Round 2, Vote 3 (HOH Top Wingers)

[Hardyvan123]

Mr. Howe had 6 post season all-star selections (4 first team) after age 35. Selanne zip.

sure I never stated that Selanne was better than Howe but Howe's longevity has part of the reason as to why he is #1 but of course you are an elite guy.

but even as an elite guy you must appreciate Selanne's elite play right?

Goals scoring and international play specifically?

Or being 2nd in points in the NHL over a 5 year period?

Or 2nd overall to Jagr in his best 7 year run 94-95- 00-01

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=goals

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

sure I never stated that selanne was better thn howe but Howe's longevity ahs part of the reason as to why he is #1 but of course you are an elite guy.

but evena s an elite guy you msut apreicate Selannes elite play right?

Goals scoring and international play specifically?

Or bineg 2nd in points in the NHL over a 5 year period?

Or 2nd overall to Jagr in his best 7 year run 94-95- 00-01

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=goals

The link you provided has Selanne with 1 more point than Sakic in 29 more games over the time frame.

You can make any of these guys look good with a selective use of hockey reference searches, since very few players share the exact same prime years. For example, Geoffrion is second in scoring to Howe from 1951-52 to 1960-61: http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points. Sure, he has only 6 more points than Beliveau in 76 more games, but who cares?

For the record, I think Selanne was probably a slightly better regular season player than Geoffrion.

 

[MXD]

Gordie had no back to back 40+ goal seasons at 35+ either.

That's... Coffee-spillage material right there.

Howe had a 39 goals season, followed by a 44 goals season, at age 39 and 40.

Seasons were also 8 (for 39) and 6 (for 44) games shorter.

Selective statistics based on raw numbers across eras are about as useful as raw chicken : the former tends to have the same impact on analysis than the later has on the digestive system.

 

[MXD]

Also consider that in a top-heavy 6 team league Geoffrion gets lots more opportunity than Bathgate at bad teams. That is, Bathgate didn't get to play against the Rangers and Boom Boom didn't have to face the Canadiens.

That is... Certainly a point. Not that useful vs. Geoffrion (in that Geoffrion was in a tough context as well, with having to split opportunities with Richard, even if he did get powerplays with Richard).

Does have to be factored in vs. Mahovlich, others.

 

[MXD]

that's obvious the question is why? the term quotas come to mind.

 

[Hardyvan123]

The link you provided has Selanne with 1 more point than Sakic in 29 more games over the time frame.

You can make any of these guys look good with a selective use of hockey reference searches, since very few players share the exact same prime years. For example, Geoffrion is second in scoring to Howe from 1951-52 to 1960-61: http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points. Sure, he has only 6 more points than Beliveau in 76 more games, but who cares?

For the record, I think Selanne was probably a slightly better regular season player than Geoffrion.

Yes that would make Sakic the top Canadian scoring player over that time frame.

That's not a selective use of a reference, being the 2nd best in points in the NHL over any 7 year time frame is simply elite.


the thing is that Selanne has that rookie season as well and his post age 35 stuff on top of it.

We should expect guys looking for the top 4 this round to have that type of metric being 2nd overall in something over a 7 year period right?

Even more significant is the fact that all of the top 5 goal scorers in the NHL over that time frame were non Canadians and ironically the 6th and 7th guys were from BC yet another non NHL talent stream in the 06,, then we have

8 Shannahan
9 Amonte USA
10 Brett Hull BC
11 Plaffy Czech
12 Bure Russian
13 sundin Sweden
14 Fleury
15 Modano USA

So that's right 3 guys from BC, maybe it's just a statistical fluke that it happened that way and for the first 60 years of the NHL it produced only 21 significant NHL player in Patrick?

10 of the other top 15 goal scorers were non Canadians leaving just 2 Canadian guys from traditional sources and we are to believe that the VsX not accounting for this difference doesn't matter?

sorry but context does matter here.

 

[MXD]

...

So that's right 3 guys from BC, maybe it's just a statistical fluke that it happened that way and for the first 60 years of the NHL it produced only 21 significant NHL player in Patrick?

