Ogopogo's "Greatest NHL Careers" update

[Nalyd Psycho]

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.

7 assists in one game is impressive...

 

[MS]

A couple questions :

1) How the heck does Goldie Prodgers make this list ahead of guys like Goulet? Was 6th in points and 9th in goals in 20-21, and never top-10 in any category in any other year. Unspectacular 5-year career aside from that one season playing with the great Joe Malone. I'm curious to know what the criteria was that vaulted that high.

2) Would you agree that the WW2 years between 1942-45 should be half-weighted? The NHL was pretty clearly a 'half-league' at that point, and I don't think an award-winning season from those years should be valued anywhere close to full-strength years, and don't believe success in those years makes players 'great'. The result is that guys like Herb Cain - an average player thoughout the '30s who was out of the league in 1946 just a year after the war - is rated as an all-time great because he put up two huge years in 43-45 against what was basically a glorified AHL. This doesn't seem particularly right. Same with guys like Flash Hollett.

 

[Ogopogo*]

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.

It is a matter of dominance. I am measuring dominance displayed by NHL players not mediocrity or simply being good for a long time. Your list of players are all good players but none of them ever dominated the league to the extent that would get them high on my list.

Billy Taylor was 3rd in NHL assists in 1941 as well as 5th in scoring and 4th in assists in 1943. He had two seasons where he was dominant and that is how he ends up in spot #200.

 

[Ogopogo*]

A couple questions :

1) How the heck does Goldie Prodgers make this list ahead of guys like Goulet? Was 6th in points and 9th in goals in 20-21, and never top-10 in any category in any other year. Unspectacular 5-year career aside from that one season playing with the great Joe Malone. I'm curious to know what the criteria was that vaulted that high.

2) Would you agree that the WW2 years between 1942-45 should be half-weighted? The NHL was pretty clearly a 'half-league' at that point, and I don't think an award-winning season from those years should be valued anywhere close to full-strength years, and don't believe success in those years makes players 'great'. The result is that guys like Herb Cain - an average player thoughout the '30s who was out of the league in 1946 just a year after the war - is rated as an all-time great because he put up two huge years in 43-45 against what was basically a glorified AHL. This doesn't seem particularly right. Same with guys like Flash Hollett.

1) Since I am not on my home computer right now, I cannot give you the explanation for Prodgers and Goulet. I will respond to this question when I have had the chance to refer to my data.

2) No, I don't agree. If you decide to weight the WW2 years as 50% then what about the 70s when the WHA took a bunch of NHLers? What about every season up to 1989 because there were no Russians in the NHL? What about this season - the Chinese haven't taken up the sport yet - there are a billion potential players.

It isn't Herb Cain's fault that some players were at war. It isn't Bobby Orr's fault that some players jumped to the WHA, it isn't Wayne Gretzky's fault that there was an iron curtain, just as it isn't Sidney Crosby's fault that 1 billion Chinese do not play the game. If the NHL plays then, the stats are earned against the best the NHL could offer.

I am not one to say that x year was easier than xx year. An NHL season is an NHL season in my books. Every season is going to have its issues. Should we revoke Wayne Gretzky's 1994 scoring title because Lemieux was out of the Penguins lineup? Perhaps Phil Esposito doesn't really deserve the 1973 goal scoring crown because Bobby Hull was in the WHA that year? Is the Oilers 1990 cup illegitimate because Gretzky was injured while they beat the Kings?

I don't buy into the idea of making certain seasons worth more than others.

 

[Ogopogo*]

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

Peak is typically referred to as a player's top 3 or top 5 seasons.

I count the number of great seasons each player has had - if that means 21 seasons, so be it.

There is a difference, no matter how insignificant.

 

[Rinkrat]

I know I promised not to nit-pick, but how can Lanny McDonald not be on the list? Or am I blind and just can't find him.

 

[Ogopogo*]

I know I promised not to nit-pick, but how can Lanny McDonald not be on the list? Or am I blind and just can't find him.

I think Lanny comes in somewhere between 200 and 250, IIRC.

 

[Ogopogo*]

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

A career is simply an accumlation of seasons. I measure great seasons and those added together produce a great career.

The key distinction is that I measure GREAT seasons. Mediocre, bad or even pretty good seasons don't get factored in. GREAT seasons count, the players that amass the most GREAT seasons have the greatest careers.

 

[Sonny Lamateena]

A career is simply an accumlation of seasons. I measure great seasons and those added together produce a great career.

