NHL's Greatest Playmakers

[Luigi Lemieux]

We can only rank them according to what they did accomplish. Based on that criteria, Orr and Lemieux are in about the right spot.

i think your statement right here presents why we are disagreeing. you're ranking accomplishments, while i'm arguing how good they actually were. anyway, good discussion.

 

[Masao]

A guy should produce and be recognized accordingly. Mario's assists per game is nice but, if he doesn't actually play all the games, they don't help his team. Injuries suck but, that is life.

That has absolutely nothing to do with who is the best playmaker. Nothing.

 

[Ogopogo*]

That has absolutely nothing to do with who is the best playmaker. Nothing.

So, we could say the Vancouver Canucks were the best team in the NHL last year. The fact that they didn't actually win the cup means nothing.

Do I have your argument right?

 

[Masao]

So, we could say the Vancouver Canucks were the best team in the NHL last year. The fact that they didn't actually win the cup means nothing.

Do I have your argument right?

Apples and oranges.

A player who plays 80 games per season for 20 years is more useful to his team but it doesn't make him automatically a better playmaker than a player who played 40 games per season for 10 years because of injuries.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Apples and oranges.

A player who plays 80 games per season for 20 years is more useful to his team but it doesn't make him automatically a better playmaker than a player who played 40 games per season for 10 years because of injuries.

If a player dominates the top 7 NHL assist leaders more than another player, he is the greater playmaker. Potential or what ifs do not come into play.

Oates had more seasons at the top of the NHL's assist leaders than Mario. Based on the number, it was probably one more season. Oates accomplished more.

Mario was the better player if he stayed healthy but, he didn't. It doesn't matter why Oates accomplished more in the assist category, he just did. I am measuring accomplishment, not potential or how a guy did for 60 games here and 24 games there.

Despite Mario's health woes he still finished very high on the list. A great accomplishment.

 

[Masao]

If a player dominates the top 7 NHL assist leaders more than another player, he is the greater playmaker. Potential or what ifs do not come into play.

That's a pretty brazen statement if I've ever seen one. In the end, it really depends on what you call "greater" playmaker. Playing more seasons doesn't magically make you more talented.

If Superman plays one NHL season and scores 400 goals then retires, it would be idiotic to say that Pavel Bure was a better goal scorer just because he was among the leaders during a greater number of seasons.

If you just refuse to include essential values into the equation (or persist on giving importance to incidental ones), the end result becomes undoubtedly flawed. Besides, as ridiculous as it is to have Lemieux at 5, the fact that your calculations say that 8 players were better playmakers than Bobby Orr should have told you right from the start that there is something wrong with your system.

I must say that your list is very interesting and informative, but one thing it most certainly does not reflect is who really were the "better playmakers."

 

[Malefic74]

I must say that your list is very interesting and informative, but one thing it most certainly does not reflect is who really were the "better playmakers."

I gotta defend Ogo a little here. He's admitted in the past that his lists are entirely based on statistics. So technically he is absolutely correct. Oates was, statistically, a better playmaker than Mario. Of course an objective observer could point out that watching a game Mario dominates play in ways Oates can not, but hockey doesn't have statistics to cover things like that.

If nothing else these lists can give you factual foundation to look at the accomplishments of any given player. And for any given player you would have to add those intangibles to get a complete picture of who he was and how great he was.

Now I may have missed it because I wasn't paying attention, but are playoff assists weighted differently than regular season assists?

 

[kmad]

You can't determine a better playmaker statistically. So the point is void. This is hockey, not Tetris.

Playmaking is the ability to set your team mates up for goals, not the amount of times you can get your name in the assist column of the box score. There is no doubt in my mind that Lemieux would beat Oates in a playmaking competition 101 times out of 100.

 

[Masao]

Oates was, statistically, a better playmaker than Mario.

No, he wasn't. They have pretty much the same number of carrer assists while playing in the same era and Oates has played over 400 more games.

How the heck can you say that Oates was statistically a better playmaker in those circumstances? It's utterly ridiculous.

All the list says is that Oates was among the league leaders during more seasons. That does not make him a better playmaker. It just means that he played more seasons since both of them, when healthy, were among the leaders.

 

[Backin72]

Lists done in this manner are subject to the author's "process" and in no way should be taken as gospel. Take it for what it's worth.

 

[pei fan]

Ogopogo,the player I call the most under-rated player in history keeps
showing up high on your lists.Andy Bathgate at #6.

 

[Ogopogo*]

That's a pretty brazen statement if I've ever seen one. In the end, it really depends on what you call "greater" playmaker. Playing more seasons doesn't magically make you more talented.

If Superman plays one NHL season and scores 400 goals then retires, it would be idiotic to say that Pavel Bure was a better goal scorer just because he was among the leaders during a greater number of seasons.