10 of the other top 15 goal scorers were non Canadians leaving just 2 Canadian guys from traditional sources and we are to believe that the VsX not accounting for this difference doesn't matter?

...

If anything, that's a pretty good argument in favor of the fact that the 90ies were not exactly an era of prime talent.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

ironically the 6th and 7th guys were from BC yet another non NHL talent stream in the 06,, then we have

Not the most elite bunch, but Lynn Patrick (HHOF) and John Ferguson were born in British Colombia.

http://www.quanthockey.com/nhl/province/nhl-players-born-in-british-columbia-career-stats.html

 

[Hardyvan123]

That's... Coffee-spillage material right there.

Howe had a 39 goals season, followed by a 44 goals season, at age 39 and 40.

Seasons were also 8 (for 39) and 6 (for 44) games shorter.

Selective statistics based on raw numbers across eras are about as useful as raw chicken : the former tends to have the same impact on analysis than the later has on the digestive system.

now I do think Howe was better than Selanne post 35, hell he was better than every player post 35 but here is an interesting thing about his age 40 season and the top scorers in the NHL that year

here are the ages of the top scorers in the NHL 68-69 (the year Howe was 40)

26
34
40 Howe
28
24
25
36
37
29
31
28
27
33
32
29
28
35
33
28
22

that's an awful lot of guys past their "rime age 30 years" or is the old adage it's easier to play long er today than it used to be maybe not are true as some people make it out to be here sometimes?

 

[Hardyvan123]

Not the most elite bunch, but Lynn Patrick (HHOF) and John Ferguson were born in British Colombia.

http://www.quanthockey.com/nhl/province/nhl-players-born-in-british-columbia-career-stats.html

So like ya over a 50 year time period in NHL history we have 2 guys and Ferguson is hardly elite and then bang 3 guys all in Selanne's prime?

Yes I think I see a slight difference here.

That's not even including the other 10 non Canadians in the top 15 in goals over that time period of 7 years.

i know it's to be expected (more teams ect but it's exponentially more than we would expect) but looking at the top scoring players from BC we see a real heavy representation of guys post 1980 and we can agree that it's night and day from the pre 1970ish era.

 

[Hardyvan123]

If anything, that's a pretty good argument in favor of the fact that the 90ies were not exactly an era of prime talent.

really 2 things to counter that are

1) Canada still doing pretty darn good internationally

2) man that's a real lack of respect for non Canadian goals scorers in the 90's and really there is no other way to say it.

 

[Rob Scuderi]

Point was that as QB of the PP, Bathgate was probably getting more assists and fewer goals than he would if he played up front. Geoffrion doesn't fit that profile, but he was more of the shooter up high with his innovative slap shot, while Harvey QBed the Montreal PP, so maybe that is why.

I think Bathgate got so many assists because he was a natural playmaker, but it gets messy because he also regularly used a slapshot like Geoffrion.

I always felt that making good passes was more important than how many goals you could get. At certain levels, you'd score, but when I played a year above my age range, I learned early that you move the puck and get in the open. I really enjoyed that and I built my career around puck movement rather than trying to be a big goal scorer.

Here's a direct comparison to Geoffrion in terms of shot power.

Bathgate was a clever playmaker who always seemed to find the right spot on the ice to work his magic. His hard shot was also compared to that of Bobby Hull and Bernie Geoffrion.

Known for his blazing, accurate shot, he was one of the first men to use the slapshot to overpower goaltenders. Bathgate was a creative playmaker on the ice and often did the unexpected, throwing off opposing defenders with imaginative feints and passes.

Whether stationary at the point or on the fly, Bathgate had one of the hardest slap shots in the game, but he also possessed an effective, accurate wrist shot and passed the puck with precision

Also since we're talking about Harvey boosting Bathgate in NY...

Last season [Doug Harvey] was a chief contributor to Geoffrion's scoring spree when he tied Rocket Richard's 50 goals.

