Ogopogo's "Greatest NHL Careers" update

NOTENOUGHJTCGOALS

Registered User
Feb 28, 2006
13,542
5,771
I think philosophically that you've got it backwards. A great career should give higher weight to longevity and consistency. A top 10 player over two decades had a better career than a player who was a top 5 player for 3 years then mediocre for another decade.
 

Sens Rule

Registered User
Sep 22, 2005
21,251
73
I think philosophically that you've got it backwards. A great career should give higher weight to longevity and consistency. A top 10 player over two decades had a better career than a player who was a top 5 player for 3 years then mediocre for another decade.

Hence it is a list of "NHL Players with the best peaks" and has nothing to do with careers.
 

Ogopogo*

Guest
I'm not sure I like that idea...it could punish guys who may be consistantly better offensive players, couldn't it? At the end of the day, playmaking and goal scoring are both means to the same end...

Not speaking about Oates specifically, but the theory behind it. Is a guy who had 100 goals and 1200 assists better than a guy who had 500 goals and 800 assists? They both have the same amount of points, and their careers are equal in my books.

In 2004 Scott Gomez lead the league in assists, and had 70 points. Guys like Mats Sundin (75 pts) and Daniel Alfredsson (80 pts) outscored him, but weren't in the top 10 in either offensive category. Both these guys had better offensive seasons that Gomez, but I get the feeling Gomez would have more points in your system? It seems to reward one-dimensional offense ahead of a well-balanced offensive player.

I credit those who are among the leaders in points, goals and assists. Finishing high in all three will be worth more than finishing high in two or one of those categories. Always finishing high in assists will be worth more than never finishing high in any of the three.

In your scenario, Gomez did get more credit than Alfredsson and Sundin. Perhaps, when I adjust the scoring credits, that will change.
 

Ogopogo*

Guest
Messier is ranked 2nd all-time in regular season points.
He's ranked 2nd all-time in playoff points.
He's the only player ever to have captained two different NHL clubs.
Won 2 Harts, a Conn Smythe, 6 Stanley Cups.

No idea how he's ranked 35.
Yeah he's always had haters and people saying his stats were bloated in Edmonton, but c'mon...

As a lifelong Oilers fan I am definitely a Messier hater. :sarcasm:

The fact is, Messier is #2 on the all time points list because he hung on longer than he should have. I do not credit players for 50, 60 or 70 point seasons - I am measuring greatness not goodness or mediocrity over a long period of time. Messier had plenty of mediocre seasons after 1997.

He is credited for his Harts, Smythe and Cups and that is why he sits at #35. The players ahead of him were more dominant for a longer period of time; that is why Messier is #35.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ogopogo*

Guest
I don't remember if you've mentioned this already, but do you currently take into account any of these?:

- Pearson
- Selke
- Calder
- Lady Byng
- Playoff scoring (i.e., 7 pts for leading the playoffs in scoring?)

I don't use any of the above simply because there is a lack of historical data to use for them. With playoff scoring, I considered it but, players like Marcel Dionne get hammered for circumstances beyond their control in that situation.
 

Ogopogo*

Guest
Two comments:

1) Saying a 19 year old with two "dominant" seasons makes a better player then arguably one of the greatest pure goal scorers of all time is an absolute joke.

2) I think the fact that Ogopogo gets defensive about every comment that doesn't jibe with his ratings and has yet to say "hey, you know you may be right , I'll have to rethink that" speaks volumes about his rankings.

Actually it is when people become insulting that I get offended. I am very open to suggestions and ideas but when the first sentence someone types calls my system an "absolute joke" that is quite insulting.

I appreciate constructive criticism when it is presented civilly - unlike your post.
 

Ogopogo*

Guest
I'd suggest a closer look into Ranford's career. This explaination is far too vague to give the selection of Ward over Ranford any serious consideration. Surely even you can see this leap of logic in the text of a great NHL career.

As I mentioned, the lack of cooperation from the NHL's head office in NY has limited the data I have on goaltenders. If I am able to obtain the additional data I require, I will be able to put together a more full picture of historical goaltending. At this point I would rather run with something reasonable than have nothing while I wait.
 

Ogopogo*

Guest
I think philosophically that you've got it backwards. A great career should give higher weight to longevity and consistency. A top 10 player over two decades had a better career than a player who was a top 5 player for 3 years then mediocre for another decade.

Philisophically it is exactly the way I want it to be.

Top 10 players for an extended period of time end up near the top. The drop off you are referring to is the top 25 group. A player like Sundin does not appear on the list because he has been top 25 for a long time and that falls outside my definition of greatness.

Greatness is rising above your peers and dominating. Being 20th in scoring for a decade does not meet that definition and that is the way I have designed the system.