If you just refuse to include essential values into the equation (or persist on giving importance to incidental ones), the end result becomes undoubtedly flawed. Besides, as ridiculous as it is to have Lemieux at 5, the fact that your calculations say that 8 players were better playmakers than Bobby Orr should have told you right from the start that there is something wrong with your system.

I must say that your list is very interesting and informative, but one thing it most certainly does not reflect is who really were the "better playmakers."

So, whoever has the best single season is the best playmaker? Or is it the best two or three seasons? I am not measuring "peak performance" for players, I am measuring the value of their careers. It is very different.

If Superman scored 400 goals in one season and the runner up had, say 60 goals, then Superman would get 79 points for that one season. I account for incredible dominance.

 

[Ogopogo*]

I gotta defend Ogo a little here. He's admitted in the past that his lists are entirely based on statistics. So technically he is absolutely correct. Oates was, statistically, a better playmaker than Mario. Of course an objective observer could point out that watching a game Mario dominates play in ways Oates can not, but hockey doesn't have statistics to cover things like that.

If nothing else these lists can give you factual foundation to look at the accomplishments of any given player. And for any given player you would have to add those intangibles to get a complete picture of who he was and how great he was.

Now I may have missed it because I wasn't paying attention, but are playoff assists weighted differently than regular season assists?

Good post, you seem to have an excellent grip on what I am trying to do with these lists. I have not yet been able to tabulate the playoff numbers but, that is definitely coming.

All of these lists are parts that are going to make the whole "Greatest Players List" which will factor in the intangibles as much as possible. To the relief of many, Bobby Orr will likely end up #3 on that one.

 

[Ogopogo*]

You can't determine a better playmaker statistically. So the point is void. This is hockey, not Tetris.

Playmaking is the ability to set your team mates up for goals, not the amount of times you can get your name in the assist column of the box score. There is no doubt in my mind that Lemieux would beat Oates in a playmaking competition 101 times out of 100.

You are speaking of a "peak performance" rating. Yes, Mario at his peak was better than Oates at his peak.

Oates accomplished more in the assist column during his career than Mario did. Mario had health issues, that is life. Where could Barry Pederson have ended up without his health issues?

 

[Ogopogo*]

Ogopogo,the player I call the most under-rated player in history keeps
showing up high on your lists.Andy Bathgate at #6.

I agree wholeheartedly. Bathgate is phenomenally underrated.

 

[Ogopogo*]

No, he wasn't. They have pretty much the same number of carrer assists while playing in the same era and Oates has played over 400 more games.

How the heck can you say that Oates was statistically a better playmaker in those circumstances? It's utterly ridiculous.

All the list says is that Oates was among the league leaders during more seasons. That does not make him a better playmaker. It just means that he played more seasons since both of them, when healthy, were among the leaders.

It wasn't exactly the same era.

Mario did more of his damage in the 80s and early 90s when offense was way up. Oates did his in the early 90s - early 2000s a more defensive time.

Mario's injuries cost him on the list of career accomplishments. If he had been healthy, I suspect he would have had the 3rd or 4th most decorated career in NHL history. But, as I have said, I only calculate what did happen not what-ifs.

Assist wise, Oates accomplished more.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Lists done in this manner are subject to the author's "process" and in no way should be taken as gospel. Take it for what it's worth.

This list measures what players accomplished the most on the all time assist chart during their career.

It does not tell us who the best player was during any one season. It does not measure a player's "peak". It gives us an accurate reflection of what each player accomplished on the assist list.

That is what it is worth.

 

[dolfanar]

A couple points. There is a method for adjusting pure stats by comparing overall #'s of assists and goals/game played. Stats, Inc did that a few years ago in their hockey enclyopedia. You take the average number of goals per game and assists per game for every season, then you find the global average, and adjust every players stats based on a comparison between that years average vs the global average. You also need to decide on a standard # of GP, and then adjust for years where the schedule was different (eg, if you choose 80 games as a standard, and a player played 30 out of a 40 game season, you multiply by 2). This is a HUGE job however, and unfortunately there just isn't a comprehensive DB out there you can Download to run these kinds of heavy numbers.

this method is a decent compromise, HOWEVER, I must bring up a point that was mentioned in the Greatest Scorers thread. Finishing 7th in a 30 team league is a MUCH bigger accomplishment than finishing 7th in a 6 team league. There needs to be an accomadation for the bigger pool of teams and players.

I suggest the following if you want to do a "Round 2" of this kind of analysis.

Take the number of teams in the league as your cutoff. So in a 21 team league, you would count points for the 21 top snipers/playmakers/scorers. 7 points still go to the leader, 1 point to the last place player. The interval between the positions would be 7/#of teams. In this case 7/21 = .3. So 1st place would be 7, 2nd 6.7, 3rd 6.4, etc... Additionally, rather than your bonus points thresholds for dominance, try this: +1 point for every 10% ahead of the next closest player (rounded down).

