Playoff Performers Voting Record - Canadiens1958

[Kyle McMahon]

I see you were one of several who had Paul Coffey within their top 30, but didn't really make a push for his inclusion once he became available. Seems many people - in their own estimation - overrated Coffey on the initial submission.

An interesting list. I think we both value complete play from the C position. For all the squawking from some people about Malkin not being available, I thought Keon and Toews were bigger omissions. We seem to agree on their place in history. Gretzky at 22 though, seems a little hyperbolic IMO.

 

[Black Gold Extractor]

I see you were one of several who had Paul Coffey within their top 30, but didn't really make a push for his inclusion once he became available. Seems many people - in their own estimation - overrated Coffey on the initial submission.

An interesting list. I think we both value complete play from the C position. For all the squawking from some people about Malkin not being available, I thought Keon and Toews were bigger omissions. We seem to agree on their place in history. Gretzky at 22 though, seems a little hyperbolic IMO.

With Coffey, it's really hard to grapple. On the surface, he looks like he should be one of the better defensemen available. However, I just couldn't really place him above Gretzky, Messier, or Kurri.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Paul Coffey

I see you were one of several who had Paul Coffey within their top 30, but didn't really make a push for his inclusion once he became available. Seems many people - in their own estimation - overrated Coffey on the initial submission.

An interesting list. I think we both value complete play from the C position. For all the squawking from some people about Malkin not being available, I thought Keon and Toews were bigger omissions. We seem to agree on their place in history. Gretzky at 22 though, seems a little hyperbolic IMO.

Valid point about Paul Coffey. Had him grouped amongst five defencemen. As the discussions evolved a subtle triage evolved touching defencemen - Coffey, Bourque, as well as some goalies.Seems that the offensive view of defencemen that prevails in RS opinions looked at defensive play more critically. Even post project no one has raised a voice about Benedict and Hasek not appearing on the list. Again different criteria seemed to prevail - certain losing efforts - games, series carried alot of weight. No noise about Tony Esposito being ignored.

Gretzky and Lemieux ratings raised some eyebrows, minor chatter from certain corners but I also had Lafleur at #39, not ranking Bernie Geoffrion at all.

 

[Individual 1]

But they are hypotheticals who demonstratably are not playing the same role.

Your ratio is obviously going to benefit defensive defensemen who play on good teams, who see no powerplay time because that is bad.
Brooks Orpik 14 points +32
Karl Alzner 13 points +23
Dmitry Orlov 33 points +30
David Savard 23 points +33
Olli Maatta 7 points +17
Adam Larsson 19 points +21
Ian Cole 26 points +26
Marc Methot 12 points +12

Erik Karlsson 71 points +10
Patrice Bergeron 52 points +12
OEL 39 points -25

Then insert random players from bottom teams who put up points and they will be the most inefficient players in the league

 

[ESH]

Your ratio is obviously going to benefit defensive defensemen who play on good teams, who see no powerplay time because that is bad.
Brooks Orpik 14 points +32
Karl Alzner 13 points +23
Dmitry Orlov 33 points +30
David Savard 23 points +33
Olli Maatta 7 points +17
Adam Larsson 19 points +21
Ian Cole 26 points +26
Marc Methot 12 points +12

Erik Karlsson 71 points +10
Patrice Bergeron 52 points +12
OEL 39 points -25

Then insert random players from bottom teams who put up points and they will be the most inefficient players in the league

I think everyone else in this thread is pretty much in agreement that it's a useless ratio. He just made it up to try and make Gretzky's record-setting +/- in the playoffs seem somehow less impressive.

 

[Killion]

I think everyone else in this thread is pretty much in agreement that it's a useless ratio. He just made it up to try and make Gretzky's record-setting +/- in the playoffs seem somehow less impressive.

... ah, ahh... no..... cant be doing that ESH... rules here forbid "assigning motive" so that's just not going to wash. If after asking yourself "why would someone rate Gretzky like that" and finding no reasonable (to your way of thinking, thought processes) explanation you need to read the posters previous replies to the same question and if still unsatisfied, ask him yourself why (?).... assuming, accusing others of having "hidden agenda's'", being deliberately argumentative, controversial, obtuse.... doesnt fly round these here parts. Just ask. Take issue with whatever response your given.... Carry on.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Thank You

... ah, ahh... no..... cant be doing that ESH... rules here forbid "assigning motive" so that's just not going to wash. If after asking yourself "why would someone rate Gretzky like that" and finding no reasonable (to your way of thinking, thought processes) explanation you need to read the posters previous replies to the same question and if still unsatisfied, ask him yourself why (?).... assuming, accusing others of having "hidden agenda's'", being deliberately argumentative, controversial, obtuse.... doesnt fly round these here parts. Just ask. Take issue with whatever response your given.... Carry on.

