Criteria for Player Comparisons

[Whatever Man*]

With all the player comparisons being done, there should be some sort of criteria for making them. Certain things about a player or his carreer that are what you judge him on.

This will be a growing list.

So if anything is missing, just say what it is.

Criteria:
I would like to eventually use a 1-100 scale (10, 25, 50, doesn't really matter) for each criteria, where the player who is at the top of the category is 100 and the rest are judged from there.

Example:
Longevity - Gordie Howe would be 100, Messier would likely be mid 90's, Francis mid to low 90's, Andreychuk low 90's, etc.

Skaters Criteria:
1. Longevity
2. Offense
3. Defense
4. Leadership
5. Awards
6. Championships
7. Dominance of peers
8. Records
9. Puck Control
10. Stick handling
11. Passing
12. Goal Scoring
13. Shot - Accuracy + Power + ??
14. Power - strength + balance + toughess + ??
15. Points per Game - Regular Season
16. Points per Game - Post Season
17. +/-
18. Clutch Performances
19. Speed
20. Agility
21. Other skating Ablities - Acceleration, Balance, Poise, Reverse, Transition
22. Work Ethic
23. Playoff Performance - Elevated game
24. Creativity
25. All-Star - Games, 1st Team, 2nd Team
26. Heart & Soul - Playing hurt etc.
27.

Goaltending Criteria:
1. Longevity
2. Leadership
3. Clutch Performances
5. Awards
6. Championships
7. Dominance of peers
8. Records
9. Rebound/Puck Control
10. Stick handling/Poke Check
11. Passing
12. Glove/Blocker
13. Pads
14. Durability
15. Speed
16. Agility
17. Flexibility
18. Work Ethic
19. Playoff Performance - Elevated Game
20. All-Star - Games, 1st Team, 2nd Team
21. Heart & Soul
22.

Others.....

Click to read more...

 

[GravityGrave]

Under player criteria there surely should be a category (or more) for skating.

At the very least I would divide it into:
1) Speed
2) Overall Skating ability

More telling though, would be:
1) Speed
2) Acceleration
3) Agility, Poise, Balance
4) Overall Skating ability (as in how effectively skating ability is used in game situations)

 

[God Bless Canada]

Under player criteria there surely should be a category (or more) for skating.

At the very least I would divide it into:
1) Speed
2) Overall Skating ability

More telling though, would be:
1) Speed
2) Acceleration
3) Agility, Poise, Balance
4) Overall Skating ability (as in how effectively skating ability is used in game situations)

Only problem with that is that you just elevated Konstantin Koltsov's status for the criteria. Koltsov, the guy who was so good that he was cut this summer by the worst team in the league.

 

[RUSqueelin*]

how about you should be aware that hockey players existed prior to 1985.

 

[GravityGrave]

Only problem with that is that you just elevated Konstantin Koltsov's status for the criteria. Koltsov, the guy who was so good that he was cut this summer by the worst team in the league.

True, but that's where the 4th category would come in. In terms of raw skating ability a player like Koltsov would be rated highly, but in terms of use in game situations/efficacy, he would be decidedly low. Considering that there are also two categories for puck skills (puck control and stick handling - which could by the same token elevate a player such as stanislav chistov or Tim Connolly), I figure skating needs more than one category. I'd just assume the aggregate score would balance out players who are quite high in one raw skill but deficient in others.

I suppose for the purposes of the outlined criteria, where most categories are very broad, perhaps two skating categories would suffice: Speed, and Skating ability (meaning use in game situations).

 

[Whatever Man*]

how about you should be aware that hockey players existed prior to 1985.

Nice. How mature.

Posted by GravityGrave:
More telling though, would be:
1) Speed
2) Acceleration
3) Agility, Poise, Balance
4) Overall Skating ability (as in how effectively skating ability is used in game situations)

Speed and Agility I like as individual criteria, as they do make up a large part of most great players games.
Maybe Overall Skating Ability, should be Other Skating Abilities. We have the Speed and Agility categories. I think maybe acceleration, belongs with poise and balance. There could be other things in there too, like skating backwards, and the transition from backwards to forwards when chasing a forward. Those are two aspects that would be invovled for d-men more than forwards but are still a part big of the game.

