:24 PM
  #56
Infinite Vision*
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,862
vCash: 500
Given Gretzky's style of play this actually isn't all that surprising to me. It seemed like he was always waiting around to score, and of course he always would, but he didn't engage physically at all, he didn't control the puck for long periods of time, his entire game was based on anticipation, and he was only expected to focus on offense because it's Gretzky after all. So not only does this give him an advantage to putting up points, but he wasn't even outscoring the other team while doing it after he left Edmonton. Gretzky's game gave him an advantage to putting up points, but it also allowed the other team to score quite a bit as well. Go back and watch games with this in mind, and you won't doubt it. I've brought up Gretzky's -25 while leading the league in points before and people just point to the team he was on. So I could say something similar by suggesting Gretzky's huge +/- differentials were due to the team he was on, except I couldn't, if you get what I'm saying.

I also find the following quite peculiar and not coincidental at all. Both Wayne Gretzky and Phil Esposito have the most dominant offensive statistical seasons in relation to the next highest forward. Both Wayne Gretzky and Phil Esposito played their entire primes on stacked teams, who weren't any worse once they left, but each of the rest of their careers were distinctively worse than before(you could say age was a factor, but these are extreme differences just the year following, and they continued). Both played with the two most statistically dominant defenseman of all time on a regular basis(yes it's a mutual benefit). Both guys, when watching them, you wondered how they put up so many points, given that their physical abilities weren't exactly impressive for star caliber players. Neither really did anything along the boards, or helped out much defensively. Both of their names are the only ones to appear multiple times in seventieslords bottom ten, and I actually guessed Phil Esposito would be their based on these similarities I've just stated and sure enough he was twice. In conlusion, Esposito wasn't the only one who greatly benefitted from a team situation. Love Gretzky, he was the best player on that Edmonton team and in the world throughout the time he played there, it doesn't mean he didn't greatly benefit from his situation though.


Last edited by Infinite Vision*: 11-12-2010 at 12:54 PM.
Infinite Vision* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2010, 12:27 PM
  #57
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,167
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Infinite Vision View Post
Given Gretzky's style of play this actually isn't all that surprising to me. It seemed like he was always waiting around to score, and of course he always would, but he didn't engage physically at all, he didn't control the puck for long periods of time, his entire game was based on anticipation, and he was only expected to focus on offense because it's Gretzky after all. So not only does this give him an advantage to putting up points, but he wasn't even outscoring the other team while doing it after he left Edmonton. I've brought up Gretzky's -25 while leading the league in points before and people just point to the team he was on.
The -25 was in 1993-94, though. The famous "only time the Art Ross winner never got a single Hart vote" year.

In 1988-89, he was still clearly helping his team... a lot.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2010, 12:58 PM
  #58
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,527
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Infinite Vision View Post
I also find the following quite peculiar and not coincidental at all. Both Wayne Gretzky and Phil Esposito have the most dominant offensive statistical seasons in relation to the next highest forward. Both Wayne Gretzky and Phil Esposito played their entire primes on stacked teams, who weren't any worse once they left, but each of the rest of their careers were distinctively worse than before(you could say age was a factor, but these are extreme differences just the year following, and they continued). Both played with the two most statistically dominant defenseman of all time on a regular basis(yes it's a mutual benefit). Both guys, when watching them, you wondered how they put up so many points, given that their physical abilities weren't exactly impressive for star caliber players. Neither really did anything along the boards, or helped out much defensively. Both of their names are the only ones to appear multiple times in seventieslords bottom ten, and I actually guessed Phil Esposito would be their based on these similarities I've just stated and sure enough he was twice. In conlusion, Esposito wasn't the only one who greatly benefitted from a team situation. Love Gretzky, he was the best player on that Edmonton team and in the world throughout the time he played there, it doesn't mean he didn't greatly benefit from his situation though.
If you want to talk Phil Esposito, by adjusted plus-minus he has a dominant prime at even strength (1968-72), but also a clear decline from that point on. From 1973-75 his goals against were way up, and in New York he was simply a minus player.

