Round 2, Vote 3 (HOH Top Wingers)

[Hardyvan123]

Treating the '90 as an era of prime talent is actually a case of not looking at the whole context.

How so, we had an elite influx of talent form non traditional sources and Canada was still the elite hockey nation in the world.

I mean it's possible that the overall talent level went down but it's extremely unlikely given those 2 things right?

That being said it has come up in other projects about the lower talent pool in the 90's and early 2000's yet little to no evidence or backing of that opinion is to be found, over than lower scoring totals which doesn't make any sense and even if it did that standard isn't applied equally across eras either.

If you think the 90's wasn't an era of prime talent, say compared to the 50's or 60's for some other guys in this round make the case as I have mad mine on numerous occasions and the numbers back it up as well.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Hardy, you're complaining that a metric that has Jaromir Jagr #2 among wingers all-time (ahead of Bobby Hull and Maurice Richard) and Alexander Ovechkin - who just finished has age 28 season - as 8th all-time, and 3rd among "goals first" players (behind Hull and Richard) as not friendly enough towards modern players.

Funny how that metric seems to have had little bearing on Jagr placing yet a smaller spread (Jagr had a greater spread in VsX on Hull/Richard and especially Bossy/ Lafleur (as evidenced by 2 votes) than Selanne has behind the 4 left this round) yet now it comes up for Selanne?

Also it's not a question of results it's a question of a fair system, not acknowledge for the difference in talent streams at all diminishes it's real value and objectivity that's the issue at hand.

to not give any weight to the fact that there was a lot of non nontraditional talent from then usual talent streams in the 06 era compared to post 90 is extremely biased and prejudicial IMO.

The actual fact of the matter is that there are 2 significantly different groups and landscapes being measured by VsX between the 06 era and post 90's and it isn't accounted for at all.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Funny how that metric seems to have had little bearing on Jagr placing yet a smaller spread (Jagr had a greater spread in VsX on Hull/Richard and especially Bossy/ Lafleur (as evidenced by 2 votes) than Selanne has behind the 4 left this round) yet now it comes up for Selanne?

You're the one who brought it up for Selanne.

Personally, I think it's a great way to get a rough ballpark figure of the offensive value of these players in the regular season, but then more details should be looked into.

 

[Hardyvan123]

I know intially I was saying:


My point was that even if we artificially add 'integrated league' points like HV suggested for Selanne, he's still not Top 4 in this metric.

No he probably doesn't climb all the way to 4th as AO would climb as well and Selanne is dealing with more variance but he probably closes the gap quite a bit let's look here.

and I'll do it the simple way just looking at the 2nd Canadian scorer and not adjusting for outliers.

93

Mario 160
LaFoantiane 148 USA
Oates 142....
Selanne 132

so under the old system he is .89, but for VsX Canadian he is .93

96

Mario 161
Jagr 149
Sakic 120
Francis 119...
selanne 108

not sure on how the outliers are treated but 4 of the 11 players in the top 10 were non Canadians, Selanne excluded and 2 more were from BC another non traditional talent stream in the 06 era.

Maybe he gains 1 or 2 points here.

97

Mario 122
Selanne 109
Kariya 99
LeClair 97
Gretzky 97
next Canadian is Francis at 90

So under the current VsX system he is 100 under a Canadian system he is 1.10 a difference of 10 points.

so at minimum here we have 4+1+10 before we go to the 4th season

98

Jagr 102
Foppa 91
Gretzky 90
Bure 90
Francis 87
Selanne 86

so under teh curetn system he is 94.5 (95) and under a Canadian system he is 98.8 (99)

so after 4 years we have 4+1+10+4

99

Jagr 127
selanne 107
Kariya 101
Forsberg 97
Sakic 96

So under the old system he is 100 compared against the Canadian standard he is 1.11

After 5 years we have 4+1+10+4+11

00
Jagr 96
bure 94
Recchi 91
Kariya 86
selanne 85

Under the current system he is .90 adjusted he is 98.8 (99) a difference of 9

so over 6 years its a difference of 39/6 =6.5 per season bump, lets look to season 7

11
Sedin 104
MSL 99
Perry 98
selanne 80

Selanne only gains from 80.8 (81) to 81.6 (82|) for 1 point which leaves us with 37/7= 5.28 or 5.3 really but elts say it's only 5.2

So his 92.9 (cureent) plus 5.2 would give him a total of 98.1 making him a much more solid member of that top 4 this round right?

