Playoff Performers Voting Record - Canadiens1958

[Plural]

Personally I don't really have any objections when someone has a drastically different POV and/or weighs player contributions outside of the average line. It's fun to see people taking different approaches and finding new (or in this case, possibly old ) angles to tackle these lists.

The problem I have is that very simplistic statistical model was offered as an explanation for some of the rankings when it's clear that the statistical model is not giving the desired results most of the time. I get that context and other views were considered and the statistical model was probably just a crude example on the listing. But the reality is that the model does not work even with modest consistency, therefore rendering itself useless to this exercise. It's not that anyones opinion is wrong, it's that using a statistical tool that wouldn't pass the smell test within thousand yards from a class room is dubious at best. If you apply one model for several cases to draw conclusions you need to have the exact same set of rules for all cases. Otherwise you're losing integrity of the comparison and any conclusions drawn are automatically invalid.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Properly

Personally I don't really have any objections when someone has a drastically different POV and/or weighs player contributions outside of the average line. It's fun to see people taking different approaches and finding new (or in this case, possibly old ) angles to tackle these lists.

The problem I have is that very simplistic statistical model was offered as an explanation for some of the rankings when it's clear that the statistical model is not giving the desired results most of the time. I get that context and other views were considered and the statistical model was probably just a crude example on the listing. But the reality is that the model does not work even with modest consistency, therefore rendering itself useless to this exercise. It's not that anyones opinion is wrong, it's that using a statistical tool that wouldn't pass the smell test within thousand yards from a class room is dubious at best. If you apply one model for several cases to draw conclusions you need to have the exact same set of rules for all cases. Otherwise you're losing integrity of the comparison and any conclusions drawn are automatically invalid.

Try understanding it and use it properly.

 

[Doctor No]

Give some examples of "using it properly" that don't involve knowing what you want the answer to be beforehand.

 

[Plural]

Try understanding it and use it properly.

It's not that I don't understand the model, I do. It's pretty much as simplistic as one can get. The problem is that you use the model with different set of rules for different scenarios but you draw direct comparisons from them. It simply does not possess the ability to tell what you claim it does. It's a broken comparison. I'm not saying your list is wrong but I'm saying that you basing your reasoning for the statistical model in a way you described is faulty. There's no way around it. It's misuse of statistics and twisted comparison. Nothing more.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Properly II

Give some examples of "using it properly" that don't involve knowing what you want the answer to be beforehand.

1960 playoffs the Harvey / Langlois pairing plus/minus ratio. Same team so the issue is not dominance but illustrating have a depth 4th/5th defenceman was intelligently paired with a team #1 defenceman for the benefit of the team in two consecutive four game sweeps resulting in an SC victory. Both partners had a + 13 on a team that collectively was +16. Both registered 3 points while playing 8 games. +1.625 per game.

http://www.nhl.com/stats/player?agg...er=gamesPlayed,gte,&sort=points,goals,assists

1985 Wayne Gretzky playoffs.+28 without steady linemates, Kurri was +24 and there was a steady flow of LWers. Registered 47 points, yielding a +1.5555.. per game, over 18 games.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/EDM/1985.html

Takeaway, adjusted to 18 games, Harvey was performing at a +29 level in the context of 1960. Illustrating that quality defence can dominate just as much, perhaps more than quality offence.

So you have three examples. Within a team, defensive pairing creation, forward line make-up. Across eras, 1960 to 1985 featuring elite players who never faced each other and offence to defence, showing that each may be equally dominant, but at a cost of trading goals along the way.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Maybe another example (?) using Nicklas Lidstrom.

2005-06 paired with Andreas Lilja (loser player, maybe not too dissimilar to Langlois, in fact) - 80 points, 30 at ES, +21. Lilja - 15 points, 13 at ES, +18...career bests for Lilja all around. [Team +96, GF:GA]

Lidstrom shakes loose of Lilja going forward:
06-07: 62 points, 26 at ES, +40 [Team +55]
07-08: 70 points, 35 at ES, +40 [Team +73]

While Lidstrom buoyed Lilja; Lilja also dragged down Lidstrom despite career highs in points for Lidstrom...also career high in PIMs in 05-06...

 

[Doctor No]

Let's try this a different way - the formula (as you intend it) does not always work. Therefore, there must be cases where the formula shouldn't be used.

Please tell us when the formula should not be used.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Please Provide an Example

Let's try this a different way - the formula (as you intend it) does not always work. Therefore, there must be cases where the formula shouldn't be used.

Please tell us when the formula should not be used.

So you must have at least one example since you claim that it does not always work. Please provide it so that I can examine it, providing an appropriate comment afterwards.

Division by zero is undefined. Does not mean that we scrap division completely.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Exactly

Maybe another example (?) using Nicklas Lidstrom.