But both Gretzky and Esposito could really outscore at even strength in their prime.

overpass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2010, 01:01 PM
  #59
Infinite Vision*
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,862
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
The -25 was in 1993-94, though. The famous "only time the Art Ross winner never got a single Hart vote" year.

In 1988-89, he was still clearly helping his team... a lot.
Given the numbers overpass/seventies have shown, that's tough to say, but easy to assume if you didn't know about them.

Infinite Vision* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2010, 01:04 PM
  #60
Infinite Vision*
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,862
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
If you want to talk Phil Esposito, by adjusted plus-minus he has a dominant prime at even strength (1968-72), but also a clear decline from that point on. From 1973-75 his goals against were way up, and in New York he was simply a minus player.

But both Gretzky and Esposito could really outscore at even strength in their prime.
True, but wouldn't you say the similarities I mentioned between the two in the post you just quoted significantly attributed to that?

Infinite Vision* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2010, 01:06 PM
  #61
Infinite Vision*
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,862
vCash: 500
I originally thought Lemieux was robbed of the Hart in 89, then found out how much better the team did with Gretzky so it seemed reasonable. I'm not so sure now. Doesn't really matter too much though in the grand scheme of things.

Infinite Vision* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2010, 01:07 PM
  #62
Hawkey Town 18
Moderator
 
Hawkey Town 18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,217
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
that is how gretzky compared to his team those seasons.

In 1990, gretzky had about the same ratio as before: 1.12. the team got worse around him though, and was 1.02 without him. that's where the 1.10 factor came from.

In 1991, The team itself got a lot better and was 1.39 without him. It improved to 1.53 with him - hence the 1.10 factor I quoted.

I should clarify because I've been speaking in two different terms in this thread, and though I've distinguished between the two, maybe not everyone picked up on it.

R-on is the player's on-ice GF:GA ratio.

R-on/R-off is the player's on-ice GF:GA ratio, over the GF:GA ratio of the team without him on the ice. So a player who is 1.50 when the team is 1.25 without him, would be a 1.20 R-on/R-off.

that's why I say your question was already answered before you asked it. make sense?


I replied to JohnnyD with that info. The reason I say it was the beginning of the end of his time as a dominant ES player was because he never did post an impressive ratio compared to his team again, not until 1996 when the team was very, very bad.

His Edmonton on/off numbers before the trade were 1.96, 1.22, 1.64, 1.24. With very good players as off-ice comparables, like Mark Messier.

His LA on/off numbers were 0.96, 1.10, 0.97, 1.19, 0.86, 0.70 prior to carrying the team in 1996 with a 1.38.
The first explanation you gave me cleared things up. I knew you were speaking in 2 different terms, I just wasn't sure which one you were using in the post I quoted.

That being said, shouldn't the 2 bolded numbers be the same?

Hawkey Town 18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2010, 01:11 PM
  #63
Infinite Vision*
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,862
vCash: 500
Also just to clarify, I'm not trying to say Esposito was on the same level as Gretzky, or that Coffey was on the same level as Orr, but there are many similarities in their career situations, style of play, and the results they achieved.

Infinite Vision* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2010, 01:43 PM
  #64
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,746
vCash: 500
I think this ends up as a good illustration of why we can't take these numbers at face value from a first glance.

There are sooo many factors.. for example:

Almost certainly Gretzky was past his absolute peak, but still at a level only he and Lemieux ever reached offensively.

Gretzky played a ton in LA.

His main off ice counterpart had an enormous season. As well the best support linemate played a lot on a different line than Gretzky.

The team was generally dreadful defensively.

The team gave up an unusual amount of EN goals.

etc.

So many things to keep in mind when making judgments about a players numbers..

I think in this case the EN goals is most likely the main reason for the strange anomaly but even given that I believe it is not the only one.

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2010, 02:16 PM
  #65
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,007
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyD View Post
The first explanation you gave me cleared things up. I knew you were speaking in 2 different terms, I just wasn't sure which one you were using in the post I quoted.