6 Ted Lindsay 104.8
7 Andy Bathgate 101.2
8 Alex Ovechkin 97.5
9 Charlie Conacher 97.1
13 Teemu Selanne 92.9

also this is just points, Selanne would do much better in the goal scoring metric (both overall and adjusted as many of the top goal scoring seasons were by non traditional talent stream guys, as we will find out in this project, for the 90's).

Also there is nothing "artificial" about it, it's a direct comparison using the same methodology to make a more fair and accurate assessment here Canadians against Canadians (as that is and should be the common standard for the VsX metric).

Now if you want to argue that Canadian talent slipped in the 90's feel free but there isn't much of a case there IMO.

 

[unknown33]

Also it's not a question of results it's a question of a fair system, not acknowledge for the difference in talent streams at all diminishes it's real value and objectivity that's the issue at hand.

to not give any weight to the fact that there was a lot of non nontraditional talent from then usual talent streams in the 06 era compared to post 90 is extremely biased and prejudicial IMO.

The actual fact of the matter is that there are 2 significantly different groups and landscapes being measured by VsX between the 06 era and post 90's and it isn't accounted for at all.

Just for you I removed all Europeans (weighting of seasons is: 18, 19, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16; right?) and Selanne has a VsX of 97.4

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Just for you I removed all Europeans (weighting of seasons is: 18, 19, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16; right?) and Selanne has a VsX of 97.4

Yes, that is the correct weighting. When the VsX formula is next tweaked, I hope we either majority simplify the weights or get rid of them entirely*, but too late for that for the purposes of this project.

*They add an unnecessary level of complication and don't actually do all that much

 

[unknown33]

97

Mario 122
Selanne 109
Kariya 99
LeClair 97
Gretzky 97
next Canadian is Francis at 90

So under the current VsX system he is 100 under a Canadian system he is 1.10 a difference of 10 points.

99

Jagr 127
selanne 107
Kariya 101
Forsberg 97
Sakic 96

So under the old system he is 100 compared against the Canadian standard he is 1.11

How do those work? Do you remove Selanne himself?

 

[Hardyvan123]

The top 4 is very easy for Me this round.
I'm curious on how Selanne's Olympic record will be looked at. Here it is in a nutshell.
Games : 40
Goals: 21
Assists: 21
3 Bronze Medals

His international record overall is very impressive as is the fact that he led the NHL in goals in his rookie season and had an excellent season the year before in Finland, which should count for something if we are looking at the Russian leagues for other players one would think.

here are Selanne's age 20 and 21 season lines

20

Jokerit 42-33-25-58 (2nd in goals leader had 35, 7th in points)
WEC 10-6-5-11
Canada cup 6-1-1-2

21

Jokerit 44-39-23-62 (1st in goals, 2nd had 29, 4th in points)
Olympics 8-7-4-11

Now considering the next season he had a line of 76-56-132 with Winnipeg, supported by guys like Housley (outscored him by 35 points), Steen and Zhamnov and the next best goal scorer had 28 goals on that team it's not implausible to suggest that he might have done pretty okay as a 21 year old and even as a 20 year old in the NHL.

Something to consider one would think.

 

[seventieslord]

So it sounds like Geoffrion is a really poor man's Richard, in just about every way, then.

 

[seventieslord]

No he probably doesn't climb all the way to 4th as AO would climb as well and Selanne is dealing with more variance but he probably closes the gap quite a bit let's look here.

and I'll do it the simple way just looking at the 2nd Canadian scorer and not adjusting for outliers.

93

Mario 160
LaFoantiane 148 USA
Oates 142....
Selanne 132

so under the old system he is .89, but for VsX Canadian he is .93

96

Mario 161
Jagr 149
Sakic 120
Francis 119...
selanne 108

not sure on how the outliers are treated but 4 of the 11 players in the top 10 were non Canadians, Selanne excluded and 2 more were from BC another non traditional talent stream in the 06 era.

Maybe he gains 1 or 2 points here.

