ATD Summary 2017

[BenchBrawl]

They aren't the same, but at the end of the day, how different were their impacts on the whole season?

Yzerman and Lemieux scored about the same amount of NHL points, at the end of the day, how different were their impacts in their whole career?

 

[tinyzombies]

Richard being a reach at 11 seems pretty bizarre to me.

I'm listening to a Rocket interview right now and he says, "I'm sure there were many, many players better than me, but when we needed a goal I could score it. Gordie Howe never scored a game winning playoff goal and not too many in the regular season too. He's the best player I ever played against." So, when you compare two-way players with goalscorers, it's relative. These days you rarely get one-way players, but that was how the game was played then. That should not be punished. It was considered the right way to play for some players. Especially in the Rocket's case with the huge goals he scored. And he did it when the team wasn't a powerhouse as well as when it was. There's no greater equalizer than that.

He also said Brimsek was the toughest goalie he ever faced and was one of the best. But he was tough particularly for him because he never made the first move.

https://soundcloud.com/jay-tevan/ted-tevan-rocket-richard1983-2

 

[jarek]

I'm listening to a Rocket interview right now and he says, "I'm sure there were many, many players better than me, but when we needed a goal I could score it. Gordie Howe never scored a game winning playoff goal and not too many in the regular season too. He's the best player I ever played against." So, when you compare two-way players with goalscorers, it's relative. These days you rarely get one-way players, but that was how the game was played then. That should not be punished. It was considered the right way to play for some players. Especially in the Rocket's case with the huge goals he scored. And he did it when the team wasn't a powerhouse as well as when it was. There's no greater equalizer than that.

He also said Brimsek was the toughest goalie he ever faced and was one of the best. But he was tough particularly for him because he never made the first move.

https://soundcloud.com/jay-tevan/ted-tevan-rocket-richard1983-2

Scoring goals is the hardest and most important job in all of hockey, and very few were better at it than Richard.

 

[seventieslord]

. So yeah, he'll score at a better rate than a guy like Mark Recchi, but at the end of the season, their totals will be about the same.

Assuming the offensive abilities are as close as you say, this may be true, but Geoffrion is not replaced by a black hole when he's injured, his spot is backfilled and the replacement produces some points. The team with the better per game player is better off in this instance.

 

[seventieslord]

I'm listening to a Rocket interview right now and he says, "I'm sure there were many, many players better than me, but when we needed a goal I could score it. Gordie Howe never scored a game winning playoff goal and not too many in the regular season too. He's the best player I ever played against." So, when you compare two-way players with goalscorers, it's relative. These days you rarely get one-way players, but that was how the game was played then. That should not be punished. It was considered the right way to play for some players. Especially in the Rocket's case with the huge goals he scored. And he did it when the team wasn't a powerhouse as well as when it was. There's no greater equalizer than that.

He also said Brimsek was the toughest goalie he ever faced and was one of the best. But he was tough particularly for him because he never made the first move.

https://soundcloud.com/jay-tevan/ted-tevan-rocket-richard1983-2

Those statements were fact checked at the time by the NHL, and it turned out Howe had more game winning goals than Richard.

 

[Dreakmur]

Assuming the offensive abilities are as close as you say, this may be true, but Geoffrion is not replaced by a black hole when he's injured, his spot is backfilled and the replacement produces some points. The team with the better per game player is better off in this instance.

You don't believe in the vs.X system anymore?

 

[VanIslander]

 

[BenchBrawl]

You don't believe in the vs.X system anymore?

VsX is useful in some context.I still think PPG VsX would be useful as a "side score" to give, to differentiate between the healthy compilers and injury-prone stars.

 

[Dreakmur]

VsX is useful in some context.I still think PPG VsX would be useful as a "side score" to give, to differentiate between the healthy compilers and injury-prone stars.

More context is always better.

Vs.X is just a starting point - I agree. Per game average is an advantage to Geoffrion. Leading his teams I scoring is an advantage for Recchi. Lots of other things to look at. Go back and forth and measure. As I said, I have Geoffrion as a better player, but 80 places in the draft is not the gap I see between them.

 

[BenchBrawl]

More context is always better.