The key distinction is that I measure GREAT seasons. Mediocre, bad or even pretty good seasons don't get factored in. GREAT seasons count, the players that amass the most GREAT seasons have the greatest careers.

Didn't Mark Messier have more GREAT seasons then Clarke and Trottier?

 

[Sens Rule]

A career is simply an accumlation of seasons. I measure great seasons and those added together produce a great career.

The key distinction is that I measure GREAT seasons. Mediocre, bad or even pretty good seasons don't get factored in. GREAT seasons count, the players that amass the most GREAT seasons have the greatest careers.

However the player with 2 or 3 great years and 2 crappy ones and is out of the NHL is rated with a higher CAREER than a player with 1 or 2 great year 10 good years and 6 more decent years and no crappy years.

Your system is quite flawed in many aspects if you are attempting to measure great careers. You dismiss playoff almost entirely.

The most frustrating thing is you dismiss criticism in an arrogant manner. You don't seem to accept even the most obvious and clear problems with your rating system.

I assume you want to make your system more accurate, more realistic, more relevant. Yet when a multitude of posters give you advice you denegrate them and resort to petty responses.

I assume that youn want to create the ultimate rating system. When you post a list like you have created on the HFBOARDS you are inviting input and criticism and yet you seem to ignore and dismiss it with disdain.

So I suggest you either create your list for yourself and abstain from sharing it with others or lose the HUGE arrogance you have and attempt to learn from those that comment on your list.

 

[Sens Rule]

The key distinction is that I measure GREAT seasons. Mediocre, bad or even pretty good seasons don't get factored in. GREAT seasons count, the players that amass the most GREAT seasons have the greatest careers.

With that kind of criteria you can end up with the likes of Rob Brown who spent half his career in the minors and some of it on a line with Mario being rated with a greater career than Gartner, Andrychuk and Ciccarelli who had in reality great careers. Far greater than a player like Rob Brown or his ilk who had shorter careers with a few great seasons.

What you measure is greatest PEAK not GREATEST CAREER.

 

[Ogopogo*]

However the player with 2 or 3 great years and 2 crappy ones and is out of the NHL is rated with a higher CAREER than a player with 1 or 2 great year 10 good years and 6 more decent years and no crappy years. .

As I have mentioned, when I adjust my scoring credits to include top 20, things will look a little different.

Your system is quite flawed in many aspects if you are attempting to measure great careers. You dismiss playoff almost entirely. .

Players are credited for Conn Smythe trophies and Stanley Cup wins. I believe it to be unfair to credit players too heavily for something that is completely team oriented. As I have said, is it Marcel Dionne's fault his GM was a fool?

The most frustrating thing is you dismiss criticism in an arrogant manner. You don't seem to accept even the most obvious and clear problems with your rating system.

I assume you want to make your system more accurate, more realistic, more relevant. Yet when a multitude of posters give you advice you denegrate them and resort to petty responses.

I assume that youn want to create the ultimate rating system. When you post a list like you have created on the HFBOARDS you are inviting input and criticism and yet you seem to ignore and dismiss it with disdain.

So I suggest you either create your list for yourself and abstain from sharing it with others or lose the HUGE arrogance you have and attempt to learn from those that comment on your list.

I accept criticism wholeheartedly. It is the insults I can do without and, unfortunately, I am human and I respond to insults with insults.

Take some time to reread the thread. When the first sentence in a post has the words "absolute joke" or other completely insulting comments, I get very defensive and I return the insults. Those are the only times I get nasty with folks.

Really, is it hard to be civil and respectful? Just because someone's favorite player is too low in their estimation, do people really need to hurl insults? That is what I don't care for.

* This does not mean you Cup 2007 Sens Rule. Typically you are a good poster that doesn't become a 6 year old at the first sight of something you disagree with.


That being said, I will probably take your advice and abstain in the future.

 

[Sens Rule]

As I have mentioned, when I adjust my scoring credits to include top 20, things will look a little different.



Players are credited for Conn Smythe trophies and Stanley Cup wins. I believe it to be unfair to credit players too heavily for something that is completely team oriented. As I have said, is it Marcel Dionne's fault his GM was a fool?



I accept criticism wholeheartedly. It is the insults I can do without and, unfortunately, I am human and I respond to insults with insults.

Take some time to reread the thread. When the first sentence in a post has the words "absolute joke" or other completely insulting comments, I get very defensive and I return the insults. Those are the only times I get nasty with folks.