97

Mario 122
Selanne 109
Kariya 99
LeClair 97
Gretzky 97
next Canadian is Francis at 90

So under the current VsX system he is 100 under a Canadian system he is 1.10 a difference of 10 points.

so at minimum here we have 4+1+10 before we go to the 4th season

98

Jagr 102
Foppa 91
Gretzky 90
Bure 90
Francis 87
Selanne 86

so under teh curetn system he is 94.5 (95) and under a Canadian system he is 98.8 (99)

so after 4 years we have 4+1+10+4

99

Jagr 127
selanne 107
Kariya 101
Forsberg 97
Sakic 96

So under the old system he is 100 compared against the Canadian standard he is 1.11

After 5 years we have 4+1+10+4+11

00
Jagr 96
bure 94
Recchi 91
Kariya 86
selanne 85

Under the current system he is .90 adjusted he is 98.8 (99) a difference of 9

so over 6 years its a difference of 39/6 =6.5 per season bump, lets look to season 7

11
Sedin 104
MSL 99
Perry 98
selanne 80

Selanne only gains from 80.8 (81) to 81.6 (82|) for 1 point which leaves us with 37/7= 5.28 or 5.3 really but elts say it's only 5.2

So his 92.9 (cureent) plus 5.2 would give him a total of 98.1 making him a much more solid member of that top 4 this round right?

6 Ted Lindsay 104.8
7 Andy Bathgate 101.2
8 Alex Ovechkin 97.5
9 Charlie Conacher 97.1
13 Teemu Selanne 92.9

also this is just points, Selanne would do much better in the goal scoring metric (both overall and adjusted as many of the top goal scoring seasons were by non traditional talent stream guys, as we will find out in this project, for the 90's).

Also there is nothing "artificial" about it, it's a direct comparison using the same methodology to make a more fair and accurate assessment here Canadians against Canadians (as that is and should be the common standard for the VsX metric).

Now if you want to argue that Canadian talent slipped in the 90's feel free but there isn't much of a case there IMO.

That's nice, but it doesn't look like very many people agree that's the right way to do it.

 

[MXD]

How do those work? Do you remove Selanne himself?

I'm pretty sure the whole "take out non-canadians" shouldn't apply to target player.

 

[Hardyvan123]

How do those work? Do you remove Selanne himself?

No Selanne keeps his position every season it's just in relation to other Canadians so I remove non Canadians who were non existent in the 06 era.

That's not taking into account the occurrence of Sakic and Kariya both from BC which was also a non existent talent stream before the 70's in the NHL.

As a point of fact no non Canadian was 1 or 2 in NHL scoring until Peter Stastny was in 1983 and the 2 previous years were the first years any non Canadian made the top 10 in scoring, both years 3rd.

People should really look at the yearly top 10 scoring lists to see the major differences and changes in the landscape and judge for themselves the facts are there.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/leaders/points_top_10.html

note: I didn't see your post #55 which did the adjust according to the formula i did a crude adjustment, the point of it is that it went up, the degree doesn't matter as much.

and for goal scoring both his standard VsX metric is already excellent, elite for this round but it would get better as well, as many non Canadians scored a lot of goals in the 90's as we can see here


http://www.hockey-reference.com/leaders/goals_top_10.html

 

[Hardyvan123]

That's nice, but it doesn't look like very many people agree that's the right way to do it.

Well I can't speak for other people but simply put, judging player A against a larger and more difficult pool than player A is biased right?

Why not use a common standard, after all Canada is the common standard and the elite hockey nation throughout history it would make the project and VsX results more accurate.

Or is accuracy and fairness less important than with what people agree with?

I'll use the simple lottery example each person can have 1 ball and then decide if they want to put it in barrel a or barrel B and it's obvious barrel B has more balls, ie less chance, how many people are thinking that putting their ball in barrel B is the "right way " to do things, ie win the lottery

Or play 7 card poker with only 5 or 6 cards?

 

[unknown33]

....

You know what. I partially agree with you, but this is a debate on HoH princples and I don't see any point to bring it up or discuss it in this thread. For years. Again and again and again....

 

[MXD]

Anyways, it's not like I just came up with the theory of the somewhat weak talent pool in the 90ies, something the goals leader in a table posted earlier is nothing else than a painful evidence.

But it's currently starting to look like Sundin with Centers ; a player monopolizing the discussion a little before its time.

Now : One can say Geoffrion is something of a poor man Richard. That is probably a good way to put it. And it's not a slight, at this point at least. Is the gap between Conacher linemates/support and Geoffrion linemates/support big enough to justify keeping Conacher ahead of Geoffrion ?

And does the fact Geoffrion had to split duties with a player who is already in (the first in this situation at this point) and was still productive kind of offset any advantage Geoffrion got by playing with Richard ? (Note : Geoffrion didn't get to lose power play time. AFAIK, he was deployed on D).

