Ogopogo's "Greatest NHL Careers" update

[Stonefly]

I agree. Hard to fathom Espo winning 2 MVP's when Orr was clearly the MVP of the Bruins. Maybe there is something to the suggestion that voters treated the Hart as the foward's MVP and the Norris as the defenceman's MVP.

There is definitely something to it. The Hart is also tied at the hip to the Art Ross. Compare the past winners of the Hart and Art Ross for each year.

 

[arrbez]

There is definitely something to it. The Hart is also tied at the hip to the Art Ross. Compare the past winners of the Hart and Art Ross for each year.

It seems like the Hart has gradually morphed into a trophy given to the best player, and not necessarily the "most valuable".

 

[BNHL]

I think the NHLPA got it right voting for Crosby this year as best player.

 

[Stonefly]

It seems like the Hart has gradually morphed into a trophy given to the best player, and not necessarily the "most valuable".

Or the most outstanding player. It's hard to define best. It certainly doesn't seem like it is the most valuable to their team award anymore.
If it were, an argument could be made that the award would have gone to a goalie almost every year.

 

[arrbez]

Or the most outstanding player. It's hard to define best. It certainly doesn't seem like it is the most valuable to their team award anymore.
If it were, an argument could be made that the award would have gone to a goalie almost every year.

For a trophy of such importance, I'm glad it's not a true "mvp" anymore, since that should theoretically skew it in favour of guys on crappy teams. Since it's the pre-eminent trophy in the NHL, I think it should go to the guy who had the best season, as it does now.

 

[Stonefly]

For a trophy of such importance, I'm glad it's not a true "mvp" anymore, since that should theoretically skew it in favour of guys on crappy teams. Since it's the pre-eminent trophy in the NHL, I think it should go to the guy who had the best season, as it does now.

Perhaps a new trophy is in order? Orr should have one named for him. I can't think of a more appropriate one than "Best season". Except maybe "best player".

 

[Sens Rule]

For a trophy of such importance, I'm glad it's not a true "mvp" anymore, since that should theoretically skew it in favour of guys on crappy teams. Since it's the pre-eminent trophy in the NHL, I think it should go to the guy who had the best season, as it does now.

Would it do that and favour Iginla on the non playoff Flames team? Or would it favour only the players that were on the top teams? "The player most valuable to his team?" or "The player most valuable to his teams success?".

 

[Stephen]

For a trophy of such importance, I'm glad it's not a true "mvp" anymore, since that should theoretically skew it in favour of guys on crappy teams. Since it's the pre-eminent trophy in the NHL, I think it should go to the guy who had the best season, as it does now.

I think 'MVP' has traditionally stood for the most outstanding player anyway. Otherwise guys like Dale Hawerchuk would have been winning them instead of Gretzky in the 80s, since he was relatively more important to the Jets than Gretz was to the Oilers.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

Would it do that and favour Iginla on the non playoff Flames team? Or would it favour only the players that were on the top teams? "The player most valuable to his team?" or "The player most valuable to his teams success?".

Exactly, this year the finalists reflected a most valuable to team success approach. With all three being on playoff teams with serious holes at one or two positions.

 

[chabotsky_33]

Let me get this straight..Mike Liut..AND John Vanbiesbrouck are Both better than my grandfather Lorne Chabot..who won 2 cups..a vezina..has one of the lowest lifetime G.A.A.'s of all time..played the 2 longest overtimes in the history of the N.H.L. and invented the gauntlet glove for goaltenders..WOW im freaking out!!!!

 

[Sens Rule]

Let me get this straight..Mike Liut..AND John Vanbiesbrouck are Both better than my grandfather Lorne Chabot..who won 2 cups..a vezina..has one of the lowest lifetime G.A.A.'s of all time..played the 2 longest overtimes in the history of the N.H.L. and invented the gauntlet glove for goaltenders..WOW im freaking out!!!!

Dude Liut is his cousin and Vanbiesbrouck is his nephew - of course he is going to pick them higher.

 

[Rexor]

I'm afraid this list pretty much shows all the flaws and cons of the positivist approach in science. Simply put, you cannot measure everything by stats.
It's quite a problem in sociology, e.g., where it's really hard to rate someone's
happiness for instance. You base it on what, purchase power? Number of cars
the person owns? Size of his or her house? Then you are rather simplifying the whole
thing since most people evaluate their level of happiness in the way that cannot
be reduced on an equation consisting of certain number of variables. Am I happy about my family life? Am I happy about my leisure time? Am I happy about the quality of the air I breathe? These things are extremely difficult - if not impossible - to be measured.