That being said, shouldn't the 2 bolded numbers be the same?
thanks for poiting that out. Actually, I mentioned 6 seasons when I meant to mention 7. there are supposed to be two 1.10 in a row there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
I think in this case the EN goals is most likely the main reason for the strange anomaly but even given that I believe it is not the only one.
It did make a small difference, and put Gretzky on the positive side of the ledger. But it was still one of the worst ratios of all-time from a top-3 scorer even after adjusting.

Nicholls wasn't there past the halfway mark of 1989-90 and Gretzky's ratio the next 6 seasons averaged 0.99, meaning his goal differential against top checkers was only as good as the differential of the 2nd line against 2nd-tier checkers, perhaps worse once you consider 3rd and 4th lines formed his off-ice numbers too.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2010, 02:24 PM
  #66
Regal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,946
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
This is actually a really good point because we're really only talking about what.. 6-7 goals here? to sway Gretzky from being behind the rest of the team in GF/GA to the same.

So even if he was on for a few more EN than the others that would basically make up the difference.

If he was on for them all then he would be doing better than the rest of the team in GF/GA.
Essentially, this could explain the difference, though obviously we would expect Gretzky to make the team better at even strength, not merely keep it the same.


To be honest though, I fail to see how this stat is any different than +/- expressed as a ratio and minus short handed goals for and against (when on the PP). And we all know the issues involved in +/-.

Regal is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2010, 02:46 PM
  #67
lextune
I'm too old for this
 
lextune's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Massachusetts
Country: United States
Posts: 9,492
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Good point (and I have no idea why I didn't address it already).

Nicholls had 60 ES, 29 PP, and 8 SH goals in his season and a half with Gretzky.

If Gretzky assisted on 40 of them, he was clearly playing significant minutes with Nicholls at times other than on the PP.
I saw dozens of King's games that season. Gretz and Bernie played quite regularly together at ES. There is no debate about it. I saw it.

I'm on record saying that LA trading Bernie was an enormous mistake and I stand by it still.

They had a real magic together; interestingly it was more akin to Hull/Oates type of setups than Gretzky/Kurri plays, in my opinion.

lextune is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2010, 03:46 PM
  #68
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,746
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Regal View Post
To be honest though, I fail to see how this stat is any different than +/- expressed as a ratio and minus short handed goals for and against (when on the PP). And we all know the issues involved in +/-.
That has been essentially my point the entire time.

People are using these ratios as a boiled down number to show what 1 person did on the ice with a major factor, on one side of the equation at least, that 6 people are ultimately responsible for.. not to mention it is also situational.

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2010, 04:49 PM
  #69
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,007
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
That has been essentially my point the entire time.

People are using these ratios as a boiled down number to show what 1 person did on the ice with a major factor, on one side of the equation at least, that 6 people are ultimately responsible for.. not to mention it is also situational.
Regardless of situation - the most valuable player in the NHL should outperform the rest of his team significantly!

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2010, 05:36 PM
  #70
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,746
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Regardless of situation - the most valuable player in the NHL should outperform the rest of his team significantly!
Not true with the lousy metric you're attempting to use, unfortunately.

As you showed everyone in the thread already.. even 6 measly empty net goals can put a player from underperforming compared to his team to performing better than them.

Your list of hall of fame caliber players/seasons who underperformed their teams while being top 3 in scoring in the league should have set off some alarm bells, frankly.

This was a 68 point team that became a 91 point team and a team that scored 41 fewer goals than they let in during 87-88 that became a team who scored 41 more goals than they let in during 88-89.

Obviously, something is being missed in your all knowing single number, n'est-ce pas?