Edit : if some say that Geoffrion is a bit before it's time, my reply is that, depending on the answers, it could certainly affect Conacher, who finished 8th last round (thus, a plausible Top4).

 

[Hardyvan123]

You know what. I partially agree with you, but this is a debate on HoH princples and I don't see any point to bring it up or discuss it in this thread. For years. Again and again and again....

It's not based on principles but rather on how we evaluate and fairly compare players.

the VsX system is a good one but it simply doesn't account for the 2 vastly different talent streams pre 1980 and post 1990ish and we should account for that here when we are comparing players scoring rates.

To not do so hurts the project and it's overall credibility.

Furthermore scoring goals and points is the primary job of a winger, heck one can even claim that 90% of any players basic resume or selling feature here is production based so yes doing it as fairly and accurately as possible does matter.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

That's nice, but it doesn't look like very many people agree that's the right way to do it.

Yeah, at first glance it doesn't look like the outliers are being treated correctly. HV, did you go to the link TDMM provided and follow the method that is laid out or are you just guessing how you think it's done?

 

[unknown33]

It's not based on principles but rather on how we evaluate and fairly compare players.

It is. This is the same old talent pool discussion we've seen hundredth of times for the past years. The stance of most posters should be evident by now.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Yeah, at first glance it doesn't look like the outliers are being treated correctly. HV, did you go to the link TDMM provided and follow the method that is laid out or are you just guessing how you think it's done?

No I didn't go to the link and do it the exact way, for outliers)a couple of points up or down wouldn't matter anyways the points is that in a Candian to Canadian constant standard for all players Selannes number do increase (As do Jagr's BTW)

 

[Hardyvan123]

It is. This is the same old talent pool discussion we've seen hundredth of times for the past years. The stance of most posters should be evident by now.

Well yes it's a question that needs to be raised obviously still.

It's up to voters and onlookers of the project to decide for themselves on it's importance.

The context of the league for any 2 players we compare is important, the VsX system comes with comments about context for WW2, non NHL primes years but zero mention of the different landscapes and standards form 2 different eras.

 

[seventieslord]

Yeah, at first glance it doesn't look like the outliers are being treated correctly. HV, did you go to the link TDMM provided and follow the method that is laid out or are you just guessing how you think it's done?

It's not even the outliers, it's the whole "Canada is the common standard" drum beating that is the most annoying. The majority of us believe in comparing to a "best in the world" standard, which entails not punishing pre-1970 players for being the best in a world that didn't include a competitive USSR, Sweden and Czechoslovakia. Truly, the vsx system is already greatly in favour of players who played more recently, in a larger NHL, with more countries feeding it. Just look at any season from history and check the number of players who get a score of 50+, 60+, 70+, 80+ and you'll see. But we all know that no metric will ever satisfy hardyvan; it will never be as favourable to modern players as he wants it to be.

How about this one, hardy: (vsx 7 year score) - (1960 - year of birth)

i.e. player A born in 1930 with a vsx of 90 would then earn a score of 60. Player B with a vsx of 50 and a 1980 birthdate would earn an adjusted score of 70. Sound about right? Or does that not account for soviets or league size or whatever?

 

[MXD]

This is close to turn into a YAY or NAY affair.

 

[Hardyvan123]

It's not even the outliers, it's the whole "Canada is the common standard" drum beating that is the most annoying. The majority of us believe in comparing to a "best in the world" standard, which entails not punishing pre-1970 players for being the best in a world that didn't include a competitive USSR, Sweden and Czechoslovakia. Truly, the vsx system is already greatly in favour of players who played more recently, in a larger NHL, with more countries feeding it. Just look at any season from history and check the number of players who get a score of 50+, 60+, 70+, 80+ and you'll see. But we all know that no metric will ever satisfy hardyvan; it will never be as favourable to modern players as he wants it to be.

How about this one, hardy: (vsx 7 year score) - (1960 - year of birth)

i.e. player A born in 1930 with a vsx of 90 would then earn a score of 60. Player B with a vsx of 50 and a 1980 birthdate would earn an adjusted score of 70. Sound about right? Or does that not account for soviets or league size or whatever?

doing a fair and accurate comparison is annoying?

i'm not a mathematician but someone shoulk get one on here because the increase in the number of teams, ie top players on 1st line duties and PP time would more greatly explain the greater 50+, 60+, 70+, 80+ than any birthplace location or influx of elite tlaent.