It's the same with your list. Lindros was probably a better leader than Oates, he
definitely was a much stronger physical presence. On the Hart Trophy thing, there has been obvious media bias against Jágr (and against a lot of other players I'm sure). Are there any stats that can show this? Hardly. With all due to respect to your system, I believe that hockey is way too complex to be measured by high school algebra. The methods of natural science can explain only a small part of human being (which includes also hockey), the rest is simply unmeasurable; although I'm pretty sure that - as someone who is probably deeply associated with the tradition of Anglo-Saxon positivism - you're not going to accept this idea.

 

[Sturminator]

Exactly, this year the finalists reflected a most valuable to team success approach. With all three being on playoff teams with serious holes at one or two positions.

Uh-huh. Thornton last year is another good example. He completely turned the Sharks around and was the player "most valuable to his team's success", though I think Jagr obviously had the better season. It's pretty rare to see a Hart winner on a non-playoff team, so there is an element of "value" attached to the award. If the Hart were truly awarded to the player who had the best season, Ovechkin should have won it in 2006.

The Hart is also occasionally a "career achievement" award (I think this is a good thing). For example, Ted Kennedy's Hart in 54-55 was very clearly one of this type. Kennedy wasn't in the top 10 in scoring in 54-55, but had been stiffed for years on postseason awards and was getting worn out (though he was only twenty nine), so the voters gave him the Hart as a sort of retirement gift.

Kennedy's career is actually kind of amazing when one considers that he was only nineteen years old the first time he carried the Leafs to a Stanley Cup, and had retired (though he'd come back for one more season) before his thirtieth birthday. I get the impression that Teeder's body really paid the price for his tasmanian devil style of hockey, though he rarely missed a lot of games, tough guy that he was.

 

[Sturminator]

I'm afraid this list pretty much shows all the flaws and cons of the positivist approach in science. Simply put, you cannot measure everything by stats.
It's quite a problem in sociology, e.g., where it's really hard to rate someone's
happiness for instance. You base it on what, purchase power? Number of cars
the person owns? Size of his or her house? Then you are rather simplifying the whole
thing since most people evaluate their level of happiness in the way that cannot
be reduced on an equation consisting of certain number of variables. Am I happy about my family life? Am I happy about my leisure time? Am I happy about the quality of the air I breathe? These things are extremely difficult - if not impossible - to be measured.

It's the same with your list. Lindros was probably a better leader than Oates, he
definitely was a much stronger physical presence. On the Hart Trophy thing, there has been obvious media bias against Jágr (and against a lot of other players I'm sure). Are there any stats that can show this? Hardly. With all due to respect to your system, I believe that hockey is way too complex to be measured by high school algebra. The methods of natural science can explain only a small part of human being (which includes also hockey), the rest is simply unmeasurable; although I'm pretty sure that - as someone who is probably deeply associated with the tradition of Anglo-Saxon positivism - you're not going to accept this idea.

Wow, an attack on Sir Francis Bacon in a hockey history discussion. I wasn't ready for this kind of thing so early in the day. Good points, rexor, though I doubt they have the intended effect - if you had any effect in mind, that is.

 

[Ogopogo*]

I'm afraid this list pretty much shows all the flaws and cons of the positivist approach in science. Simply put, you cannot measure everything by stats.
It's quite a problem in sociology, e.g., where it's really hard to rate someone's
happiness for instance. You base it on what, purchase power? Number of cars
the person owns? Size of his or her house? Then you are rather simplifying the whole
thing since most people evaluate their level of happiness in the way that cannot
be reduced on an equation consisting of certain number of variables. Am I happy about my family life? Am I happy about my leisure time? Am I happy about the quality of the air I breathe? These things are extremely difficult - if not impossible - to be measured.

It's the same with your list. Lindros was probably a better leader than Oates, he
definitely was a much stronger physical presence. On the Hart Trophy thing, there has been obvious media bias against Jágr (and against a lot of other players I'm sure). Are there any stats that can show this? Hardly. With all due to respect to your system, I believe that hockey is way too complex to be measured by high school algebra. The methods of natural science can explain only a small part of human being (which includes also hockey), the rest is simply unmeasurable; although I'm pretty sure that - as someone who is probably deeply associated with the tradition of Anglo-Saxon positivism - you're not going to accept this idea.

Nice to see you have learned a few things in your first week of school.

What is more important: winning or style of play? What is more important: physical presence or scoring goals? What is more important: percieved media bias by a fellow countryman or actual results?