That is one category where each sub-category could be worth an equal %.

What do you think?

 

[God Bless Canada]

As I said to you earlier, I don't think there is a set criteria. Hockey's too complex of a game. There's no such thing as a five-tool player in hockey. If I had to choose one thing to be No. 1, as weird as it sounds, it would be work ethic. That is common denominator, the bond, that links every all-time great player from every era. There's no way to measure it. And in the end, that's what makes hockey so special. After that, I would have to say playoff performance, and then instincts. Again, how to measure them.

I think all you can do is evaluate each player on a case-by-case basis, look at his strengths and weaknesses, research, consult knowledgeable sources, and make an informed opinion.

 

[canucksfan]

I think one of the most underrated things that people use to compare players is how well did that player play in the playoffs. IMO it can give a player a huge edge over another player if they raise their game to the next level in the playoffs. That's why Richard is rated so high by many is because of his playoff performance. Richard actually averaged more points in the playoffs than he did in the regular season. On the other hand, Dionne is rated lower because of his poor performances in the playoffs.

 

[Whatever Man*]

As I said to you earlier, I don't think there is a set criteria. Hockey's too complex of a game. There's no such thing as a five-tool player in hockey. If I had to choose one thing to be No. 1, as weird as it sounds, it would be work ethic. That is common denominator, the bond, that links every all-time great player from every era. There's no way to measure it. And in the end, that's what makes hockey so special. After that, I would have to say playoff performance, and then instincts. Again, how to measure them.

OK fine, work ethic is good. It should definitely be a criteria for greatness. Playoff performance is another good area were greatness shines, There is already one for Points per Game in the playoffs, which covers more of the offensive side of things. So maybe just how much a player elevated their game during the playoffs, physical play, blocking shots, special teams type stuff. This sounds like another multiple category. Excellent.

We can get a rough Idea, through player comparisons. That is why I want to use such a large point system for each criteria. If it's out of 100, and we can get a rough concensus, say within 5 or 10 points per category, it should be alright.

I think all you can do is evaluate each player on a case-by-case basis, look at his strengths and weaknesses, research, consult knowledgeable sources, and make an informed opinion.

If this isn't trying to come up with a more objective precise way of looking at exactly what you just said, then I am deeply confused.

 

[Whatever Man*]

I think one of the most underrated things that people use to compare players is how well did that player play in the playoffs. IMO it can give a player a huge edge over another player if they raise their game to the next level in the playoffs. That's why Richard is rated so high by many is because of his playoff performance. Richard actually averaged more points in the playoffs than he did in the regular season. On the other hand, Dionne is rated lower because of his poor performances in the playoffs.

I hear ya CF. Four of the 23 categories (6, 16, 18, 23) are directly linked to the playoffs, #8 includes playoff records, #5 includes the Conn Smythe, and I would think the playoffs would be a big part of #4 also.

The playoffs are well represented, but if you have another area of comparision, just let 'er fly.

 

[Sens Rule]

You can't really breakdown greatness to a bunch of sub-catergories and then break those sub-categories further. It could have some use or Merit but if you did you would see Malakov rated over proven playoff performing D-Men and Kovalev rated among the better forwards of all time.

Where would Gilmour or Clarke rate? becuse as a whole in the regular season and especially in the playoffs all time they have to rate like 96/100 and in a breakdown of their skills into subcategories I doubt they rate nearly that high.

You have to look at the whole picture. In rating skills Lemieux would trump Gretzky almost everywhere. Who was better? You can't really put Gretzky at anything less than equal to Mario overall or even as he is likely above him yet if you break down facets of the game as you suggest there is no way Mario does not come off miles ahead of Gretzky. Jagr comes off ahead of Gretzky as well in broken down ratings.