If he could do that with Geoffrion what will be able to do with Andy Bathgate, the Ranger forward considered by many as the best shotmaker in hockey? Harvey figures to give Bathgate the direction he needs.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=KTc0AAAAIBAJ&sjid=TvUIAAAAIBAJ&pg=5416,78842

Prolific only when supported by Doug Harvey(1961-62 and 1962-63) and career year from Bill Gadsby(1958-59). Otherwise a shade better than Ed Litzenberger.

How are we explaining away the six other seasons he was a top five scorer?

Litzenberger finished 5, 5, 6 in his best seasons, and is somewhat anomalous in terms of all-time value considering his drop-off in production following the tragic car accident.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

10 Brett Hull BC

Hull was born in Ontario and grew up in Illionois.

Sakic and Kariya were indeed born in British Columbia

 

[Captain Bowie]

Going to look at comparing Geoffrion, Bathgate, Mahovlich and Conacher.

Conacher had a clear 6-year prime, consecutive years, and nothing of significance outside of that.

Bathgate had a fairly clear 9-year prime, consecutive years, while still being an effective player outside of that.

Mahovlich had a 6-year prime, consecutive years, followed by some "lesser" years and then a nice secondary prime if you will for another 5 years.

Geoffrion had an 8-year prime, consecutive, with a good year outside of that (Calder), but some injury years in there.

Goals| Games| Goals| GPG| Adj. Goals| Adj. GPG| 1st| Top 5| Top 10| Lead Team
Bernie Geoffrion| 883| 393| 0.45| 464| 0.53| 2| 6| 8| 3*
Charlie Conacher| 459| 225| 0.49| 393| 0.86| 5| 5| 5| 5
Frank Mahovlich| 1181| 533| 0.45| 550| 0.47| 0| 6| 8| 7**
Andy Bathgate| 1069| 349| 0.33| 394| 0.37| 0| 3| 7| 4

*Geoffrion tied with Richard 1 time.
**Mahovlich tied with Ron Ellis 1 time.

Points| Games| Points| PPG| Adj. P| Adj. PPG| 1st| Top 5| Top 10| Lead Team
Bernie Geoffrion| 883| 822| 0.93| 982| 1.11| 2| 3| 7| 2
Charlie Conacher| 459| 398| 0.87| 792| 1.72| 2| 5| 5| 3
Frank Mahovlich| 1181| 1103| 0.93| 1146| 0.97| 0| 3| 7| 5
Andy Bathgate| 1069| 973| 0.91| 1113| 1.04| 1| 9| 9| 10

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Going to look at comparing Geoffrion, Bathgate, Mahovlich and Conacher.

Conacher had a clear 6-year prime, consecutive years, and nothing of significance outside of that.

Bathgate had a fairly clear 9-year prime, consecutive years, while still being an effective player outside of that.

Mahovlich had a 6-year prime, consecutive years, followed by some "lesser" years and then a nice secondary prime if you will for another 5 years.

Geoffrion had an 8-year prime, consecutive, with a good year outside of that (Calder), but some injury years in there.

Goals| Games| Goals| GPG| Adj. Goals| Adj. GPG| 1st| Top 5| Top 10| Lead Team
Bernie Geoffrion| 883| 393| 0.45| 464| 0.53| 2| 6| 8| 3*
Charlie Conacher| 459| 225| 0.49| 393| 0.86| 5| 5| 5| 5
Frank Mahovlich| 1181| 533| 0.45| 550| 0.47| 0| 6| 8| 7**
Andy Bathgate| 1069| 349| 0.33| 394| 0.37| 0| 3| 7| 4

*Geoffrion tied with Richard 1 time.
**Mahovlich tied with Ron Ellis 1 time.

Points| Games| Points| PPG| Adj. P| Adj. PPG| 1st| Top 5| Top 10| Lead Team
Bernie Geoffrion| 883| 822| 0.93| 982| 1.11| 2| 3| 7| 2
Charlie Conacher| 459| 398| 0.87| 792| 1.72| 2| 5| 5| 3
Frank Mahovlich| 1181| 1103| 0.93| 1146| 0.97| 0| 3| 7| 5
Andy Bathgate| 1069| 973| 0.91| 1113| 1.04| 1| 9| 9| 10

You're calculating their adjusted "per game" averages incorrectly, which is why Charlie Conacher's look so comically high. Hockey-reference's adjusted points formula adjusts every player's point totals to an 82 game season: http://www.hockey-reference.com/about/adjusted_stats.html, while the actual seasons when Conacher played were only 48 games long.