Call it positivism if you wish but, the methodology is sound. Results matter, style of play not so much.

 

[Rexor]

Nice to see you have learned a few things in your first week of school.

What is more important: winning or style of play? What is more important: physical presence or scoring goals? What is more important: percieved media bias by a fellow countryman or actual results?

Call it positivism if you wish but, the methodology is sound. Results matter, style of play not so much.

Lindros used to help his teams to win in ways that Oates didn't. Physical play is
important even if it doesn't lead to a goal; as a Canadian, you must know it better
than me. The bottom line is that certain aspects of the game cannot be measured
by statistical methods - if you think that it's all about points and numbers then
you're mixing up hockey and pinball.
This is not the right thread to discuss whether North American media like or dislike Jágr, but in any case, all individual awards are pretty subjective. I'm surprised you use them as a variable in your method.
Don't get me wrong, I have no doubt that compiling of this list must have cost you a lot of hard work and actually I highly appreciate the rigor and integrity of your
method. I just think your approach has its flaws and limitations, that's about it.
Your methodology is not completely sound imho. Some things are measurable, some of them are not.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Lindros used to help his teams to win in ways that Oates didn't. Physical play is
important even if it doesn't lead to a goal; as a Canadian, you must know it better
than me. The bottom line is that certain aspects of the game cannot be measured
by statistical methods - if you think that it's all about points and numbers then
you're mixing up hockey and pinball.
This is not the right thread to discuss whether North American media like or dislike Jágr, but in any case, all individual awards are pretty subjective. I'm surprised you use them as a variable in your method.
Don't get me wrong, I have no doubt that compiling of this list must have cost you a lot of hard work and actually I highly appreciate the rigor and integrity of your
method. I just think your approach has its flaws and limitations, that's about it.
Your methodology is not completely sound imho. Some things are measurable, some of them are not.

The part of my method you may be unaware of is that I use the vote totals for awards like the Hart trophy - I don't just credit the winners of the awards. Award voting is pretty subjective and, some years, the most deserving player likely didn't win the Hart. I give credit to the top 7 vote getters so, the runner up for the actual trophy gets nearly as much credit as the winner. 3rd gets nearly as much credit as the 2nd place finisher etc. So, if a player like Jagr is consistently denied the award but finishes high in the voting, he will still rise to the top of my list.

I suspect my #11 placing of Jagr is higher than most others would have him.

The award voting is based on the eyewitness accounts of the media that follow the NHL on a daily basis. Things like the physical play of Lindros or the leadership of Messier or the clutch play of Yzerman are all considered when those ballots are cast. The intangibles of the game get captured in the major award balloting. Is it perfect? No. But, there is no other way to measure intangibles; we only have the evidence left behind (votes) by the eyewitnesses of the day.

 

[raleh]

I'd rank him somewhere in the top four along with Apps, Conacher and Kennedy. It's hard to compare Kennedy with Conacher and especially Horton because their styles are quite different. I'd probably have Horton 4th and I'm undecided for the top three.

Horton earned a spot on six all-star teams and was a 6-time Norris candidate (all with Toronto). He's arguably the greatest defensive defenseman ever and, incredibly, was 2nd in playoff scoring in 1962 when the Leafs won the Cup. He was a member of 4 Stanley Cup-winning teams and was probably the #1 defenseman for all of them.

Conacher led the league in goals five times, and won two Art Rosses. He led the playoffs in goals one year, and points another time. Conacher has a retrospective Conn Smythe, was a five-time all-star and won one Stanley Cup. He was a 2-time Hart finalist. All of these accomplishments came with Toronto. He used his considerable strength to overpower opponents, though he didn't fight much.

It's hard to compare a high-scoring power forward and a shutdown defensemen but Apps and Kennedy are very similar in style and accomplishments.

Apps and Kennedy were good playmakers but Apps was the better scorer overall. He was runner-up for the Art Ross three times and finished in the top ten 6 times. Kennedy peaked at 4th and was in the top ten 4 times. Apps led the league in assists twice, Kennedy did it once.

Both recieved a fairly impressive number of awards. Apps was a five-time finalist for the Hart trophy (finishing in 2nd place three times and in 3rd place twice). Kennedy won one Hart trophy (though it was almost certainly a political selection) and was a finalist in three other years. Apps was a five-time all-star (two first-team selections); Kennedy was a three-time all-star (all on the second-team). Apps also has a Calder and a Byng, but I don't think those are very relevant.

