Playoff Performers Voting Record - Canadiens1958

[Canadiens1958]

Seriously

As an outside perspective, I really don't think you're giving Gretzky enough credit saying something like this. Gretzky didn't need to be a lock-down defensive player, because he and his team outscored the opposition by absurd amounts when he was on the ice. In 84-85 he had a +/- of +28 (which I think is the highest since it's been tracked?); I'm pretty sure the Oilers weren't worried about his so-called "one-dimensional" play then. I see a problem with thinking about hockey as purely offensive+defensive, black and white, 50/50. A player's overall impact is what matters most. I don't know how people feel about advanced stats in this section of the forums, but I'm sure if they were tracked in Gretzky's time that he would have had incredible possession numbers, corsi, you name it. Any sort of defensive shortcomings Gretzky might have had didn't matter because he had the puck all the time and his team was better with him on the ice than with any other player there was.

Lets try Bobby Orr +124 and Larry Robinson +120. So Gretzky was basically trading goals. Orr and Robinson were dominating.

 

[Doctor No]

Lets try Bobby Orr +124 and Larry Robinson +120. So Gretzky was basically trading goals. Orr and Robinson were dominating.

He meant +98.

Wayne Gretzky was +98 in 1984-85.

 

[Canadiens1958]

How

That's not the point. Percentages help to explain *why* something happened.

Take two teams that each allow two PP goals in a game. One allows two PP goals on two power plays; the other allows two PP goals on ten power plays.

Speaking broadly, the first team didn't kill penalties well, and the second team took too many penalties. That information is lost when you just see the total number of goals allowed.

And if "why" doesn't matter, but just career goals, then here's your list of the best NHL playoff performers:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/leaders/goals_career_p.html

I thought the general topic of "why" was why we do these things with an informed group discussion, and not by ranked database outputs. Is that not the case?

Also how things happened. How a team gets to a positive differential, winning score. Also the frequency of something happening. As in how frequently what you describe in your example actually happens.

There are SC finals where a team won because they exploited the oppositions inability to kill penalties, but they also shutout the opposition three times. This goes more to the collective how than the specific why.

But this was not the approach taken by the seminal poster on the topic who just wanted a "gotcha or eureka" percentage.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

He meant +98.

Wayne Gretzky was +98 in 1984-85.

The Gretzky dilemma.

+98 is the highest +/- of any Art Ross winner.

-25 is the worst +/- of any Art Ross winner (by far) - 93/94 Gretzky

 

[ESH]

He meant +98.

Wayne Gretzky was +98 in 1984-85.

No I meant +28 in the playoffs.

 

[BM67]

Gretzky's +27 in the 1984-85 PLAYOFFS is the best on record.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Fair Enough

He meant +98.

Wayne Gretzky was +98 in 1984-85.

Fair enough. Let's apply your percentage metric.

Gretzky was + 98 scoring 208 points or less than 50%.

Orr was +124 scoring 139 points or over 82%.

Robinson was +120 scoring 85 points or over 140%.

Which player was more efficient, more dominant?

 

[Michael Farkas]

Non-sequitur: I really like this list actually. Doesn't necessarily mean I agree with all of it, but I like it. In typical C1958 fashion, he really challenges you to think the game and/or think the game in a different light. Speaking for me personally, his contributions to the board and these projects have been extremely valuable to me as a student of the game.

 

[Canadiens1958]

No One

No I meant +28 in the playoffs.

So no one knows what specific numbers they are putting forth. Get back to me when you all figure it out. Meanwhile it does not matter that much since even at +28 against 47 points Gretzky is under 60%. Not impressed.

 

[ESH]

So no one knows what specific numbers they are putting forth. Get back to me when you all figure it out. Meanwhile it does not matter that much since even at +28 against 47 points Gretzky is under 60%. Not impressed.

I know exactly what numbers I'm putting forth. As previously mentioned, that's a record.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

So no one knows what specific numbers they are putting forth. Get back to me when you all figure it out. Meanwhile it does not matter that much since even at +28 against 47 points Gretzky is under 60%. Not impressed.

Just wondering, why did you have Serge Savard ahead of Robinson on your list? I realize you ranked them fairly close, but Robinson's numbers are quite a bit better, and that includes +/- (+99 to +47).

 

[Doctor No]

So no one knows what specific numbers they are putting forth. Get back to me when you all figure it out.

It's all figured out - and it was figured out when the poster made the claim. Looking back, given that we're in a discussion regarding playoff performance, it was a mistake of me to follow you down the irrelevant regular-season rabbit hole.

To summarize: he offered a playoff statistic. You conflated it with a regular season statistic, and I went there with you.

Glad to get back to you to confirm. Have fun in the thread.

 

[MadLuke]

So no one knows what specific numbers they are putting forth. Get back to me when you all figure it out. Meanwhile it does not matter that much since even at +28 against 47 points Gretzky is under 60%. Not impressed.

So for the PK absolute number of goal again is what matter, but in scoring more goal than the opposition at 5on5, it would be a ratio with points (that include point on the powerplay that are not relevant to +/-) is what would matter ?

According to this:
https://www.nhl.com/player/wayne-gretzky-8447400?stats=career-p-nhl&season=19981999

Greztky was +27 with 40 non power play points, in only 18 games.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Fair enough. Let's apply your percentage metric.

Gretzky was + 98 scoring 208 points or less than 50%.

Orr was +124 scoring 139 points or over 82%.

Robinson was +120 scoring 85 points or over 140%.