Really, is it hard to be civil and respectful? Just because someone's favorite player is too low in their estimation, do people really need to hurl insults? That is what I don't care for.

* This does not mean you Cup 2007 Sens Rule. Typically you are a good poster that doesn't become a 6 year old at the first sight of something you disagree with.


That being said, I will probably take your advice and abstain in the future.

Personally I'd rather you not abstain from posting your lists in the future. I like them and respect them. And while I do give you a great deal of criticism it is because I really do respect your analysis and lists and I think they are a great addition here at HF and to hockey history generally. The greatest thing you do is to bring all the generations of hockey in the NHL together. You do this in a systematic and unbiased way. I think HF and hockey history would be hurt if you just kept your lists to yourself.

I just criticize your lists because I frankly think they are so good and really do measure hockey careers or peaks. I just think they could be better with a slight or moderate modification of your rating system. (playoffs - rating deeper than the top 7 etc.) I perhaps don't give you your due credit - nor have I taken the time to make such a comprehensive effort to rank the NHL greats. My most comprehensive effort was a Hall of Very Good here at HF (check the History of hockey threads for the last year or so). a Hall of Very Great I never really followed up or continued to work on.

I just criticize you so much because your lists are so good in so many ways yet I still see so many things that can be improved. I could see your lists as actual DEFINTIVE LISTS with some changes and yet I see and perhaps overamplify your arrogance or non-respondance to (mostly) constructive criticism.

 

[Corto]

A career is simply an accumlation of seasons. I measure great seasons and those added together produce a great career.

The key distinction is that I measure GREAT seasons. Mediocre, bad or even pretty good seasons don't get factored in. GREAT seasons count, the players that amass the most GREAT seasons have the greatest careers.

You have Joe Thornton over Peter Forsberg.
You have Markus Naslund over Jari Kurri (!!!), Ron Francis, Pavel Bure, Gilbert Perreault, etc.
Iginla over Stasny etc.

How, and please enlighten us, did Naslund have more GREAT season than any of those guys, especially considering he's won exactly tero Stanley Cups and has seen a very limited amount of playoff games?


Look, you said you measure CAREERS. All season fit in there, good, bad, ugly, great.

If you're measuring great only, you're measuring career peaks... Which is something completely different.

 

[BNHL]

At first sight when I see anyone ahead of Orr I get jacked up but I gotta say you must really love it to put in this kind of effort. I appreciate the work/entertainment and look forward to disagreeing with you in the future with much less preparation than you put in. Thanks.

 

[God Bless Canada]

Ogo and I have had our debates and disagreements over his system. My problem is that it's too regular season top heavy. Greatness has never been, nor should it ever be, evaluated on what players do from October to March. Regular season is nice, but at the end of the day, I want to know what a guy did when the hockey mattered most in April, May, and for those who played starting in 1992, June. Playoffs are what matters. Putting up points against non-conference teams in January is nice, but the true greats are the ones who elevate their play to another level when the hockey is most important. And the hockey isn't at its most important until after the last regular season game is played. That's why a guy like Messier should be higher, and Kurri should be much higher. Dave Keon should probably be 40-50 spots higher than he is on Ogo's list.

Ogo has earned my respect with his work ethic. Some of his arguments are a little off-base or even irrelevant, but I respect the guy. He's one of the select few I actually do respect. His system is flawed, and that shows in some of his ratings, but there are a lot of guys in the lower rankings, past No. 100, who are pretty darn close to where they should be.

A question for MS: you mentioned earlier half-weighting the WWII accomplishments. Would you suggest the same procedure for NHL players from about 1917 until the West Coast leagues died out? Because in the NHL's early days, many of hockey's top players played out west, not in the NHL. And I'd suggest that it was a greater portion of the game's top players outside the NHL in the early days than in the latter half of WWII.

 

[gerhart]

I've looked and I am absolutely baffled how Luc Robtialle's name is not on the top 200 list. I am not expecting him to be considered at any specific spot, but surely the highest scoring left winger of all-time should be shown some recogntion.

 

[God Bless Canada]

I've looked and I am absolutely baffled how Luc Robtialle's name is not on the top 200 list. I am not expecting him to be considered at any specific spot, but surely the highest scoring left winger of all-time should be shown some recogntion.