So you are dividing a number that is supposed to represent what he would have scored had he played 82 games (in a similar scoring environment to today) by the number of games he actually played in a 48 game season.

Pretty common mistake and one I've made in the past.

VsX is a superior metric to adjusted points for star players, anyway, in my opinion

 

[Captain Bowie]

You're calculating their adjusted "per game" averages incorrectly, which is why Charlie Conacher's look so comically high. Hockey-reference's adjusted points formula adjusts every player's point totals to an 82 game season: http://www.hockey-reference.com/about/adjusted_stats.html, while the actual seasons when Conacher played were only 48 games long.

So you are dividing a number that is supposed to represent what he would have scored had he played 82 games (in a similar scoring environment to today) by the number of games he actually played in a 48 game season.

Pretty common mistake and one I've made in the past.

VsX is a superior metric to adjusted points for star players, anyway, in my opinion

I can't believe I never realized that. I just figured they completely over adjusted the early era guys.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Andy Bathgate - regular season statistical dominance vs potential weaknesses

Regular season = one of the best available this round

Andy Bathgate's name stuck out like a sore thumb last round on those tables relating to regular season performance I've been posting every round. Regardless of whether you look at Vs-X, Top 5/10 finishes, or Hart voting, Bathgate looks like a player who should have been available LAST round.

Indeed, depending on how you weigh various factors, you can make an argument for any of Bathgate, Lindsay, or Ovechkin as the best regular season player available this round.

Does that mean Bathgate should be voted in the top 4 this round? Maybe.

Maybe not, however - he does have two potential weaknesses - playoffs and his failure to fit into a more defensive system in Toronto. I shall examine these two potential weaknesses further in this post.

Playoffs = Bathgate scored goals at his normal rate, but struggled to pick up assists, whether he played for a relatively weak team (the Rangers) or a good one (Toronto/Detroit)

The criticism: Bathgate scored 729 points in 719 regular season games (1.01 PPG) but only 35 points in 54 playoffs games (0.65 PPG), a tremendous decline during a rare era when scoring generally did not decline in the playoffs.

The more nuanced look: Bathgate continued to score goals in the playoffs at his normal rate, but couldn't buy assists.

His goal scoring went from 272 in 719 regular season games (0.38 GPG) to 21 in 54 playoff games (0.39 GPG), effectively scoring goals at the same rate in the playoffs as the regular season.

But his assist totals fell off a cliff. He went from 457 assists in 719 regular season games (0.64 APG) to just 14 assists in 54 playoff games (0.26 APG), a tremendous decline.

Possible theories - Bathgate was just fine in the playoffs, but the teammates he was passing to were monumental chokers. Bathgate's assist totals tended to rely on the powerplay (where he played the point), and there are fewer powerplays in the playoffs (this one should be able to be tested with the proper data). Any other ideas?

A look at the actual seasons he made the playoffs

New York:

Bathgate's Rangers were a generally terrible team, only making the playoffs 4 times in his 9 full seasons with the club - 1956, 1957, 1958, and then in 1962 after trading for Doug Harvey. Combined, those 4 seasons, Bathgate played 275 regular season games, scoring 104 goals (0.38 GPG) and 201 assists (0.73) for 305 points (1.11 PPG). In the playoffs, he played only 22 games, scoring 9 goals (0.41 GPG) and 7 assists (0.32 APG) for 16 points (0.73 PPG). Very small sample size, but again we see that his goal scoring remained constant, while his assists dropped like a rock in the playoffs.