Thank you. Also I would like to add that similar ratios are used throughout the board including the usage of +/- without any complaints.

Posters are invited to do the research.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Three excellent playoff runs.

Since Hall was ranked ahead of Gretzky, I wanted to check - does this mean you think Gretzky only had three (or fewer) excellent playoff runs? If so, which ones were they?

Also I was curious to get your reasoning for excluding Geoffrion. I initially assumed it was an oversight but you said later on it was intentional.

 

[ESH]

... ah, ahh... no..... cant be doing that ESH... rules here forbid "assigning motive" so that's just not going to wash. If after asking yourself "why would someone rate Gretzky like that" and finding no reasonable (to your way of thinking, thought processes) explanation you need to read the posters previous replies to the same question and if still unsatisfied, ask him yourself why (?).... assuming, accusing others of having "hidden agenda's'", being deliberately argumentative, controversial, obtuse.... doesnt fly round these here parts. Just ask. Take issue with whatever response your given.... Carry on.

Thank you. Also I would like to add that similar ratios are used throughout the board including the usage of +/- without any complaints.

Posters are invited to do the research.

Sorry about that! I didn't mean to break any rules and I didn't mean to sound disrespectful or anything like that either, because I realize now it might have seemed that way. It is a seemingly random ratio that was brought up when I tried to argue how great Gretzky's impact is, and as many other people have shown, it's a ratio that isn't really fair. I'd like to point out That Hawkey Town 18 brought up a hypothetical A/B scenario, to which C1958 responded that the players aren't playing the same role. But originally, C1958 used Orr and Robinson as examples for this ratio. Orr and Robinson pretty clearly play a different role than Gretzky did.

 

[Doctor No]

Also I would like to add that similar ratios are used throughout the board including the usage of +/- without any complaints.

Can you cite some examples of this?

Plus-minus alone is regularly complained about, so I can't imagine that any ratios that use plus-minus would get off scot free.

Presuming that by "the board", you mean this subsection.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Goalies

Since Hall was ranked ahead of Gretzky, I wanted to check - does this mean you think Gretzky only had three (or fewer) excellent playoff runs? If so, which ones were they?

Also I was curious to get your reasoning for excluding Geoffrion. I initially assumed it was an oversight but you said later on it was intentional.

Value of goalies vs prolific but one dimensional centers.

Geoffrion. Used the Maurice Richard benchmark who was surprisingly solid defensively - 1960 playoffs against Chicago and Bobby Hull did the job playing with Henri Richard. Since Maurice Richard the Canadiens had strength at RW - Geoffrion, briefly Rousseau, then Cournoyer and Lafleur. Rousseau and Geoffrion padded their stats by playing the point on the PP, Rousseau and marginally Cournoyer were effective defensively. Geoffrion and Lafleur had to be compensated for.

Note where I had Lafleur.

 

[Killion]

Sorry about that! I didn't mean to break any rules and I didn't mean to sound disrespectful or anything like that either, because I realize now it might have seemed that way. It is a seemingly random ratio that was brought up when I tried to argue how great Gretzky's impact is, and as many other people have shown, it's a ratio that isn't really fair. I'd like to point out That Hawkey Town 18 brought up a hypothetical A/B scenario, to which C1958 responded that the players aren't playing the same role. But originally, C1958 used Orr and Robinson as examples for this ratio. Orr and Robinson pretty clearly play a different role than Gretzky did.

No worries.... and I could answer the bolded but I wont, leave that to the original author, C58.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Sure

Can you cite some examples of this?

Plus-minus alone is regularly complained about, so I can't imagine that any ratios that use plus-minus would get off scot free.

Presuming that by "the board", you mean this subsection.

Sure. Let's start with one that is contemporay to yesterday.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=134526585&postcount=6

Effectively without doing the extension BGE is comparing an individual +/- to a team +/-. I compared individual points with extensions.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Motors

Sorry about that! I didn't mean to break any rules and I didn't mean to sound disrespectful or anything like that either, because I realize now it might have seemed that way. It is a seemingly random ratio that was brought up when I tried to argue how great Gretzky's impact is, and as many other people have shown, it's a ratio that isn't really fair. I'd like to point out That Hawkey Town 18 brought up a hypothetical A/B scenario, to which C1958 responded that the players aren't playing the same role. But originally, C1958 used Orr and Robinson as examples for this ratio. Orr and Robinson pretty clearly play a different role than Gretzky did.