Both were known as good defensive players and leaders. Kennedy was rougher and more physical, but Apps was known as a very strong player who wouldn't back down to anyone. Kennedy was a much better checker. Both led their teams to considerable playoff success. The Leafs won more Stanley Cups with Apps as a captain (3-2) but more Cups with Kennedy overall (5-3).

Both were top playoff performers. Apps has one retrospective Conn Smythe trophy, and Kennedy has three (tying Roy for the most all-time). Apps led the playoffs in goals, assists and points once each (all in different years). He finished in the top five in goals 5 times, assists 3 times and points 4 times. Kennedy led the playoffs in goals twice, assists once and points once (in three different years). He finished in the top five in goals 4 times, assists 4 times and points 5 times.

Overall, Kennedy and Apps are roughly equal to each other. Apps has slightly more regular season hardware and was a better scorer, but Kennedy's toughness, 2 extra Conn Smythes and better defense nearly offset that. Both rank extremely high in leadership and playoff scoring. Apps and Kennedy are nearly equals to each other, and to Horton and Conacher. All deserve serious consideration as the greatest Leaf of all-time.

It would be interesting to hear Leaf Lander's perspective on this.

HO-surprised to see Horton out of your top 4. For me it would be between Connacher and Horton. However, I do happen to have Horton somwhere around 10th on my all time defencemen list.

Do any of you know how freaking hard it is to make a list of the top 200 hockey players? Go ahead and try it. In a drunken stupour I once tried to rank my top 100 on a napkin at Boston Pizza- here's how far I got before I started questioning myself and crumpled up the napkin- Orr, Gretzky, Howe, Lemieux...that's ALL. Seriously, after those four it kind of becomes a crapshoot. I want to put Rocket next, but is that just homerism? I'm not confident enough putting him ahead of Beliveau, Hull, Harvey, or Shore (that's one of the best things about these boards-Shore and Hull were always a few spots back of these guys until pappyline got me doing a bit more research on both of them). It's insanely hard to compile the list that ogo does every couple of months, and then he gets crapped on for doing it. Of course there are things I don't agree with. Arrbez pointed a big one out with Naslund being in the top 100. But as I just proved, with my top Leaf comment, there are tons of good hockey guys who would disagree with my list as much as they disagree with Ogo's.

Stephen- if you're not prepared to hear about the accomplishments of guys like Taylor and Buddy O'connor, then why are you hanging out on a HOCKEY HISTORY board. I've spoken to a guy who didn't miss a home game in Montreal for almost 10 years and he has told me countless times that he thought O'connor was just as good as Lach but never got the ice time he needed to prove it in Montreal. When he went to New York he won the Hart. According to this source, had it been O'connor on the punch line instead of Lach the line would have been just as productive. So because and old man has told me this-do I have more right to put O'connor on a list of players than Ogo does? If you just want to flame a guy because he's talking about players you don't know anything about then go do it somewhere else.

 

[Rexor]

The part of my method you may be unaware of is that I use the vote totals for awards like the Hart trophy - I don't just credit the winners of the awards. Award voting is pretty subjective and, some years, the most deserving player likely didn't win the Hart. I give credit to the top 7 vote getters so, the runner up for the actual trophy gets nearly as much credit as the winner. 3rd gets nearly as much credit as the 2nd place finisher etc. So, if a player like Jagr is consistently denied the award but finishes high in the voting, he will still rise to the top of my list.

I suspect my #11 placing of Jagr is higher than most others would have him.

The award voting is based on the eyewitness accounts of the media that follow the NHL on a daily basis. Things like the physical play of Lindros or the leadership of Messier or the clutch play of Yzerman are all considered when those ballots are cast. The intangibles of the game get captured in the major award balloting. Is it perfect? No. But, there is no other way to measure intangibles; we only have the evidence left behind (votes) by the eyewitnesses of the day.

Fair enough. The thing is that someone in me is rather suspicious towards all of the
efforts to weigh and measure everything in this world. Just think it's kind of a
reductionism. I still consider your method too ambitious as it is an incredibly tough
task to calculate everything right and put it in the right equation. There's no doubt
in my book that similar methods can never be perfect; on the other hand, I'm well
aware of the fact that these methods are most likely the only way how to compile
such rankings without basing the rankings on mere emotions or sympathies to certain players.
I don't think that the language of math can be neutral by any means. You had to
decide which variables were more important and which of them were less important, all NHL awards voters have some bias (no one can do without bias; everyone likes
or dislikes some kind of players). I don't take your list as a scientific output that
has emancipated itself from all of the bias, emotions and antipathies; and that said, you yourself should be grateful for a fair share of criticism. For me, it's still just
an opinion of a hockey enthusiast, however complex and difficult approach it is based on. An opinion that I take very seriously, not just in this thread; you know your stuff really well and while I often don't agree with some of your conclusions, I usually enjoy your posts and rate them among the most knowledgeable on these boards.