That all being said, I am looking at expanding the ratings to include the top 20 and I will post the results when I have them.
 

Stonefly

Registered User
Jan 29, 2007
1,032
3
LOL.

Did you ever see MacInnis play? Research the man's career he is what I would call "pretty good"

Yes I did see him play. That's precisely why I asked the question. In your research did you come across any stats that showed how many defensive lapses or errors he made? I didn't think so. Coffey is far too high as well. This is the problem with generating a list like this from stats alone. There are far too many aspects of hockey that stats just do not capture.
I applaud your efforts though Ogo. I can't imagine how many hours you spent compiling this list and it's probably about as good as any system to judge players too far back for anyone to have seen play.
Myself, I think if you can't watch a player and combine what you see with the stats, there is then a huge piece of the puzzle missing.
I also think it's probably more appropriate for people to make their lists from players they have been around to see.
A few of the guys on the list are a little premature as well. It might be wise to let Crosby have a career before judging it. 2 seasons is certainly not a career. Maybe impose a minimum length of time or number of games? :)
 

Ogopogo*

Guest
Hence it is a list of "NHL Players with the best peaks" and has nothing to do with careers.

That would be somewhat inaccurate. It is a measure of the number of great seasons each player has had. A player like Howe had 21 great seasons. A player like Markus Naslund had 3.
 

Ol' Jase

Steaming bowls of rich, creamy justice.
Sponsor
Jul 24, 2005
11,923
3,827
BC
As I mentioned, the lack of cooperation from the NHL's head office in NY has limited the data I have on goaltenders. If I am able to obtain the additional data I require, I will be able to put together a more full picture of historical goaltending. At this point I would rather run with something reasonable than have nothing while I wait.

Again, Ward over Ranford, Giggy, or Kolzig in the context of a career is not reasonable, under any rating system.

If you were to remove Ward for the rating system, we can talk. If you won't, it is this selection that throws the basis for this list into question.

Are you really ready to debate the logic of Cam Ward, if he retires today, has had a better career that the above mentioned individuals?
 

Stephen

Moderator
Feb 28, 2002
77,850
51,520
Two comments:

1) Saying a 19 year old with two "dominant" seasons makes a better player then arguably one of the greatest pure goal scorers of all time is an absolute joke.

2) I think the fact that Ogopogo gets defensive about every comment that doesn't jibe with his ratings and has yet to say "hey, you know you may be right , I'll have to rethink that" speaks volumes about his rankings.

He likes to point out that his system isn't perfect, but gets very defensive every time he's criticized for this.

There's absolutely no reason why Bill Taylor, for example should be on this list. My own 'research' tells me his numbers were unremarkable, played only 7 NHL seasons adnd led his team in scoring just once, and participated in two Stanley Cups with zero NHL awards. Yet he is in the top 200, which is in the very elite of the NHL. I would suspect that this guy's career is comparable to a guy like Ray Whitney or a Cory Stillman at the absolute best, yet this ranking has him ahead of contemporary guys like Brendan Shanahan who was one of the NHL's most dominant left wingers, Mats Sundin, the Toronto Maple Leafs' second career scoring leader, Mike Gartner, who has over 700 NHL goals, Glenn Anderson, a member of 6 Stanley Cups and a prolific scorer, Tim Kerr, who at least was a leading scorer on his own team more than a few times and led the Flyers to Cup finals appearances, as well as Cam Neely, one of the greatest power forwards of all time, and a guy who scored 50 in 49 games. It grossly undervalues recent times and inflates the value of pre-1950s hockey, which conveniently, nobody here today has seen play to make subjective observations and judgements about. Ogopogo wouldn't even be able to say whether or not Billy Taylor was a clutch player late in the game, or a defensive liability, or a strong skater, or good along the boards without referring to a book. It's just ridiculous that totally unremarkable players from previous eras are rated so highly when you have nothing to go by.
 

pappyline

Registered User
Jul 3, 2005
4,587
182
Mass/formerly Ont
He likes to point out that his system isn't perfect, but gets very defensive every time he's criticized for this.