2005-06 paired with Andreas Lilja (loser player, maybe not too dissimilar to Langlois, in fact) - 80 points, 30 at ES, +21. Lilja - 15 points, 13 at ES, +18...career bests for Lilja all around. [Team +96, GF:GA]

Lidstrom shakes loose of Lilja going forward:
06-07: 62 points, 26 at ES, +40 [Team +55]
07-08: 70 points, 35 at ES, +40 [Team +73]

While Lidstrom buoyed Lilja; Lilja also dragged down Lidstrom despite career highs in points for Lidstrom...also career high in PIMs in 05-06...

Exactly, while Langlois was not a drag on Harvey, Lidstrom would have received an advantage from a better partner.

 

[Doctor No]

so you must have at least one example since you claim that it does not always work. Please provide it so that i can examine it, providing an appropriate comment afterwards.

Dallas Green, or anything in post #104.

We're not lacking for examples.

 

[bobholly39]

I've not followed the formula discussed as closely - but since +/- is brought up - is powerplay performance taken into account?

In 1985 Gretzky was +28. But he also added a ton of extra powerplay points to I would guess, no? Just curious if that's being considered here

 

[bobholly39]

I notice C58 has responded to almost every post but mine.

Two questions:

- If you had to rank a top 60 performers again today, would Gretzky still be at (or thereabout) #22? Or have you reconsidered following discussions in the project and would you rank him quite a bit higher?

- Explain why you have Lemieux and Gretzky back to back. That bothers me more than anything.

If you value Lemieux's peak very highly - having him back to back with Gretzky makes sense. But if you value lemieux's peak so high - you should also value Gretzky's peak highly, and thus have him above #22. Which you don't.

 

[Canadiens1958]

???

Dallas Green, or anything in post #104.

We're not lacking for examples.

Post #104 does not provide examples just a list of defencemen. Not possible to view the posters calculations to see if he is using the approach properly.

Take it you mean Dallas Smith with Bobby Orr during the 1970-71
NHL season:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/BOS/1971.html

the idea is to see how defencemen compliment each other in the pairings. Bruins rolled 5 defencemen. Orr +124, Dallas Smith +94, Don Awrey + 40, Ted Green +37, Rick Smith + 30. So Dallas Smith complimented Orr very well but shared time with Rick Smith. Awrey and Green were a solid pairing. No sign of the Lilja drag on Lidstrom evidenced by Mike Farkas in the pairings.

The relationships held up during the playoffs as the complete Bruins defence did not do the job defensively.No one stood-out:

http://www.nhl.com/stats/player?agg...er=gamesPlayed,gte,&sort=points,goals,assists

 

[Canadiens1958]

Yes.....

I notice C58 has responded to almost every post but mine.

Two questions:

- If you had to rank a top 60 performers again today, would Gretzky still be at (or thereabout) #22? Or have you reconsidered following discussions in the project and would you rank him quite a bit higher?

- Explain why you have Lemieux and Gretzky back to back. That bothers me more than anything.

If you value Lemieux's peak very highly - having him back to back with Gretzky makes sense. But if you value lemieux's peak so high - you should also value Gretzky's peak highly, and thus have him above #22. Which you don't.

Yes I would. Peaks come with valleys. Posters have a habit of only discussing peaks. I look at both.

Per your PP question. When trading goals in an effort to win - the Gretzky approach, PP or ES goals are valued equally.

 

[Doctor No]

Not possible to view the posters calculations to see if he is using the approach properly.

THEN TELL US YOUR FULL APPROACH.

So far, your approach appears to be:

(1) Divide one number by another number.
(2) Throw out the result if it doesn't make sense.

I can 100% assure you that the other poster is doing step #1 correctly.

Don't tell us that we don't understand your approach when you won't explain your approach.

Explain your approach. Please. If you instead respond by giving another example where step #1 happens to work, then I'm done with the thread and you win.

 

[GuineaPig]

I'm especially confused, as this entire comment chain was started by the assertion that percentages don't matter, only goals do. Yet somehow Gretzky's point totals are irrelevant because of the ratio of his points to +/-?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Gladly

THEN TELL US YOUR FULL APPROACH.

So far, your approach appears to be:

(1) Divide one number by another number.
(2) Throw out the result if it doesn't make sense.

I can 100% assure you that the other poster is doing step #1 correctly.

Don't tell us that we don't understand your approach when you won't explain your approach.

Explain your approach. Please. If you instead respond by giving another example where step #1 happens to work, then I'm done with the thread and you win.

The approach was provided in post 130:
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=134560579&postcount=130

Basically there are three cornerstones.
1.)Looking at efficiencies / stabilities of defenceman pairings.
2.)Looking at efficiencies / stabilities of forward lines.

Within a team basic addition is sufficient, at this level the issue of dominance does not exist since the structure of a team requires players to compliment each other. Externally across teams division may be required.

3.)Across eras or elite skaters , efficiences / stabilities / questions of dominance. Addition,multiplication, division required.

1.) & 2.) were addressed by me with the Harvey & Langlois examples - BGE threw in the importance to the team by comparing their
+/- to the overall team +/-, then a look at the 1970-71 Bruins defence pairings, 1984-85 Gretzky linemates. previously. Mike Farkas applied it to the Lidstrom/Lilja pairing reaching an appropriate conclusion. Four examples and evidence of correct application by a third party - replicating results, showing understanding.