Ogo's system doesn't reward first and second team (real) all-star births. The original system did. Under the original system, Luc would have done much better. And I was probably the happiest person when Ogo dropped the all-star births, simply because the competition for all-star births often isn't equal. Look at the centre position in the 80s. Then compare it to the LW position. If all-star voters simply chose the top six forwards, Savard and Hawerchuk would have a lot more than just a second-team all-star birth each.

Don't be blinded by Luc's status as the top-scoring LW of all-time. Nice accomplishment, but I wouldn't put him in the top 10. I wouldn't have any LW who peaked in the last 30 years in the top 10 LWs of all-time.

 

[MS]

2) No, I don't agree. If you decide to weight the WW2 years as 50% then what about the 70s when the WHA took a bunch of NHLers? What about every season up to 1989 because there were no Russians in the NHL? What about this season - the Chinese haven't taken up the sport yet - there are a billion potential players.

It isn't Herb Cain's fault that some players were at war. It isn't Bobby Orr's fault that some players jumped to the WHA, it isn't Wayne Gretzky's fault that there was an iron curtain, just as it isn't Sidney Crosby's fault that 1 billion Chinese do not play the game. If the NHL plays then, the stats are earned against the best the NHL could offer.

I am not one to say that x year was easier than xx year. An NHL season is an NHL season in my books. Every season is going to have its issues. Should we revoke Wayne Gretzky's 1994 scoring title because Lemieux was out of the Penguins lineup? Perhaps Phil Esposito doesn't really deserve the 1973 goal scoring crown because Bobby Hull was in the WHA that year? Is the Oilers 1990 cup illegitimate because Gretzky was injured while they beat the Kings?

I don't buy into the idea of making certain seasons worth more than others.

There is just no comparison between what happened in WW2 and any other circumstance regarding talent dilution in the history of the game. A few players missing here or there doesn't compare to an absolute gutting of the majority of the league to create a situation where a few leftover legitimate players were able to dominate minor-leaguers. The WW2 situation deserves special consideration because it was exponentially more traumatic to the league talent base than anything else which has ever happened.

80 players scored more than 40 points in the NHL in 1971-72. 5 of those players moved to the WHA, and 2 (Gerry Pinder and Bobby Sheehan) were nobodies from the California Golden Seals. That's a 6% loss of talent. The only guys of note to leave for the WHA were Hull, Tremblay, McKenzie, Ted Green, and Gerry Cheevers. A couple more guys (Stapleton, Tardif) left a year later. The WHA was built on fading 35 y/o players cashing in on a big last payday, and on journeymen who were 4th liners and 6-7th defenders on NHL rosters.

Only a couple 'great' players were playing in the WHA at any given time who could have significantly affected the NHL scoring race or awards voting - from 72-79 these were still fairly 'true' representations of the best players in the game. A 3rd-place finish in Hart voting in 74-75 might be equal to a 4th-place finish outside of that period ... not a huge difference.

Compare that 6% loss to the 60-70% of players from 41-42 who would miss most/all of the war period. 16 of the top 21 scorers in the league in 41-42 would miss at least two full seasons of play. That's pretty much 10X the effect of the WHA or anything else in league history.

No-one considers guys like Cain, Hollett, and Lorne Carr anything close to all-time greats, and it shouldn't be reflected as such on your list. These were average players who were fortunate enough not to have to go to war, and had the double bonus of being able to pad their career stats against AHLers in the meantime.

Any system which gives Cain the same credit for his 43-44 season as guys like Howe, Orr, and Gretzky received for their dominating seasons is flawed. These guys shouldn't receive no credit, but it has to be mitigated to a certain extent if you want your rankings to have credibility.

 

[shawnmullin]

so many flaws so little time

the easiest thing to point out?

It's easier to be top 10 in scoring when there are 6 teams and say 120 players versus when there are 30 teams and what 800 guys?

It's easier to win the Hart and the scoring title in those situations.

Hell, it's easier to win the Stanley Cup.

Does that mean I'm suggesting current players are better than old ones? No, but I am saying if things like those accomplishments are all ranked by some kind of statistical equation, how could it possibly be a fair system?

It can't. That's why there is no statistical data available that could ever fairly rate the quality of a player now vs. a player then. It's all speculation. A statistically formula is frankly absurd.

 

[Stephen]

It is a matter of dominance. I am measuring dominance displayed by NHL players not mediocrity or simply being good for a long time. Your list of players are all good players but none of them ever dominated the league to the extent that would get them high on my list.