This, I believe will give you a more representative reflection of snipers, playmakers & scorers through the years and will un-skew the results from the Original 6, and early era (1920's/30's) players.

 

[Ogopogo*]

A couple points. There is a method for adjusting pure stats by comparing overall #'s of assists and goals/game played. Stats, Inc did that a few years ago in their hockey enclyopedia. You take the average number of goals per game and assists per game for every season, then you find the global average, and adjust every players stats based on a comparison between that years average vs the global average. You also need to decide on a standard # of GP, and then adjust for years where the schedule was different (eg, if you choose 80 games as a standard, and a player played 30 out of a 40 game season, you multiply by 2). This is a HUGE job however, and unfortunately there just isn't a comprehensive DB out there you can Download to run these kinds of heavy numbers.

this method is a decent compromise, HOWEVER, I must bring up a point that was mentioned in the Greatest Scorers thread. Finishing 7th in a 30 team league is a MUCH bigger accomplishment than finishing 7th in a 6 team league. There needs to be an accomadation for the bigger pool of teams and players.

I suggest the following if you want to do a "Round 2" of this kind of analysis.

Take the number of teams in the league as your cutoff. So in a 21 team league, you would count points for the 21 top snipers/playmakers/scorers. 7 points still go to the leader, 1 point to the last place player. The interval between the positions would be 7/#of teams. In this case 7/21 = .3. So 1st place would be 7, 2nd 6.7, 3rd 6.4, etc... Additionally, rather than your bonus points thresholds for dominance, try this: +1 point for every 10% ahead of the next closest player (rounded down).

This, I believe will give you a more representative reflection of playmakers through the years and will un-skew the results from the Original 6, and early era (1920's/30's) players.

Why is it more diffucult to finish top 7 in a 30 team league than it is in a 6 team league? If the scoring list was a random draw, that would make sense but, this is how I see it:

6 teams in the NHL means you have the 120 best players. Add 24 more teams to the mix and you have just added 480 bad players that were not good enough to be in a six team NHL. So, how will these 480 bad players make it tougher on the 7 best scorers in the world? Would Wayne and Mario have had a tougher time staying atop the scoring list if the NHL added 100 new teams in the 80s? Not at all. They would just have been adding 2000 players from the AHL, ECHL, Europe, overage juniors and other players that were not nearly good enough for the NHL.

The way I see it, the number of teams has no bearing on how easy it is to finish high up in the scoring race.

Thanks for the suggestion

 

[Masao]

It wasn't exactly the same era.

Mario did more of his damage in the 80s and early 90s when offense was way up. Oates did his in the early 90s - early 2000s a more defensive time.

Adam Oates in the 90s:
749 assists in 803 games (0.932 assists per game)
Adam Oates in the 2000s:
185 assists in 288 games (0.642 assists per game)

Mario Lemieux in the 90s:
466 assists in 377 games (1.236 assists per game)
Mario Lemieux in the 2000s:
137 assists in 144 games (0.951 assists per game)

Mario's injuries cost him on the list of career accomplishments. If he had been healthy, I suspect he would have had the 3rd or 4th most decorated career in NHL history. But, as I have said, I only calculate what did happen not what-ifs.

Assist wise, Oates accomplished more.

Well, I can't disagree with this since you're talking about accomplishments. But that doesn't mean that Oates was a better playmaker, as in more skilled in the "art" of playmaking. He played more game and accomplished more - I can agree on that. But he was definitively not better.

 

[Backin72]

This list measures what players accomplished the most on the all time assist chart during their career.

It does not tell us who the best player was during any one season. It does not measure a player's "peak". It gives us an accurate reflection of what each player accomplished on the assist list.

That is what it is worth.

It's not accurate with the formula you are using. We've done this before Ogo. That's why I say, "it's not gospel", nor the be all and end all definitive list.

 

[Ogopogo*]

"this method is a decent compromise, HOWEVER, I must bring up a point that was mentioned in the Greatest Scorers thread. Finishing 7th in a 30 team league is a MUCH bigger accomplishment than finishing 7th in a 6 team league. There needs to be an accomadation for the bigger pool of teams and players."





As an example, consider the 1966-67 season vs the 1967-68 season:

6 team NHL

66-67 Leaders
Mikita 97
Hull 80
Ullman 70
Wharram 65
Howe 65
Rousseau 63
Esposito 61
Goyette 61
Mohns 60
Richard 55
Delvecchio 55

The NHL doubled it's size to 12 teams for the 1967-68 season.