All three were motors on their team around which units were structured.

 

[MadLuke]

Effectively without doing the extension BGE is comparing an individual +/- to a team +/-. I compared individual points with extensions.

Comparing a player +/- to is team +/- is an obvious valid metric with a lot of values to it.

Comparing to points without removing power play points is obviously a flawed system.

Say a 40 points +20 players with just 5 power play points, compared to a 60 points +25 player with 25 power play points, that metric will tell us that the first player is more dominant.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Perhaps

Comparing a player +/- to is team +/- is an obvious valid metric with a lot of values to it.

Comparing to points without removing power play points is obviously a flawed system.

Say a 40 points +20 players with just 5 power play points, compared to a 60 points +25 player with 25 power play points, that metric will tell us that the first player is more dominant.

Will reserve comment until you specify to the values you alledge. Also you did not have time to research the actual comparison.

So remove the the PP points, or goals or assists as you like. Then come back with the results.

 

[MadLuke]

+/- is a statistic that will be impacted a lot by the quality of the team you are playing for, there is better way to do it than to simply compare to the teammates and team +/-, but you can see the value in it, does that player was better in average to help is team score more goal (you need to also if you can adjust for quality of opposition, zone start and so on, but team +/- is a good place to start if you are dealing with lot of player and era with few statistic available).

Being +20 on a team that was +100 that year is less impressive that being +20 on a team that was +5 overall, that player seem to have a bigger influence on is team result if he sustain that kind of performance every year.

So remove the the PP points, or goals or assists as you like

That would be a good place to start (removing the PP from it, points on powerplay hurting a player is an obvious flaw), but I'm not so sure why someone would use points instead of the goal for when the player were on ice (something used already in the +/- variable), why "hurt" a player dominance for goal he actively participated in versus goal he didn't directly participate in and was just on the ice ?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Far From

+/- is a statistic that will be impacted a lot by the quality of the team you are playing for, there is better way to do it than to simply compare to the teammates and team +/-, but you can see the value in it, does that player was better in average to help is team score more goal (you need to also if you can adjust for quality of opposition, zone start and so on, but team +/- is a good place to start if you are dealing with lot of player and era with few statistic available).

Being +20 on a team that was +100 that year is less impressive that being +20 on a team that was +5 overall, that player seem to have a bigger influence on is team result if he sustain that kind of performance every year.



That would be a good place to start (removing the PP from it, points on powerplay hurting a player is an obvious flaw), but I'm not so sure why someone would use points instead of the goal for when the player were on ice (something used already in the +/- variable), why "hurt" a player dominance for goal he actively participated in versus goal he didn't directly participate in and was just on the ice ?

Not interested in discussing hypotheticals.

Phil Kessel shows little if any quality of team effect:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/k/kesseph01.html

Even on a championship team he is 3rd in scoring and 18th in RS +/-.
led in playoff team +3- because the coaching staff lead by jacques martin figured out how to shelter him.

Your suggestion would remove knowing how to play without the puck from consideration offensively and defensively.

 

[Doctor No]

Sure. Let's start with one that is contemporay to yesterday.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=134526585&postcount=6

Effectively without doing the extension BGE is comparing an individual +/- to a team +/-. I compared individual points with extensions.

Forgive me if I'm missing your sarcasm, but you criticized the use of plus-minus in the immediate response following that post.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Inside Joke

Forgive me if I'm missing your sarcasm, but you criticized the use of plus-minus in the immediate response following that post.

No sarcasm, you are missing the inside joke between BGE and myself that arose from us working together on the newly released data.

Looking at the data would clearly explain our inside joke.

 

[Doctor No]

No sarcasm, you are missing the inside joke between BGE and myself that arose from us working together on the newly released data.

Looking at the data would clearly explain our inside joke.

I'll take your word for it; I don't have much interest in inside jokes. Hopefully it was amusing.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Yes

I'll take your word for it; I don't have much interest in inside jokes. Hopefully it was amusing.

Very amusing and indirectly to the point. Al Langlois, Harvey's defensive partner was also +13. Yet neither of us, because of our understanding of +/-, with slightly different appreciations, jumped to the same conclusion about Langlois. Both registered three points in the 1960 SC playoffs as well.