 

[JJ68*]

What number does Alex Kovalev come in? I'm seriously gonna laugh if he's in the top 150.

 

[arrbez]

What number does Alex Kovalev come in? I'm seriously gonna laugh if he's in the top 150.

Since it's based on awards and allstar team voting, I can't imagine he'd be very high. 2001 is probably his only season that registers at all in Ogopogo's formula.

 

[MXD]

ABOUT Syl Apps & Hart Award : While he was handed a Hart for what Hockey Outsider says to be a "political" reason (I don't know about it, so I trust him on this matter...), he probably lost a Hart to "political" reasons too, when the Amerks folded and the award was given to Tommy Anderson.

 

[Sens Rule]

Nice to see you have learned a few things in your first week of school.

What is more important: winning or style of play? What is more important: physical presence or scoring goals? What is more important: percieved media bias by a fellow countryman or actual results?

Call it positivism if you wish but, the methodology is sound. Results matter, style of play not so much.

No for you stats matter and only regular season stats really. You don't measure winning you measure goals and assists relative to the rest of the NHL each season.

Don't dare claim that your methodology recognizes winning when in fact it fails to reward or recognize it.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

HO-surprised to see Horton out of your top 4. For me it would be between Connacher and Horton. However, I do happen to have Horton somwhere around 10th on my all time defencemen list.

I had Horton 4th, but there's very little separating any of them. Bower and Broda also deserve serious consideration as the top Leaf.

I have Horton ranked a bit lower (around 15th all-time) so that might explain the difference.

Do any of you know how freaking hard it is to make a list of the top 200 hockey players? Go ahead and try it. In a drunken stupour I once tried to rank my top 100 on a napkin at Boston Pizza- here's how far I got before I started questioning myself and crumpled up the napkin- Orr, Gretzky, Howe, Lemieux...that's ALL.

I tried making a top 100 list earlier this summer. The top thirty was hard... beyond that, it was nearly impossible. It's virtually impossible to differentiate between, (for example) Conacher, Clancy and Durnan for spot #40. It's even worse trying cut down 20 or 30 candidates for slot #100.

Even though I often make reference to players as "top 75 all-time", "top 15 defensemen", these are approximations and I've never been able to make a list I'm fully satisfied with.

I give a lot of credit to Ogopogo, Pnep, Nalyd, and anybody else who posts all-time lists. It takes a huge amount of effort to make the lists and a lot of courage to post it for everyone to criticize.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

ABOUT Syl Apps & Hart Award : While he was handed a Hart for what Hockey Outsider says to be a "political" reason (I don't know about it, so I trust him on this matter...), he probably lost a Hart to "political" reasons too, when the Amerks folded and the award was given to Tommy Anderson.

Just to clarify... it was widely known that Kennedy would retire at the end of the 1955 season. He was rightly regarded as an all-time great, but had never won a major NHL award. Kennedy had a good season, but it would be hard to argue that he was either the best or most valuable player in the league.

Kennedy wasn't the best player that season. He finished out of the top ten in scoring and he only scored ten goals. It's debatable if Sid Smith inflated Kennedy's point totals or vice-versa. I know Kennedy gets a lot of credit for defensive play and leadership (and rightfully so), but Jean Beliveau and Gordie Howe had those intangibles too and outscored Kennedy by 21 and 10 points, respectively. Kennedy only outscored Norris winner Doug Harvey by 3 points; it would be hard to argue that Kennedy's defensive player was better than that of the league's best defenseman.

Kennedy wasn't the most valuable player, either. The Leafs finished comfortably in 3rd place. They were a defensive team with average offense, and were 1 goal away from being the best defensive team in the NHL. Their goalie Harry Lumley led the league in GAA and minutes played. He was a first-team all-star. Sid Smith, also a first-team all-star, led the Leafs in scoring and was 4th in the league in goal-scoring, just a couple of hat trick behind Rocket Richard. I don't see how Kennedy would be the most valuable player.

Also worth mentioning: Kennedy won the Hart, but wasn't named to the first or second all-star team.

Don't get me wrong, Kennedy was an all-time great (top 40ish) and had a few Hart and Conn Smythe calibre seasons in the past. But his 1955 was almost certainly an undeserved retirement present.