67-68 Leaders
Mikita 87
Esposito 84
Howe 82
Ratelle 78
Gilbert 77
Hull 75
Ullman 72
Delvecchio 70
Bucyk 69
Wharram 69


So, with 12 teams in the league, we can see that the scoring race was dominated by the exact same players that led with 6 teams in the league. It was not more difficult for them because 120 bad players were added into the mix. The best in the world were in the league in the 6 team days because they were the best. They are still the best when a bunch of bad players are added.

 

[Ogopogo*]

It's not accurate with the formula you are using. We've done this before Ogo. That's why I say, "it's not gospel", nor the be all and end all definitive list.

Accurate to measure what exactly?

To measure who dominated the assist list each year, it is very accurate. To measure other undetermined things, it is not.

 

[dolfanar]

Why is it more diffucult to finish top 7 in a 30 team league than it is in a 6 team league? If the scoring list was a random draw, that would make sense but, this is how I see it:

6 teams in the NHL means you have the 120 best players. Add 24 more teams to the mix and you have just added 480 bad players that were not good enough to be in a six team NHL. So, how will these 480 bad players make it tougher on the 7 best scorers in the world? Would Wayne and Mario have had a tougher time staying atop the scoring list if the NHL added 100 new teams in the 80s? Not at all. They would just have been adding 2000 players from the AHL, ECHL, Europe, overage juniors and other players that were not nearly good enough for the NHL.

The way I see it, the number of teams has no bearing on how easy it is to finish high up in the scoring race.

Thanks for the suggestion

Look, you made a nice little analysis, but don't expose yourself trying to defend your little thread. Either you are being defensive, or you are a analytic novice... This "opinion" ignores, in no particular order:

The fact that the NHL has merged with rival leagues which contained equivalent or better talent on atleast a couple different occasions (WPHL, and WHA)
The fact that during the original 6 era, many hockey pundits considered other professional leagues, the AHL for instance, to be stocked with players who could easily compete for playing time with NHL players.
The fact that US player pool has been expanding steadily since 1980.
The fact that the Euro player pool has been steadily growing, particularly since the Western Euro's started coming over in the late 70's, and the Eastern Euros in the late 80's.

What you are saying is literally saying that finishing in the top 7 grossing North American companies in 1492 is equivalent to the top 7 grossing North American companies in 2005.

Please tell me you don't work as a Data Analyst professionally... if you worked for me with that kind of "analysis" I'd have you mopping the floors in an instant...

 

[Ogopogo*]

Look, you made a nice little analysis, but don't expose yourself trying to defend your little thread. Either you are being defensive, or you are a analytic novice... This "opinion" ignores, in no particular order:

The fact that the NHL has merged with rival leagues which contained equivalent or better talent on atleast a couple different occasions (WPHL, and WHA)
The fact that during the original 6 era, many hockey pundits considered other professional leagues, the AHL for instance, to be stocked with players who could easily compete for playing time with NHL players.
The fact that US player pool has been expanding steadily since 1980.
The fact that the Euro player pool has been steadily growing, particularly since the Western Euro's started coming over in the late 70's, and the Eastern Euros in the late 80's.

What you are saying is literally saying that finishing in the top 7 grossing North American companies in 1492 is equivalent to the top 7 grossing North American companies in 2005.

Please tell me you don't work as a Data Analyst professionally... if you worked for me with that kind of "analysis" I'd have you mopping the floors in an instant...

A couple of points,

First, I am measuring NHL success. Not other leagues, other countries or anything else. If you are outside of the NHL, you are not included in this system. I probably will do a rating system for the other "major" leagues of hockey but, for this list it is irrelevant.

Secondly, the global population of hockey players is always expanding. Using your argument, today's NHLers are not that impressive because in 50 years there will be 10X the player pool. What if China and India take hockey seriously? That is 2 billion new people in the talent pool so, it would deem today's NHL inferior in your estimation. Does that mean we will never have a "legitimate" NHL scoring list?

The best players that the NHL can ice are in the league every year. I am measuring NHL success.


As an example, consider the 1966-67 season vs the 1967-68 season:

6 team NHL

66-67 Leaders
Mikita 97
Hull 80
Ullman 70
Wharram 65
Howe 65
Rousseau 63
Esposito 61
Goyette 61
Mohns 60
Richard 55
Delvecchio 55

The NHL doubled it's size to 12 teams for the 1967-68 season.

67-68 Leaders
Mikita 87
Esposito 84
Howe 82
Ratelle 78
Gilbert 77
Hull 75
Ullman 72
Delvecchio 70
Bucyk 69
Wharram 69


So, with 12 teams in the league, we can see that the scoring race was dominated by the exact same players that led with 6 teams in the league. It was not more difficult for them because 120 bad players were added into the mix. The best in the world were in the league in the 6 team days because they were the best. They are still the best when a bunch of bad players are added.

Thank you for the insults.