There's absolutely no reason why Bill Taylor, for example should be on this list. My own 'research' tells me his numbers were unremarkable, played only 7 NHL seasons adnd led his team in scoring just once, and participated in two Stanley Cups with zero NHL awards. Yet he is in the top 200, which is in the very elite of the NHL. I would suspect that this guy's career is comparable to a guy like Ray Whitney or a Cory Stillman at the absolute best, yet this ranking has him ahead of contemporary guys like Brendan Shanahan who was one of the NHL's most dominant left wingers, Mats Sundin, the Toronto Maple Leafs' second career scoring leader, Mike Gartner, who has over 700 NHL goals, Glenn Anderson, a member of 6 Stanley Cups and a prolific scorer, Tim Kerr, who at least was a leading scorer on his own team more than a few times and led the Flyers to Cup finals appearances, as well as Cam Neely, one of the greatest power forwards of all time, and a guy who scored 50 in 49 games. It grossly undervalues recent times and inflates the value of pre-1950s hockey, which conveniently, nobody here today has seen play to make subjective observations and judgements about. Ogopogo wouldn't even be able to say whether or not Billy Taylor was a clutch player late in the game, or a defensive liability, or a strong skater, or good along the boards without referring to a book. It's just ridiculous that totally unremarkable players from previous eras are rated so highly when you have nothing to go by.
Then lets see your ratings system. Ogopoga has stuck is neck out with a formula based rating system that he admits isn't perfect. I don't agree with all the rankings. For instance, I would like to see WHA stats factored in which would move Hull ahead of Beliveau where he belongs.

Your argument is that if you haven't seen them you can't rank them. By that criteria, if you retired before 1950 you ate a non entity & you would exclude guys like Shore, Morenz & Blake.

Hockey has a long & rich history. Lets have some respect for the players of the past.
 

Stephen

Moderator
Feb 28, 2002
77,850
51,520
Then lets see your ratings system. Ogopoga has stuck is neck out with a formula based rating system that he admits isn't perfect. I don't agree with all the rankings. For instance, I would like to see WHA stats factored in which would move Hull ahead of Beliveau where he belongs.

Your argument is that if you haven't seen them you can't rank them. By that criteria, if you retired before 1950 you ate a non entity & you would exclude guys like Shore, Morenz & Blake.

Hockey has a long & rich history. Lets have some respect for the players of the past.

I don't support the notion of a rankings system that covers players of such a wide span, including many decades nobody has ever seen based on criteria that goes against an informed opinion. As another poster said, if you were around to watch a certain era, by all means, go and rank all you want. I couldn't tell you anything about Ivan Johnson, Charlie Gardiner, Paul Thompson, Babe Dye, etc. I couldn't tell you for certain whether Billy Taylor is more like Ray Whitney, Jamie Langenbrunner, Peter Zezel or Steve Larmer. I don't think you can do any amount of research that will give you satisfactory understanding of the player other than a few anecdotal stories and a stats sheet.
 

pappyline

Registered User
Jul 3, 2005
4,587
182
Mass/formerly Ont
I don't support the notion of a rankings system that covers players of such a wide span, including many decades nobody has ever seen based on criteria that goes against an informed opinion. As another poster said, if you were around to watch a certain era, by all means, go and rank all you want. I couldn't tell you anything about Ivan Johnson, Charlie Gardiner, Paul Thompson, Babe Dye, etc. I couldn't tell you for certain whether Billy Taylor is more like Ray Whitney, Jamie Langenbrunner, Peter Zezel or Steve Larmer. I don't think you can do any amount of research that will give you satisfactory understanding of the player other than a few anecdotal stories and a stats sheet.
OK, I have been watching since the mid 50's & so by your criteria I am entitled to rank the last 50 years. I say you are a lot younger so you can rank since maybe 1980.That is a pretty meaningless time span.
 

seventieslord

Student Of The Game
Mar 16, 2006
36,080
7,132
Regina, SK
As a lifelong Oilers fan I am definitely a Messier hater. :sarcasm:

The fact is, Messier is #2 on the all time points list because he hung on longer than he should have. I do not credit players for 50, 60 or 70 point seasons - I am measuring greatness not goodness or mediocrity over a long period of time. Messier had plenty of mediocre seasons after 1995.

He is credited for his Harts, Smythe and Cups and that is why he sits at #35. The players ahead of him were more dominant for a longer period of time; that is why Messier is #35.

hey, be fair. Messier was outstanding in 95-96 and 97-97.
 

Stephen

Moderator
Feb 28, 2002
77,850
51,520
OK, I have been watching since the mid 50's & so by your criteria I am entitled to rank the last 50 years. I say you are a lot younger so you can rank since maybe 1980.That is a pretty meaningless time span.

I'm not concerned about generating any list myself, but if a truly representative list were to be made, I think the input of long time hockey watchers would be needed. Someone who watched hockey between the 1930s-1950s can make a list, that can be compared to a list generated by you for players between 1950 to present, and that can be compared to a list generated by someone else who watched the same overlapping periods. Comparisons can be made and eyewitness accounts can be supplemented by stats and awards. I can't tell you if Charlie Gardiner was a better goalie that Roy Worters or if Tiny Thompson was better than John Vanbiesbrouck, and neither can formulas.
 

arrbez

bad chi
Jun 2, 2004
13,352
261
Toronto
I credit those who are among the leaders in points, goals and assists. Finishing high in all three will be worth more than finishing high in two or one of those categories. Always finishing high in assists will be worth more than never finishing high in any of the three.