3.) was addressed in detail first by the Gretzky vs Orr vs Robinson comparison which required division and the Harvey / Gretzky comparison touching offensive vs defensive dominance. Note this only shows that defensive dominance may be equally strong or stronger than offensive dominance. Not a Harvey vs Gretzky comparison.

Post #104 just a precis of 2016-17 Caps stats:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/WSH/2017.html

with other NHL defencemen thrown in without any effort to look at pairings.

Also the poster tossed in Patrice Bergeron +/- data, amongst defencemen. No evidence of application, just throwing raw data around.

Note, not competing just explaining certain occurances. Basic obstacle is a strong bias against +/- fueled by a lack of understanding and appreciation. Also the lack of balance between the appreciation of offence and defence.

 

[Doctor No]

Post #130 doesn't provide an approach - it provides three examples.

You win; I'm leaving the thread.

I'll leave by saying that any approach that puts Gretzky in the twenties in this ranking does not work.

 

[Canadiens1958]

No

I'm especially confused, as this entire comment chain was started by the assertion that percentages don't matter, only goals do. Yet somehow Gretzky's point totals are irrelevant because of the ratio of his points to +/-?

No, Gretzky's points are relevant. Point is that that others - Orr and Robinson dominated more with their combination of offence and defence than Gretzky did with offence.

 

[MadLuke]

No, Gretzky's points are relevant. Point is that that others - Orr and Robinson dominated more with their combination of offence and defence than Gretzky did with offence.

but that was +/- already tell us, what I (and I guess other) try to comprehend is were divided by the numbers of points in this.

In your example of:
Both partners had a + 13 on a team that collectively was +16. Both registered 3 points while playing 8 games. +1.625 per game.


If both player would have participated more to the goal the team scored when they were on the ice and would have had both 6 points instead of 3, what would that tell us about their dominance ? Why would it have been a lower one if they would have been an integral part of the team offense instead of not being involved in it as much ?

 

[daver]

Meanwhile it does not matter that much since even at +28 against 47 points Gretzky is under 60%. Not impressed.

Your #1 guy- Henri Richard

1960: +6 on 12 points
1961: +2 on 6 points
1963: 0 on 2 points
1964: -1 on 2 points
1965: -5 on 11 points
1966: +3 on 5 points
1967: +4 on 10 points
1968: +5 on 8 points
1969: 0 on 6 points
1971: +4 on 12 points
1972: +2 on 3 points
1973: +2 on 10 points
1974: +2 on 4 points
1975: -3 on 3 points

Total: +21 on 76 points


Impressive or not impressive?

 

[bobholly39]

Your #1 guy- Henri Richard

1960: +6 on 12 points
1961: +2 on 6 points
1963: 0 on 2 points
1964: -1 on 2 points
1965: -5 on 11 points
1966: +3 on 5 points
1967: +4 on 10 points
1968: +5 on 8 points
1969: 0 on 6 points
1971: +4 on 12 points
1972: +2 on 3 points
1973: +2 on 10 points
1974: +2 on 4 points
1975: -3 on 3 points

Total: +21 on 76 points


Impressive or not impressive?

Funny - but can't say i'm surprised.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Henri Richard

Your #1 guy- Henri Richard

1960: +6 on 12 points
1961: +2 on 6 points
1963: 0 on 2 points
1964: -1 on 2 points
1965: -5 on 11 points
1966: +3 on 5 points
1967: +4 on 10 points
1968: +5 on 8 points
1969: 0 on 6 points
1971: +4 on 12 points
1972: +2 on 3 points
1973: +2 on 10 points
1974: +2 on 4 points
1975: -3 on 3 points

Total: +21 on 76 points


Impressive or not impressive?

On 7 SC championship teams, scoring two SC winning goals while contributing the shutdown line that neutralized Bobby Hull four times and Bobby Orr three times along the road to the SC victories. Nothing that Gretzky did on a team level compares.

 

[daver]

On 7 SC championship teams, scoring two SC winning goals while contributing the shutdown line that neutralized Bobby Hull four times and Bobby Orr three times along the road to the SC victories. Nothing that Gretzky did on a team level compares.

You can only say this if you completely disregard the concept of offense being the primary and most effective way in which a forward can contribute to team success.

"It's not all about points" but you know what? It can be all about points in some cases with Gretzky being Exhibit A.

 

[Canadiens1958]

False

You can only say this if you completely disregard the concept of offense being the primary and most effective way in which a forward can contribute to team success.

"It's not all about points" but you know what? It can be all about points in some cases with Gretzky being Exhibit A.

False. All the great coaches, Day, Blake, Bowman, Arbour, Lemaire, Babcock have shown that by improving defensive awareness amongst forwards, increases their collective scoring. Puts forwards in a much better position to benefit from the the transition game, turnovers and flaws in the opposition game.

And Exhibit A - Gretzky, did not win as much as superior defensive forwards Trottier, Messier who were his contemporaries.


Post 1993 Gretzky was not wanted by contending teams, especially after the St.Louis mistake.