Sens Rule
Registered User
- Sep 22, 2005
- 21,251
- 74
Of course you can't base EVERYTHING on the playoffs. But you need to give it some weight.
Of course you can't base EVERYTHING on the playoffs. But you need to give it some weight.
You've avoided the question twice...shall we go for lucky #3?
If you made a hall of fame (say, the 100 best non-goalies ever...a reasonable amount I feel), with all the information available to you right now, would you put Markus Naslund in?
As a career, you have him in the top 100, and it's based mostly on peak value from what I gather. That's the two basic criteria right there, isn't it?
I don't keep asking this to dump on your work, but just to point out that your formula has created outcomes that can't be justified with common sense.
Maybe you would put Markus Naslund in the Hall of Fame. I hope not, but to each his own. But the fact that you havn't given me a definitive answer yet leads me to believe that you also realize that he's not HOF calibre.
Stephen
Moderator
- Feb 28, 2002
- 78,398
- 52,586
I'd have to be born before the Boer War for me to have seen half of the players on your list.
Your 'research' consists mostly of pretentious name dropping. Or else you base it on hyperbolic accounts you can't back up with actual footage. Don't tell me you use old radio broadcasts to base your judgement.
Tell me what was so fantastic about Billy Taylor. 7 seasons in the NHL, less than 100 goals, played during WWII when the talent level was diluted. Bounced out of the NHL at 28. Notable maybe for playing on a few cup winners and finishing a few times in the top 5 of his team for scoring. This is some how better than Alexander Mogilny? Mats Sundin? Mike Gartner? Glenn Anderson?
How do you know that Ching Johnson was a better defenseman than Guy Lapointe? Or Kevin Lowe?
Terrible, pointless list.
Last edited:
I can't really stick around all night to defend myself against all the hate so, I will summarize in this post.
I consider three great seasons more impressive than 10 good seasons. Everything I factor into my ratings measures how many great seasons a player had. If a player had 20 seasons where they were considered good, they probably won't do too well on my list. (Sorry Sundin fans). I wanted to measure true greatness and that is being dominant in an NHL season. Doing it multiple times moves you up the list.
Many people think that 1000 points or having 12 straight 70 point seasons is greatness. I disagree. That is being good or even mediocre. That is not greatness.
Greatness is finishing top 5 in scoring. Greatness is being a Hart finalist. Greatness is winning a Conn Smythe.
For most of you, I think that will answer your questions. My definition of great is different from yours.
**I do have some adjustments in the works that will likely drop Naslund and Ward in the rankings and bring Sundin and Kurri up. This will not be a complete overhaul and Naslund will still fare well. It is a philosophical difference for most of us as to why I put certain players where I do.
According to my count, Ullman was a top-10 goal scorer 9 times (leading the league once) and a top-10 point scorer 7 times. He production was on a whole other level from those guys.
heh, shows what I know
Maybe I just assume anyone named Norm isn't exciting enough to be a top-80 player of alltime...
You've avoided the question twice...shall we go for lucky #3?
If you made a hall of fame (say, the 100 best non-goalies ever...a reasonable amount I feel), with all the information available to you right now, would you put Markus Naslund in?
As a career, you have him in the top 100, and it's based mostly on peak value from what I gather. That's the two basic criteria right there, isn't it?
I don't keep asking this to dump on your work, but just to point out that your formula has created outcomes that can't be justified with common sense.
It is based on number of great seasons. If a player has 20 great seasons (Howe) then he fares very well on the list. If a player has 3 great seasons, he ends up at #80. If a player never has a great season, you probably won't see him on the list.
You pick out one or two or three that you don't think make sense yet, I put a list of 200 where 197 of them do.
Yes, I would put Naslund in the HOF based on my criteria. When I make my adjustments he may or may not be there. The bottom line, next to Gretzky, Orr, Howe and maybe one or two others, nobody has ever had a three year stretch like Naslund did from 02-04.
Stephen
Moderator
- Feb 28, 2002
- 78,398
- 52,586
How come Eric Lindros is rated so low then, in comparison to an Adam Oates? That ranking seems to fly in the face of what you just said.
LOL.
"My favorites are too low - your list sucks" How many times have I heard that?
Anyway, the eyewitnesses that saw Ching Johnson play helped me determine that he had a greater career than Lapointe or Lowe. I wasn't too lazy to do the research.
Sens Rule
Registered User
- Sep 22, 2005
- 21,251
- 74
I am not hating on your ratings. And I respect how much work you do to rate all these players - especially accounting for all eras which is hard to do. i am just giving you constructive criticism.
I think you do not give playoffs nearly enough weight. I respect you not wanting to rate players that have few playoff appearances too low like Dionne might be and I know it is hard to properly adjust regualr season and playoffs. But if you do your list of the greatest players would be much more valid and strong.
Also I question just giving credit for top 7 finishes in the regualr season. If a guy finishes 12th in points or 9th in goals in a 30 team 600+ player NHL that is incrdibly impressive and deserves poitive credit. A guy that finishes 2nd, 6th and 3rd in points and never again finishes in the top 20 or 30 in points is not as impressive as a guy that finishes 10th in points 4 times, 9th in points twice, 8th once and 6th once and 2nd once. Yet I believe the guy with 3 good years instead of 8 good years would be rated higher in your system.
I'm guessing that playmaking plays a role in his rankings. Oates finished in the top-5 for assists 9 times in his career (I believe only Gretzky and Howe did it more times).
A big part of Oates' greatness was the fact that he is the 3rd greatest playmaker in NHL history. That helps put him ahead of Lindros.
I still believe that 3 dominant seasons are better than 10 good seasons.
But, that being said, I am adjusting things to take lower finishes (possibly as far as top 20) into account. I will post when I have the results.