Which player was more efficient, more dominant?

I'm confused on this percentage metric...

Player A scores 1 ES point and is a +1 every game: 82 points, 100%
Player B scores 2 ES points and is a +1 every game: 164 points, 50%

In terms of winning hockey games both players contributed equally yet you would say player A was more efficient or more dominant?

Dallas Smith 1970-71 +94 scoring 45 points or over 208%. Is he more efficient than the above 3?

 

[unknown33]

Non-sequitur: I really like this list actually. Doesn't necessarily mean I agree with all of it, but I like it. In typical C1958 fashion, he really challenges you to think the game and/or think the game in a different light. Speaking for me personally, his contributions to the board and these projects have been extremely valuable to me as a student of the game.

I liked the winger/center (IIRC) list even though not agreeing, but this one lacks internal consistency.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I'm confused on this percentage metric...

Player A scores 1 ES point and is a +1 every game: 82 points, 100%
Player B scores 2 ES points and is a +1 every game: 164 points, 50%

In terms of winning hockey games both players contributed equally yet you would say player A was more efficient or more dominant?

Dallas Smith 1970-71 +94 scoring 45 points or over 208%. Is he more efficient than the above 3?

Way more efficient than Orr, the actual reason for Dallas Smith's +94.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Aaaaand the last flurry of posts bickering about +/- goes to show how irrelevant it is as a stat.

Why bother folks? Anyone who follows hockey closely and understands the nuances of the game knows it is one of the most useless metrics available.

 

[Doctor No]

Aaaaand the last flurry of posts bickering about +/- goes to show how irrelevant it is as a stat.

Why bother folks? Anyone who follows hockey closely and understands the nuances of the game knows it is one of the most useless metrics available.

Plus-minus has some (positive) value, and it does contain some information. Problems occur when people try to use it to draw conclusions that make no sense (like comparing the two in a ratio and calling that some measure of "dominance").

If all you have to go on are points and plus-minus, and you use the two to reach the conclusion that Player A (50 points, +25) is better than Player B (80 points, +25), then you're using the statistics wrong. It's not the statistics' fault if you call Player A more "dominant".

This is also the problem with most "advanced" statistics as well - it's not the statistics' fault, but people use them incorrectly (usually to support whatever they believed all along) and the statistics get blamed. For what it's worth, plus-minus is probably hockey's original "advanced stat".

 

[Michael Farkas]

Useless is too broad and dismissive (see: people railing against wins and GAA for goalies). Requires context and understanding of nuance. Misused or overused specific info/metrics will produce a garbage product regardless of the situation. Out right disregarding of it in totality is not dissimilar to being married to the metric itself...

 

[Doctor No]

Useless is too broad and dismissive (see: people railing against wins and GAA for goalies). Requires context and understanding of nuance. Misused or overused specific info/metrics will produce a garbage product regardless of the situation. Out right disregarding of it in totality is not dissimilar to being married to the metric itself...

I like when we agree on things (and I agree on W and GAA for goalies as well).

 

[bobholly39]

Everyone is being way too polite. This list is absolutely horrible - and 3 pages in the justification for it and its srill just as bad.

The goal of hockey isn't defense - it's to ensure your team scores more than opposition. Gretzky's offense is so far and beyond #1 all time in playoffs - both in terms of peak as well as in terms of overall volume year over year - that even if you value defensive play ranking Gretzky #22 is ridiculous.

I'm OK with you not ranking him #1 or even top 5 - clearly you see things differently and I do appreciate that you at least always try to back up your opinion. But 22? Makes no sense.

Let me ask you this. If you had to redo a top 60 ranking today after the last few weeks of discussion - where would you rank Gretzky today? Still 22?

I'd also like to understand your reasoning of Lemieux back to back with Gretzky. Considering how much you seem to value contribution to multiple cups -I don't understand your logic of them back to back. Did you just put every defensive player you wanted to ahead - and then switched gears and placed the top 2 offensive players next?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Bobby Orr

Just wondering, why did you have Serge Savard ahead of Robinson on your list? I realize you ranked them fairly close, but Robinson's numbers are quite a bit better, and that includes +/- (+99 to +47).

Basically the 1969 playoffs - Conn Smythe and how he played Bobby Orr. Equally should have had Robinson in an Orr, Savard, Robinson cluster.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Units

I'm confused on this percentage metric...

Player A scores 1 ES point and is a +1 every game: 82 points, 100%
Player B scores 2 ES points and is a +1 every game: 164 points, 50%

In terms of winning hockey games both players contributed equally yet you would say player A was more efficient or more dominant?

Dallas Smith 1970-71 +94 scoring 45 points or over 208%. Is he more efficient than the above 3?

Game is played in units of 3, 4 or five. So Dallas Smith would have been the ideal first partner for Bobby Orr. Still have a +30 difference so that would serve as an indicator that Orr had other partners.

 

[Doctor No]

Game is played in units of 3, 4 or five. So Dallas Smith would have been the ideal first partner for Bobby Orr. Still have a +30 difference so that would serve as an indicator that Orr had other partners.

But is Dallas Smith more dominant/efficient than Orr or Robinson?

Solely by the calculation you offered earlier, he certainly is.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Research

Aaaaand the last flurry of posts bickering about +/- goes to show how irrelevant it is as a stat.

Why bother folks? Anyone who follows hockey closely and understands the nuances of the game knows it is one of the most useless metrics available.

Research the history of +/- back to the days when individual teams kept their own stats.