In your scenario, Gomez did get more credit than Alfredsson and Sundin. Perhaps, when I adjust the scoring credits, that will change.


I think it needs to be looked into. I believe I've provided an example where the guy who had the worst season of the three players in question ended up with the most points, simply because his offensive statistics are more on dimensional. It was not a better season, just a more unique one.

Gomez's 56 assists were certainly impressive, but his 14 goals were also quite sad compared to the elite players of the league. He was roughly 20% better at playmaking than the other two, but over 50% worse at goal scoring.
 

pappyline

Registered User
Jul 3, 2005
4,587
182
Mass/formerly Ont
I'm not concerned about generating any list myself, but if a truly representative list were to be made, I think the input of long time hockey watchers would be needed. Someone who watched hockey between the 1930s-1950s can make a list, that can be compared to a list generated by you for players between 1950 to present, and that can be compared to a list generated by someone else who watched the same overlapping periods. Comparisons can be made and eyewitness accounts can be supplemented by stats and awards. I can't tell you if Charlie Gardiner was a better goalie that Roy Worters or if Tiny Thompson was better than John Vanbiesbrouck, and neither can formulas.
Sorta what Ogopogo did , Pretty hard to find eyewitness's pre 1940 exept from books

In a nutshell, You don't have a practical methodology, ogopogo does.
 

ered7

Registered User
Oct 21, 2006
98
2
I don't know what the system (dart throwing/ping pong ball lottery/paper,scissors,rock) that helped put the list together is, but there are some curious rankings and equally odd omissions. I'm kidding of course. I'm sure you did a tremendous amount of number crunching and weighing various intangibles. It's just hard to look a list without knowing what factors got weighted higher over others.

I do understand the difficulties with finding goalie data, especially in the early days. It might be helpful to see who just missed the list.
 
Last edited:

Stephen

Moderator
Feb 28, 2002
77,850
51,520
Sorta what Ogopogo did , Pretty hard to find eyewitness's pre 1940 exept from books

In a nutshell, You don't have a practical methodology, ogopogo does.

Maybe it's systematic, but it isn't good, reliable or particularly representative.

Forget comparing different eras for just a minute. How can you trust the methodology that puts Alexei Yashin and his one great 1999 season and one playoff round victory ahead of Brendan Shanahan, Cam Neely, Mats Sundin, Mike Gartner, Glenn Anderson, Daniel Alfredsson?

If the formula can get something as simple as that wrong, think about the inconsistencies and problems that come up with comparing different eras. That's how Billy Taylor gets on that list.
 

Ogopogo*

Guest
Yes I did see him play. That's precisely why I asked the question. In your research did you come across any stats that showed how many defensive lapses or errors he made? I didn't think so. Coffey is far too high as well. This is the problem with generating a list like this from stats alone. There are far too many aspects of hockey that stats just do not capture.
I applaud your efforts though Ogo. I can't imagine how many hours you spent compiling this list and it's probably about as good as any system to judge players too far back for anyone to have seen play.
Myself, I think if you can't watch a player and combine what you see with the stats, there is then a huge piece of the puzzle missing.
I also think it's probably more appropriate for people to make their lists from players they have been around to see.
A few of the guys on the list are a little premature as well. It might be wise to let Crosby have a career before judging it. 2 seasons is certainly not a career. Maybe impose a minimum length of time or number of games? :)

Thanks for the feedback.

I think your concern comes from a preference for the defensive style of play. Professional hockey writers have both expressed that a very talented offensive defenseman is as valuable as a defense only defenseman over the years. I have captured their opinions into this list.

If it was generally agreed that offensvie defensemen are a liability, I doubt players like Coffey and MacInnis would ever have won Norris trophies. The fact is they were considered extremely valuable pieces of the teams they were on.

I am measuring the number of great season each player has had, Crosby's 2 seasons carried more value than 10 or 12 seasons of the players behind him.
 

norrisnick

The best...
Apr 14, 2005
28,832
13,329
That would be somewhat inaccurate. It is a measure of the number of great seasons each player has had. A player like Howe had 21 great seasons. A player like Markus Naslund had 3.

psst... that bolded section is usually, and far more concisely, called one's peak. ;)
 

Corto

Faceless Man
Sep 28, 2005
15,991
942
Braavos
The fact is, Messier is #2 on the all time points list because he hung on longer than he should have. I do not credit players for 50, 60 or 70 point seasons - I am measuring greatness not goodness or mediocrity over a long period of time. Messier had plenty of mediocre seasons after 1995.


I thought you were "measuring" who had the greater CAREER not peak years.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->