Masao Kishin said:That's exactly the problem with your list.
Masao Kishin said:Stats aren't everything. People pay too much attention to stats. I'm pretty sure players like Bob Gainey or Craig Ramsay would have gotten a lot more points if they concentrated solely on offense without making all the defensive efforts they did.
Then, there's the problem of the quality of linemates, the opponents faced (a team playing in a weak division can change a lot of things), games missed because of an injury, etc, etc... there are just too many factors to consider to rate two players against each other on numbers alone.
A game is played on the ice, not on paper.
reckoning said:I`ve always been a firm believer that how good Eric Lindros was before the concussions has been unfairly erased from hockey history, but even I`m surprised at how high he ranks on those two lists.
Ogopogo said:When we are talking about greatest goal scorers, properly analyzed stats are everytning. How Bob Gainey or Craig Ramsay figure into a conversation about great goal scorers is beyond me. That is not the discussion at hand.
Quality of linemats and opponents faced are crutches. A great player scores under all condtions on any team with any linemates. Wayne Gretzky broke the single season points record on a crappy Oilers team, playing a balanced schedule, while having no teammate score more than 75 points. He also scored a bundle of points on a good team. Lemieux was great far before the Penguins were. Linemates and unbalanced schedules are irrelevant. The greats will always be great and the not-so-greats will always be not-so-great.
Gord said:I shouldn't say get off topic in a bossy thread, but it still amazes me how great gretzky was at such a young age. for example, breaking the point record on an average team, and at what, 20 years old?
Ogopogo said:You have no clue how this list was developed and you bash the analysis. That pretty much puts an end to your credibility.
Ogopogo said:You have no clue how this list was developed and you bash the analysis. That pretty much puts an end to your credibility.
Masao Kishin said:Uh-uh.
You know, there is such a thing as a result that is prima facie absurd and unreasonable. No need to know all the subtelties of your research to realize that there's a serious flaw somewhere considering the players you've ranked as "better" goalscorers than Lemieux and Bure.
And I remember another thread a while ago where you stated that Adam Oates was a "better" playmaker than Lemieux. I don't care WHAT analysis you used to get that result, but the conclusion is itself so ridiculous that anyone without a serious anti-Lemieux bias and the least bit of thinking matter can tell that the calculation is wrong even without knowing exactly how it was done.
Ogopogo said:Sounds to me that you suffer from a serious pro-Lemieux bias. No matter what the findings are, Lemieux must be the best so the findings must be flawed.
Sorry, can't buy into your bias. I did this without pre-determined results in mind.
Are you kidding?Masao Kishin said:Look, no matter how you look at it there is no way you can try justifying saying that... Oates was a better passer.
VanIslander said:Are you kidding?
Oates was one of the greatest passers of all time. I've heard several say that only Gretzky has been more impressive in that regard.
But I agree in terms of scoring, how can nine guys be ranked ahead of Mario unless the focus is more on career length than skill.
Masao Kishin said:Look, no matter how you look at it there is no way you can try justifying saying that there are 9 better goalscorers than Lemieux or that Oates was a better passer. The only explanation for those results is a flawed analysis. This is not bias, it is simply acknowledging the blatantly obvious.
Like I said in another topic, there would be nothing wrong with your results if you were to call them differently. Saying that you're listing the "best goalscorers" or the "best playmakers" quite simply does not reflect what is being studied. When you talk about someone who is the best at something, you are talking about skill. The fact that a player like Bobby Orr ended his career so early does not make him "less skilled" than another player of lesser talent simply because the other one was among the leaders for a greater number of seasons. This is not a matter of blindly projecting "what if" stats to say that x would have been better than y if z happened, it is a matter of understanding which fact is pertinent and which fact is not.
I'm not saying your research is biased, I'm simply pointing out that there are important factors that you blatantly disregard and other factors that you overrate when we take into consideration the terminology you use - the word "best" does not mean what you make it mean. There was a topic many months ago (before I had to re-register) in which I discussed explicitly what the problem was with your analysis from what you explained of it, and I don't feel like repeating myself all over again. In short, there would be nothing wrong with your results if you called them differently. Saying that such and such is the "3rd best" or "5th best" scorer/passer ever does not correspond to the analysis you made.
Maybe if you would have said "most proficient" scorers, or even better "most important scorers," then there would be nothing wrong. The problem is when you say that you are listing the "best" scorers - and it is in that regards that your results are "blatantly incorrect." As far as skill goes, there is no way you can say that Maurice Richard or Phil Esposito were "better" goalscorers than Mario Lemieux. Historically more significant? Perhaps. Better? No way in hell. That's about as close to a fact as you can get.
Masao Kishin said:Simple: because the focus IS more on career length than skill!
.
Masao Kishin said:People pay too much attention to stats. I'm pretty sure players like Bob Gainey or Craig Ramsay would have gotten a lot more points if they concentrated solely on offense without making all the defensive efforts they did.