Vs.X is just a starting point - I agree. Per game average is an advantage to Geoffrion. Leading his teams I scoring is an advantage for Recchi. Lots of other things to look at. Go back and forth and measure. As I said, I have Geoffrion as a better player, but 80 places in the draft is not the gap I see between them.

Instead of making silly comparisons like Geoffrion vs Recchi, why don't you just tell us which RWers taken in-between should have gone below Recchi and be done with it.Go straight to the point.I don't have a mental list of RWers that were taken between those two, and I have no idea if I prefer Recchi to any of them.But I might.Enlighten us all.

 

[seventieslord]

You don't believe in the vs.X system anymore?

Come on, you know that's not what I meant.

 

[Dreakmur]

Come on, you know that's not what I meant.

I'm not sure what you mean then.

You said "Assuming the offensive abilities are as close as you say". The vs.x shows that they are basically equal. That's close, isn't it? So, the only way you would disagree that they are close is that you don't believe in the system.

 

[Dreakmur]

Instead of making silly comparisons like Geoffrion vs Recchi, why don't you just tell us which RWers taken in-between should have gone below Recchi and be done with it.Go straight to the point.I don't have a mental list of RWers that were taken between those two, and I have no idea if I prefer Recchi to any of them.But I might.Enlighten us all.

I didn't randomly pick Geoffrion. I was responding to a guy that thought Geoffrion was a good pick, and Recchi was a bad one. I wanted to show that they are a lot closer than the 80 picks that separate them.

 

[BenchBrawl]

I didn't randomly pick Geoffrion. I was responding to a guy that thought Geoffrion was a good pick, and Recchi was a bad one. I wanted to show that they are a lot closer than the 80 picks that separate them.

This is meaningless.The gap in value between any two ranks is not uniform (due to the "tier effect").

And then you have team needs, and ranking between all players vs ranking between players at the same position.Overall, this is not a good way to judge.

I do think Geoffrion was a great pick, mostly because I believe he was the last of a tier, which is why I traded up for him.

 

[jarek]

Recchi is a strange one. He has a very strong VsX7 score, yet was never really elite offensively. He's the definition of a guy who capitalizes on a few very strong years from a VsX perspective (98 (1991), 97 (2000), 89 (1994)), followed up by a long career of being good to very good.

Important to note is that in 1991 and 1994, Recchi was well behind the leader in points. Furthermore, this wasn't exactly a long stretch of high VsX scores.. there are several years in between. So, it's really hard to call this a "peak". More like one season offensive outbursts at a time, during a career which otherwise shouldn't blow anyone away.

Quite honestly, when you really dig into it, Recchi's offense isn't as impressive to me as his VsX score would indicate. I think the VsX methodology really helps a guy like him because it cherry picks the best years instead of looking at, for example, the best 7 or 10 years in a row of a player. If you did best 7 years in a row, you'd have to leave out 1991 or 2000, which is a big, big deal.. how many other times does this happen in the VsX method?

 

[Dreakmur]

Recchi is a strange one. He has a very strong VsX7 score, yet was never really elite offensively. He's the definition of a guy who capitalizes on a few very strong years from a VsX perspective (98 (1991), 97 (2000), 89 (1994)), followed up by a long career of being good to very good.

Important to note is that in 1991 and 1994, Recchi was well behind the leader in points. Furthermore, this wasn't exactly a long stretch of high VsX scores.. there are several years in between. So, it's really hard to call this a "peak". More like one season offensive outbursts at a time, during a career which otherwise shouldn't blow anyone away.

Quite honestly, when you really dig into it, Recchi's offense isn't as impressive to me as his VsX score would indicate. I think the VsX methodology really helps a guy like him because it cherry picks the best years instead of looking at, for example, the best 7 or 10 years in a row of a player. If you did best 7 years in a row, you'd have to leave out 1991 or 2000, which is a big, big deal.. how many other times does this happen in the VsX method?

Why does it matter if his best years were not consecutive?

Also, in the 5 seasons between 1991 and 1995, he was 3rd in league scoring.

 

[Johnny Engine]

VsX is useful in some context.I still think PPG VsX would be useful as a "side score" to give, to differentiate between the healthy compilers and injury-prone stars.