Billy Taylor was 3rd in NHL assists in 1941 as well as 5th in scoring and 4th in assists in 1943. He had two seasons where he was dominant and that is how he ends up in spot #200.

But what about the statistical dominance of a Cam Neely, who is ultimately penalized because his absolute totals are truncated by injuries? 50 goals in 49 games would work out to a lot more goals. And as others have mentioned, what of players who achieve high point totals with a balanced combination of G and A?

 

[Kyle McMahon]

so many flaws so little time

the easiest thing to point out?

It's easier to be top 10 in scoring when there are 6 teams and say 120 players versus when there are 30 teams and what 800 guys?

It's easier to win the Hart and the scoring title in those situations.

Hell, it's easier to win the Stanley Cup.

Those are flawed arguments. Sure there are 600 players in the NHL today, but it's not like they all have an equal chance of finishing atop the scoring race. You have to be one of the top 10 (just picking a speculative number here) players in the world to win the scoring title today. In 1980 or 1950 or 1920, you still had to be one of the top 10 players in the world to win the scoring title.

It was just as hard for a player to win the Cup in 1950 as it is today. The players that actually made it to the NHL had an easier time winning the Cup back in the 6-team era (1 in 6 chance as opposed to 1 in 30), but it was much harder to get to the NHL, because there were so few roster spots. Lots of guys who've gotten their name of the Cup in the last 20 years wouldn't have even gotten remotely close to the NHL 50 years ago. Conversely, it's a lot harder for a star player to win the Cup today. Stars of the Original Six era were quite likely to win one sooner or later; that's not the case today.

 

[God Bless Canada]

Those are flawed arguments. Sure there are 600 players in the NHL today, but it's not like they all have an equal chance of finishing atop the scoring race. You have to be one of the top 10 (just picking a speculative number here) players in the world to win the scoring title today. In 1980 or 1950 or 1920, you still had to be one of the top 10 players in the world to win the scoring title.

It was just as hard for a player to win the Cup in 1950 as it is today. The players that actually made it to the NHL had an easier time winning the Cup back in the 6-team era (1 in 6 chance as opposed to 1 in 30), but it was much harder to get to the NHL, because there were so few roster spots. Lots of guys who've gotten their name of the Cup in the last 20 years wouldn't have even gotten remotely close to the NHL 50 years ago. Conversely, it's a lot harder for a star player to win the Cup today. Stars of the Original Six era were quite likely to win one sooner or later; that's not the case today.

If you were to compile a list of the best players without a ring, say, the top 10, the vast majority of them reached their prime before the expansion to 21 teams in 1979. Park, Dionne and Giacomin - likely the best at their respective positions without a ring - reached their peak in the 70s. Ratelle would be in the top 10, too. Others, like Doug Bentley, Ullman, Gadsby and Quackenbush, who are likely in the top 10 without a ring, (the top three would definitely be in the top 10) played in the Original 6.

It's harder to build a dynasty now than it was 40-50 years ago. Thank the draft, increased trade activity and UFA status at 27 for the fact we may never see another dynasty in the NHL.

But it's likely easier for a player to win a Cup now than it was 50 years ago, because of that increased player movement. During the Original 6 era, if you weren't on Montreal or Toronto, you likely weren't going to win a ring. And Toronto, and especially Montreal, didn't make many trades. So if you weren't on Toronto or Montreal from the start of your career, you likely wouldn't win a ring. For every Andy Bathgate - a veteran traded to Toronto late in his career and won a ring - there are many more Bill Gadsby's.

 

[DRL]

You cannot base everything on playoff scoring. As I said, is it Marcel Dionne's fault he had a dolt for a GM? He wouldn't make the list if it was all based on playoffs. The regular season is a great leveler of the playing field.

When I make my adjustments, Naslund will probably drop a little. How far, I don't know for sure. What I do know is he had 3 consecutive seasons that were among the greatest three season spans by almost anyone in NHL history.

i dont know if you could call naslund 3 yr run one of the greatest in NHL history, in that time frame he captained his team to one 2nd round matchup(i know you dont want to use team success in the playoffs but that should play a part in one of thegreatest 3 yrs stretches) i dont think he won any major awards during those 3 yrs either, i can probably name atleast 30-40 guys who have had better 3 yr spans than naslund.

but i will admitt its a fun and interesting, keep up the unique work.

 

[The Kingslayer]

I dont know if its drugs ur taking or drugs you need to be taking but please do something. This has to be the worse list i've ever seen on these boards.