Stephen
Moderator
- Feb 28, 2002
- 78,398
- 52,586
But that determination is completely incompatible with your notion that peaks, individual awards mean more. Eric Lindros was the best player in the world for a few years.
Nothing is incompatible. Being the best at hockey's most important talents is what I measure. Playmaking is one of those talents.
I accumulate data for 7 different measureable categories and the totals speak for themselves. Eric Lindros may have scored higher than Oates in 2 categories but, Oates dominated the playmaking category to such a degree that he ends up ahead of Lindros. It fits into my philosophy quite well.
TheDanceOfMaternity
Registered User
I come with a little more respect/naitivity, because hockey isn't really like baseball where you can show up as a fan (like I did in the late 90's) and learn all the records real easily.
But Why is Pronger so far above Niedermeyer. Out of the active players, Nieds should be near Sakic.
But Why is Pronger so far above Niedermeyer. Out of the active players, Nieds should be near Sakic.
Sens Rule
Registered User
- Sep 22, 2005
- 21,251
- 74
I am glad you are taking that into account. I was pointing out a flaw in your ratings as I understand it - that if a guy finishes 8th in scoring or goals he gets not credit while a guy that finishes 6th or 5th does get credit. There is not that much of a difference in the value of it.
You could take a season in say the 1980's where Gretzky might get 205 points and then the next 10 guys have between 108 and 99 points. The 5th,6th and 7th place guy could be tied at 103 points and the 8th and and 9th guys have 102 and 101 points. It seems silly to rate the guys with 1 more point as being so much more dominant. Especially if some of the guys had huge playoffs other did not. One guy might be an elite defensive forward as well as getting 102 or 103 points while another guy is horrible defensively. If Rob Brown and Ron Francis and Steve Yzerman get the same number of points clearly one of them is not the 2-way player the others are.
Ok, well this may be just me...and let me say that I think you have done a great job putting a list like this together, it takes a lot of balls, but according to your definition of greatness I cant fathom how Kurri is below Naslund?
I mean, sure Naslund had 3 great seasons, but Kurri's 3 greatest seasons were at least as good as his, and he finished top 10 in scoring multiple other times as well. Then you can take into account the fact he is 3rd all time in playoff goals and points as well as 5 stanley cups...and you have a great player who (at least as of 06/07 season), career wise, peak wise, and greatness wise is far, far superior to both Crosby and Naslund.
Kurri:
9th in points 82/83
7th in points 83/84
2nd in goals, 2nd in points 84/85
4th in points, 1st in goals 85/86
2nd in points, 3rd (T) in goals 86/87
8th in points 88/89
Naslund:
2nd in points, 5th in goals 01/02
2nd in points, 2nd in goals 02/03
4th in points, 7th in goals 03/04
Crosby:
6th in points 05/06
1st in points 06/07
I mean, sure Naslund had 3 great seasons, but Kurri's 3 greatest seasons were at least as good as his, and he finished top 10 in scoring multiple other times as well. Then you can take into account the fact he is 3rd all time in playoff goals and points as well as 5 stanley cups...and you have a great player who (at least as of 06/07 season), career wise, peak wise, and greatness wise is far, far superior to both Crosby and Naslund.
Kurri:
9th in points 82/83
7th in points 83/84
2nd in goals, 2nd in points 84/85
4th in points, 1st in goals 85/86
2nd in points, 3rd (T) in goals 86/87
8th in points 88/89
Naslund:
2nd in points, 5th in goals 01/02
2nd in points, 2nd in goals 02/03
4th in points, 7th in goals 03/04
Crosby:
6th in points 05/06
1st in points 06/07
Stephen
Moderator
- Feb 28, 2002
- 78,398
- 52,586
http://www.hickoksports.com/biograph/johnsonching.shtml
http://www.newyorkrangers.com/tradition/alumnispotlight.asp?Alumni=Johnson
http://www.legendsofhockey.net:8080...?mem=p195811&type=Player&page=bio&list=#photo
So you basically go by the legendary accounts, the mention of the Hart nomination, the 'hardest bodychecker in the world" and nominations to all-star games? This is anecdotal, unreliable evidence at best. I can't make a definitive statement that Johnson was better than Lowe or Lapointe, so I'm not going to. I just question someone who feels that they can reconcile these biographies and make definitive judgements on where they rate in relation to players you see on television. You wouldn't be able to tell me what his skating stride looked like, what he was like late in a game, or how he could handle big minutes, how often he turned the puck over, or was beaten to the outside. All of these things get lost and all you're left with is this glorified picture and some numbers. It doesn't work for me.
The main difference is that Pronger has spent more time near the top of the Norris trophy voting during his career than Niedermayer. It is pretty close but Pronger is ahead.
Hypothetically:
Player A records 9 goals and 70 assists for 79 points.
Player B records 30 goals and 55 assists for 85 points.
Player B has, in my opinion, had the better season. Even if we assume an assist and a goal are of equal value, he simply has more points. Based on the 2007 NHL season, neither of his totals place him in the top 10.
Player A, however, has landed in the top 5 for assists in 2007, despite having what most would consider to be an inferior season.
Would player A get "credit" in your system for a top-5 playmaking season, while player B gets nothing?
(I believe you used to do things this way, but I'm not sure if you still do)
I just ask because I get the impression that Oates has been given some extra points here for being a player who's offense is skewed very much towards one end of the spectrum.
Last edited:
Nothing anecdotal or subjective about the actual Hart and Norris balloting. Johnson spent more time near the top of those votes than did Lapointe or Lowe.
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
GDT: 2023-24 season game 82 LA Kings vs Chicago Blackhawks @7:30pm 4/18/24- Latest: Buddy The Elf