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2010, 05:37 PM
  #71
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,167
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Regardless of situation - the most valuable player in the NHL should outperform the rest of his team significantly!
Or make his teammates better by his mere presence.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2010, 06:28 PM
  #72
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,007
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
As you showed everyone in the thread already.. even 6 measly empty net goals can put a player from unerperforming compared to his team to performing better than them.
6 ENG is not measly. It's more than an average team surrenders. So the team had an abnormal season for ENG against. And to claim it put Gretzky from underperforming to performing better, is distorting matters. It took him from 0.98 compared to his team, to 1.05 compared to his team, a grand total of 7 percentage points, and it took him from the 9th-worst ratio among the last 129 top-3 scorers, to the 13th-worst.

So don't act like this made some big difference.

Face it - as far as top-3 scoring seasons go, this was a really bad one for goal differential. I realize that's like being one of the ugliest women in Miss America, but still, it doesn't stand up to a lot of better seasons, or any of Gretzky's other dominant years.

Quote:
Your list of hall of fame caliber players/seasons who underperformed their teams while being top 3 in scoring in the league should have set off some alarm bells, frankly.
Why? It happened just 13 times to 129 top-3 scorers, and two of those times it was to players who were nowhere near the best 3 offensive players (Hodge, Bucyk), and three more times it came with a great player on Orr's team, and Orr can skew anything.

there's really only 8 instances where it was truly an all-time great underperforming his team's goal differential, and the Hull, Stastny and Sakic ones can be mostly explained by Mikita, Goulet and Forsberg as off-ice comparables.

Leaving Yzerman in 1990, Lemieux in 1996, Gretzky in 1989 and 1994, and Perreault in 1976.

Why is it so hard to believe that a player can score a lot of points and not actually be an even strength benefit to their team? You think I'm obsessed with stats? You're the one telling me "but omgz they scored so much, how could they be bad???"

Quote:
This was a 68 point team that became a 91 point team and a team that scored 41 fewer goals than they let in during 87-88 that became a team who scored 41 more goals than they let in during 88-89.
overpass already explained a lot of this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TDMM
Or make his teammates better by his mere presence.
His on-ice teammates, sure.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2010, 07:28 PM
  #73
Starchild74
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 324
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Regardless of situation - the most valuable player in the NHL should outperform the rest of his team significantly!
I have been following this thread and was wondering the point of it. I thought it was interesting the stats you were coming up with and they are cool. Never thought about the stats the way you used them.

Then you made that statement.

In 1988-89 Wayne Gretzky won the Hart trophy because of what he did for the Kings. Alot o fthe players on the Kings that year had career years up to then and led Kings to the playoffs

The Hart trophy for the most valuable player to his team is not about who outperformed his teamates the most. It isn't about who scored the most points in the season or at least it shouldn't be. It is about how imortant a player is to a team. Now I know by your stats you are using the argument that the Kings by your stats were statistically better when Gretzky was off the ice.

The thing is though that those stats do not take into account what Gretzky meant to the team. He took attention off the other players. The focus was on him. The opposition had to make sure they stopped Gretzky that others on the team were able to relax and be secondary scorers.

Another thing the stats don't tell is how the players on the 2nd, 3rd and 4th lines were able to play relaxed and not worry so much if they were scored on. When you have a player like Gretzky on your team. Rightfully or wrongfully players feel that if they make a mistake and the opposition scores He(Gretzky) will help get that goal back.

A lot of the NHL game is psychological. WHen players are tight and are worried about making a mistake and getting scored on, they usually have problems scoring themselves. With Gretzky on your team it was at that time felt that no matter what the situation is Gretzky wil get us the win

Gretzky also brought credibility to the team. He brought a winning attitude to the Kings they never had. Once again that can have a positive effect on the team.

That was the main reason why he was given the Hart Trophy that year. Now you might disagree and that is your opinion but what Wayne Gretzky did for the Kings that year can not be discounted by any stats

Starchild74 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2010, 07:48 PM
  #74
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,007
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starchild74 View Post
The Hart trophy for the most valuable player to his team is not about who outperformed his teamates the most. It isn't about who scored the most points in the season or at least it shouldn't be. It is about how imortant a player is to a team.
Of course it's about the most valuable player. But doesn't it stand to reason that the most valuable player will outperform the rest of the team?