Assuming the offensive abilities are as close as you say, this may be true, but Geoffrion is not replaced by a black hole when he's injured, his spot is backfilled and the replacement produces some points. The team with the better per game player is better off in this instance.

How about this:

Take Eric Lindros. In the years between 94-99, and 2002, he has a 7 year VsX of 85.43. In those seven seasons, he play 81.55% of his scheduled games.
Looking at Hockey Outsider's chart, a 7-year VsX of around 65 makes you a replacement level player in the ATD if you're a modern player who doesn't bring much besides offense. So that means that about a fifth of the time, you're sticking that kind of player in the lineup.
So you take Lindros's entire score of 85.43, because he only needs sixty-something games to put those points on the board, and add 18.45% of the replacement score, which amounts to 11.99 more points. So Lindros's overall offensive impact is that of a player who scores more like 97.42.

Looking at that, it seems like too much, so I'm all ears for someone to tell me why this doesn't make any sense. Perhaps 65 is too high, as it assumes that guys like Simmer, Carter, Paiment, etc, got their scores by being perfectly healthy, and that's not really true. Is there any way to improve this?

 

[jarek]

Why does it matter if his best years were not consecutive?

Also, in the 5 seasons between 1991 and 1995, he was 3rd in league scoring.

I'm not saying whether it matters or not. I'm just saying that the VsX methodology specifically seems to benefit Recchi more than most.

Personally though, I think the fact that his best years weren't consecutive really lends credence to the idea that Recchi wasn't ever a superstar. I believe Recchi's VsX score flatters him a little bit.

 

[Dreakmur]

I'm not saying whether it matters or not. I'm just saying that the VsX methodology specifically seems to benefit Recchi more than most.

It's a system that just looks at the numbers. It tells you exactly how well he produced. How can that benefit one player over another?

Personally though, I think the fact that his best years weren't consecutive really lends credence to the idea that Recchi wasn't ever a superstar. I believe Recchi's VsX score flatters him a little bit.

He never was a superstar. He was just a very good all-around player for a long time.

 

[jarek]

It's a system that just looks at the numbers. It tells you exactly how well he produced. How can that benefit one player over another?

If you put any importance in a player sustaining offensive dominance over consecutive years, it certainly matters.

 

[Dreakmur]

If you put any importance in a player sustaining offensive dominance over consecutive years, it certainly matters.

I posted that in his best 5-year consecutive stretch, he was 3rd in league scoring. That's not good enough?

There's a reason I post several different offensive metrics in the bios.

 

[MadArcand]

ATD summary thread.

0.5 summaries posted.

2 pages of bickering about bloody Mark 'Hamsters' Recchi, MD.

 

[seventieslord]

ATD summary thread.

0.5 summaries posted.

2 pages of bickering about bloody Mark 'Hamsters' Recchi, MD.

One page. Smarten up and change your board settings to show 50 posts per page!

 

[BraveCanadian]

Maurice has said his brother Henri is better at everything except putting the puck in the net.

If you're going to pick one thing to be better at, that would be the one you'd pick.

It is kind of the point of the game, after all.

 

[seventieslord]

How about this:

Take Eric Lindros. In the years between 94-99, and 2002, he has a 7 year VsX of 85.43. In those seven seasons, he play 81.55% of his scheduled games.
Looking at Hockey Outsider's chart, a 7-year VsX of around 65 makes you a replacement level player in the ATD if you're a modern player who doesn't bring much besides offense. So that means that about a fifth of the time, you're sticking that kind of player in the lineup.
So you take Lindros's entire score of 85.43, because he only needs sixty-something games to put those points on the board, and add 18.45% of the replacement score, which amounts to 11.99 more points. So Lindros's overall offensive impact is that of a player who scores more like 97.42.

Looking at that, it seems like too much, so I'm all ears for someone to tell me why this doesn't make any sense. Perhaps 65 is too high, as it assumes that guys like Simmer, Carter, Paiment, etc, got their scores by being perfectly healthy, and that's not really true. Is there any way to improve this?

Forgot to reply to this earlier.

I have to say, I really like this as a starting point for understanding and quantifying the value of great "per-game" players.