 

[Killion]

^^^ A lot of statistical & anecdotal information yet to be mined.... awaiting digitalization from old formats... dots that will be connected.... for example.... did you know that DH Byrd (brother of Admiral RE Byrd, connected up the ying-yang to the OSS - forerunner of the CIA - Buddies with Allan Dulles, Hoover & Bush Sr etc - who made fantastical claims about a "Hollow Earth" including a highly advanced civilization living underfoot, UFO's, leading Operation Highjump to Antarctica in 1946 involving an entire Fleet & over 30,000 heavily armed personnel for a 6mnth tour then turning tail & running for his life after just 6 weeks) owned the Texas Schoolbook Depository in Dallas? The same one that employed Lee Harvey Oswald?.... Or that Guy Bannister (portrayed by Edward Asner in Oliver Stones JFK) had been the lead investigator in a reputed UFO crash on/near Maury Island in Washington State shortly before Roswell in nineteen hunnert n' forty seven?... Ha?..... Lotta floatsam-jetsam floating around out there folks.... just sayin.

 

[MadLuke]

Not interested in discussing hypotheticals.

We can take a non hypotheticals case (not a bad idea, I could make up scenario that could not really happen), take Crosby and Conor Sheary last year.

http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/showplayer.php?pid=459&withagainst=true&season=2016-17&sit=5v5

When they played together at 5v5 last year (for 697 minute)

they were both at +20

Crosby had 18g, 18a 36pts
Sheary had 12g, 21a, 33 pts

Would you use the +20 / number of points and conclude that Sheary was a more dominant player than Crosby during those minutes ? Would you reduce Crosby contribution vs Sheary contribution or conclude that Crosby was worst than Sheary defensively for those goal against when both were on the ice because Crosby had 3 more points ?

Maybe a better example Alex Burrows and Henrik Sedin on the 2010-2011 Canucks:
http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/VAN/2011.html

Both were +26

Burrows 48 pts for an excellent: 26/48 = 0.54 ratio
Sedin 94 pts for an ratio of just half of Burrows : 26/94 = 0.276 ratio


If we look in more detail at their performance:
http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/showplayer.php?pid=592&withagainst=true&season=2010-11&sit=5v5

http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/showplayer.php?pid=602&withagainst=true&season=2010-11&sit=5v5

When Burrows was not playing with Henrik Sedin he was negative in the +/-, when playing with Henrik Sedin he had a great +/-. Henrik kept a positive ratio when he was not playing with Burrows.

I think that it is clear that despite is unfavorable ratio using the +/- divided by points, Henrik Sedin was the much more dominant 5v5 player.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Misused

We can take a non hypotheticals case (not a bad idea, I could make up scenario that could not really happen), take Crosby and Conor Sheary last year.

http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/showplayer.php?pid=459&withagainst=true&season=2016-17&sit=5v5

When they played together at 5v5 last year (for 697 minute)

they were both at +20

Crosby had 18g, 18a 36pts
Sheary had 12g, 21a, 33 pts

Would you use the +20 / number of points and conclude that Sheary was a more dominant player than Crosby during those minutes ? Would you reduce Crosby contribution vs Sheary contribution or conclude that Crosby was worst than Sheary defensively for those goal against when both were on the ice because Crosby had 3 more points ?

Maybe a better example Alex Burrows and Henrik Sedin on the 2010-2011 Canucks:
http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/VAN/2011.html

Both were +26

Burrows 48 pts for an excellent: 26/48 = 0.54 ratio
Sedin 94 pts for an ratio of just half of Burrows : 26/94 = 0.276 ratio


If we look in more detail at their performance:
http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/showplayer.php?pid=592&withagainst=true&season=2010-11&sit=5v5

http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/showplayer.php?pid=602&withagainst=true&season=2010-11&sit=5v5

When Burrows was not playing with Henrik Sedin he was negative in the +/-, when playing with Henrik Sedin he had a great +/-. Henrik kept a positive ratio when he was not playing with Burrows.

I think that it is clear that despite is unfavorable ratio using the +/- divided by points, Henrik Sedin was the much more dominant 5v5 player.

You are miss interpreting the usage and data.

All you have showed is that Sheary is an excellent choice as Crosby's linemate and that Burrows was an excellent choice as a linemate for the Sedins.

Within a team you are looking for the best fit for defencmen pairings or foorward trios.

Outside a team you are looking at comparables.