Quote:
Now I know by your stats you are using the argument that the Kings by your stats were statistically better when Gretzky was off the ice.
No, they originally showed this. After adjusting for ENG, it appears the Kings were about 5% better with Gretzky on the ice; still, this is a very weak rate of improvement. Of course he was their best scorer and drew top checkers, but every best scorer draws top checkers and they still manage to have better goal differentials than the other lines on the team, generally.

Quote:
The thing is though that those stats do not take into account what Gretzky meant to the team. He took attention off the other players. The focus was on him. The opposition had to make sure they stopped Gretzky that others on the team were able to relax and be secondary scorers.
I don't understand. Didn't he take the attention off of other players when he was in Edmonton? He murdered the team's goal differential in his Oiler years - destroyed it! And that was a better team, with much better players making up the off-ice comparables, Mark Messier and Glenn Anderson to start with.

Removing the 3rd and 4th lines because they are the least significant, in order to make a simplistic statement, Isn't keeping outperforming Bernie Nicholls' line by 5% a lot less impressive than exceeding Mark Messier's line's performance by 22-96% the four years before?

Quote:
Another thing the stats don't tell is how the players on the 2nd, 3rd and 4th lines were able to play relaxed and not worry so much if they were scored on. When you have a player like Gretzky on your team. Rightfully or wrongfully players feel that if they make a mistake and the opposition scores He(Gretzky) will help get that goal back.
So they stopped worrying about being scored on? Which, in a roundabout way, means they started playing more offensively and less defensively. This doesn't result in more wins for a team, typically. Besides, we're talking about ratios. If a player is operating at a 1.00 clip and starts to focus more on offense and less on defense, the most logical outcome is that he allows and scores about the same number of extra goals and still ends up at 1.00.

Besids, your theory says that these players expected that no matter what happened on their shifts, Gretzky's shift would get better results and the team would be ok. Gretzky's line did get better results - about 5% better on average.

Quote:
A lot of the NHL game is psychological. WHen players are tight and are worried about making a mistake and getting scored on, they usually have problems scoring themselves. With Gretzky on your team it was at that time felt that no matter what the situation is Gretzky wil get us the win
That doesn't explain their ratios. If Gretzky made them open it up then they would score and allow more goals. Anyone who's played hockey understands the tradeoff you make.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2010, 08:01 PM
  #75
Derick*
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,624
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Derick*
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
6 ENG is not measly. It's more than an average team surrenders. So the team had an abnormal season for ENG against. And to claim it put Gretzky from underperforming to performing better, is distorting matters. It took him from 0.98 compared to his team, to 1.05 compared to his team, a grand total of 7 percentage points, and it took him from the 9th-worst ratio among the last 129 top-3 scorers, to the 13th-worst.

So don't act like this made some big difference.

Face it - as far as top-3 scoring seasons go, this was a really bad one for goal differential. I realize that's like being one of the ugliest women in Miss America, but still, it doesn't stand up to a lot of better seasons, or any of Gretzky's other dominant years.



Why? It happened just 13 times to 129 top-3 scorers, and two of those times it was to players who were nowhere near the best 3 offensive players (Hodge, Bucyk), and three more times it came with a great player on Orr's team, and Orr can skew anything.

there's really only 8 instances where it was truly an all-time great underperforming his team's goal differential, and the Hull, Stastny and Sakic ones can be mostly explained by Mikita, Goulet and Forsberg as off-ice comparables.

Leaving Yzerman in 1990, Lemieux in 1996, Gretzky in 1989 and 1994, and Perreault in 1976.

Why is it so hard to believe that a player can score a lot of points and not actually be an even strength benefit to their team? You think I'm obsessed with stats? You're the one telling me "but omgz they scored so much, how could they be bad???"



overpass already explained a lot of this.



His on-ice teammates, sure.
I think it's hilarious when people tell someone using really detailed, sober, contextual statistical analysis they're "just going by stats" when all they're going by themselves is point totals and awards

Derick* 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 08:54 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.