Besides we aren't concerned about the group here but specific elite high end players and my criticism of the VsX system not accounting for the influx of elite talent stands and has yet to be accurately criticized as inaccurate.

simply put, yet once again, the VsX metric while being a good one, doesn't account at all for the influx of elite non traditional talent into the NHL and thus entirely different landscapes between it and the pre 80ish NHL.

To put some context of the two differences and variables in place can only strength the argument and make the metric more accurate in what it is trying to do (ie give a fair and accurate measurement of any players offense over time and era into a common metric or standardized context).

theh annoyance factor is puzzling though and seems to be more based on defending some stance like a university presser defending his thesis rather than any actual fairness in the process to all players.

The all to common call of "punishing the pre whatever players" is weak, compared to my suggestion of a more fair and accurate measurement for all players.

To punish any group is the problem here and for some reason it's failing to gain traction, when it's clear that a certain group does get "punished" by a metric.

That's for others to observe and comment on.

 

[Merya]

He has a 11 year gap between his Top 10 scoring finishes.

Err wut?

93 was a weird year, but Selänne didn't beat the Bossy record by just a couple. He beat it by more than twenty goals. You can twist and turn it any which way you want, but the margin is too big to have any debate on it.

Selänne also holds an oldman record, for being the only 35+ player to have consecutive 40+ goal seasons.

But well, Teemu hate has always been strong on HoH (except 2011 iirc), even more nowadays.

ps. All time goals and points leader in Olympics. Thats more games than some projected Crosby stats have beem.

pps. There is a definite Canadian bias here. Slightly lesser NA bias. Just FYI Finnish league was easily the 2nd best league in the world during the 90s. Check IFK roster from 98 for example or TPS from 95. It's quite frustrating rather often.

ppps. It's most evident when You rate coaches. That's really horrid.

 

[seventieslord]

doing a fair and accurate comparison is annoying?

Everyone is interested in doing a fair and accurate comparison; you just have a different idea of what that is, and very few people want to buy into it to the degree you have.

i'm not a mathematician but someone shoulk get one on here because the increase in the number of teams, ie top players on 1st line duties and PP time would more greatly explain the greater 50+, 60+, 70+, 80+ than any birthplace location or influx of elite tlaent.

Actually, league size has a lot to do with that, but that also correllates reasonably well with the influx of talent and does exactly what YOU would like it to do - reward players who played more recently.

Besides we aren't concerned about the group here but specific elite high end players and my criticism of the VsX system not accounting for the influx of elite talent stands and has yet to be accurately criticized as inaccurate.

actually, the fact that we're talking about top-end players is a good reason that we should disregard your way of thinking, not explore it more.

if we were comparing the 20th best player from 1930 to 1990, absolutely the guy in 1990 is better. if we're talking about 2nd or 3rd best players from these dates (which we are) then pool size becomes a lot less relevant.

simply put, yet once again, the VsX metric while being a good one, doesn't account at all for the influx of elite non traditional talent into the NHL and thus entirely different landscapes between it and the pre 80ish NHL.

sure it does. The standard is always the 2nd best scorer in the NHL (give or take) - this also more or less represents the 2nd best scorer in the world (almost certainly, anyway). And all players are compared to that standard, no matter when it is.

I mean, if your argument is that the 30-40 NHL-caliber european players in the 1970s were in the NHL and pushed 30-40 players down the pecking order, affecting their scores, I'd agree, but it has very little, if anything to do with the top end players.

To put some context of the two differences and variables in place can only strength the argument and make the metric more accurate in what it is trying to do (ie give a fair and accurate measurement of any players offense over time and era into a common metric or standardized context).

theh annoyance factor is puzzling though and seems to be more based on defending some stance like a university presser defending his thesis rather than any actual fairness in the process to all players.

The all to common call of "punishing the pre whatever players" is weak, compared to my suggestion of a more fair and accurate measurement for all players.

The idea of "a more fair and accurate measurement for all players" is just a thin veil. Some of us have been here long enough to see that.

To punish any group is the problem here and for some reason it's failing to gain traction, when it's clear that a certain group does get "punished" by a metric.

That's for others to observe and comment on.

That's really funny that you think vsx "punishes" modern players. It's literally funny. I don't even know what to say to it. My suggested formula for you was a bit of a joke, but I honestly wonder if you secretly loved it.