 

[Whatever Man*]

You can't really breakdown greatness to a bunch of sub-catergories and then break those sub-categories further. It could have some use or Merit but if you did you would see Malakov rated over proven playoff performing D-Men and Kovalev rated among the better forwards of all time.

Where would Gilmour or Clarke rate? becuse as a whole in the regular season and especially in the playoffs all time they have to rate like 96/100 and in a breakdown of their skills into subcategories I doubt they rate nearly that high.

You have to look at the whole picture. In rating skills Lemieux would trump Gretzky almost everywhere. Who was better? You can't really put Gretzky at anything less than equal to Mario overall or even as he is likely above him yet if you break down facets of the game as you suggest there is no way Mario does not come off miles ahead of Gretzky. Jagr comes off ahead of Gretzky as well in broken down ratings.

Look man, don't come in here telling me how "it can't be done".

If you have another area of comparison or suggestion to change something, fine. Let me know. But don't come in here and cry about futility, when this is only the first step of something much bigger.

Just how does Jagr come out ahead of Gretzky when it is broken down?

Better leader? NO
More Awards? NO
More records? NO
More Regular Season points? NO
More Playoff Points? NO
More Championships? NO
Better goal scorer? NO
Better passer? NO
More Clutch? NO
Better Work ethic? NO
More Dominating? NO

Jagr may beat Gretzky in some breakdown schemes, he won't in this one. I'm trying, with any, and everybody's help to come up with something that is far more accurate. Each category will have a measuring stick. One player's performance in that category, that is considered the best all-time, is what will be used to judge all others by. Some will be easy, Gretzky for points, goalscoring, and passing, and Glenn Hall for Goaltender Durability, are no brainers. Work Ethic I can see being a tricky one, but there are enough reasonable people here to get some rough concensus. Like I mentioned earlier, if each category is out of 100 and the majority can agree a player is within a 5-10 point range, I think we will be doing about as good as can be expected.

C2SR, you've got some brains, why not pick the areas where you think certain players get overlooked and suggest them for criteria?

 

[RUSqueelin*]

Look man, don't come in here telling me how "it can't be done".

If you have another area of comparison or suggestion to change something, fine. Let me know. But don't come in here and cry about futility, when this is only the first step of something much bigger.

Just how does Jagr come out ahead of Gretzky when it is broken down?

Better leader? NO
More Awards? NO
More records? NO
More Regular Season points? NO
More Playoff Points? NO
More Championships? NO
Better goal scorer? NO
Better passer? NO
More Clutch? NO
Better Work ethic? NO
More Dominating? NO

Jagr may beat Gretzky in some breakdown schemes, he won't in this one. I'm trying, with any, and everybody's help to come up with something that is far more accurate. Each category will have a measuring stick. One player's performance in that category, that is considered the best all-time, is what will be used to judge all others by. Some will be easy, Gretzky for points, goalscoring, and passing, and Glenn Hall for Goaltender Durability, are no brainers. Work Ethic I can see being a tricky one, but there are enough reasonable people here to get some rough concensus. Like I mentioned earlier, if each category is out of 100 and the majority can agree a player is within a 5-10 point range, I think we will be doing about as good as can be expected.

C2SR, you've got some brains, why not pick the areas where you think certain players get overlooked and suggest them for criteria?

Well, as long as you compare their skills and accomplishments to their peers then you can get a pretty good idea as to who had the best careers. But I believe a certain poster has already come up with such a formula.

 

[Whatever Man*]

Well, as long as you compare their skills and accomplishments to their peers then you can get a pretty good idea as to who had the best careers. But I believe a certain poster has already come up with such a formula.

Ya I know, I saw one forumla with about 5 Criteria on it. This one
already has over 20, not counting sub-categories. Plus another set for goalies.

I understand each era is different, and to get a clearer picture, each era has to be represented in some form. The Dominance of Peers, category is a direct comparison to only players of their own era, and setting a record is still setting a record, if it is 1945 or 2004. Then there are the awards as well, which being annual, are also a form of comparison of a player to their peers.