Toronto/Detroit:

Bathgate was traded to the Leafs, winners of the last 2 Cups, and helped them win a 3rd in a row in 1964, despite never really fitting into their defensive system. His 9 points in 14 playoff games tied him for 5th on the team in scoring, but his 5 goals tied him for 1st (see a trend?) http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/TOR/1964.html

In 1965, Bathgate had a terrible playoffs, scoring a single goal and no assists as the Leafs were eliminated in 6 games. He was then traded to Detroit and had a pretty good final playoffs in 1966, reaching the finals, scoring 6 goals (tied for 1st) with only 2 assists.

Overall Bathgate stats Toronto/Detroit 1964-1966: 140 regular season games played, 34 goals (0.24 GPG), 76 assists (0.54 APG), 110 points (0.79 PPG). 32 playoff games played, 12 goals (0.38 GPG), 7 assists (0.22 GPG), 19 points (0.59 PPG). Another small sample, but even with good teams, Bathgate's goal scoring in the playoffs was fine (actually rising from his regular season numbers when he appeared to be in decline), while his assist totals fell off sharply.

Criticism from his ex-teammate in Toronto

Despite winning the Cup in 1964 with Bathgate, Dave Keon believed that Bathgate was a poor fit for Toronto's defensive system and that trading all-round players Dick Duff and Bob Nevin for Bathgate was the beginning of the end for Toronto's run:

The four Stanley Cup championships in the 60’s came with a downside, as far as Keon is concerned. 1964 will be forever remembered by Leafs fans for Bobby Baun’s overtime goal, scored on a broken ankle, against Detroit – however the man who wore #14 sees the year as a turning point for the organization. “I believe the trade of Bob Nevin and Dick Duff for Andy Bathgate was the start of the slide,” offered Keon. “If they had stayed, it would not have taken us 14 games to win the Cup. It was hard for Bathgate to play within our system.”

http://robyn14.tripod.com/davekeon/news.html

 

[Killion]

^^^ Huh. Nice find TDMM. Never read that before, bit with Keon on Bathgate.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I can't believe I never realized that. I just figured they completely over adjusted the early era guys.

It's an issue with H-R's presentation of data. They present actual games played side by side with adjusted seasonal totals, when they should also be presenting adjusted games played. You can calculate adjusted games played yourself (actual games played / total available games that season * 82), but it's annoying

^^^ Huh. Nice find TDMM. Never read that before, bit with Keon on Bathgate.

Thanks. Forget where I first saw it, but I've been aware of the quote for awhile now. That website I quoted is a great source for articles on Keon, by the way.

 

[sr edler]

Yes, with same criteria as it's given in NHL. Most valuable player to their team.

What is this? You can't compare a 82 game regular season to a 6 game Olympic tournament... Then why didn't Grabner get the MVP? He was probably more influential to his team, percentage wise, than Selänne... Fact is though Selänne didn't even have the most points on his own team, his center Granlund did while also playing in his own zone. Again, on a team that didn't reach the gold medal game. That's basically the same scenario that happened in the 90s & 00s with Koivu. Selänne being selected to the most valuable player in the last Olympics over Doughty or someone else is truly phony and obviously has a fair amount of nostalgia and "politics" in it. If I got the MVP like that myself I would probably even feel a bit embarrassed about it.

 

[quoipourquoi]

What is this? You can't compare a 82 game regular season to a 6 game Olympic tournament... Then why didn't Grabner get the MVP? He was probably more influential to his team, percentage wise, than Selänne... Fact is though Selänne didn't even have the most points on his own team, his center Granlund did while also playing in his own zone. Again, on a team that didn't reach the gold medal game. That's basically the same scenario that happened in the 90s & 00s with Koivu. Selänne being selected to the most valuable player in the last Olympics over Doughty or someone else is truly phony and obviously has a fair amount of nostalgia and "politics" in it. If I got the MVP like that myself I would probably even feel a bit embarrassed about it.

Selanne was the leading scorer of the playoff round with both of Finland's tie-breaking GWGs over the much more favored teams of Russia and the United States. Both he and Granlund were tournament All-Stars - just like Koivu was often a tournament All-Star playing with Selanne.

2014 on its own isn't particularly special - but it is part of a larger trend of Teemu Selanne being consistently one of the very best international players, which along with the playoff numbers from his seven best regular seasons (19 goals/27 points in 27 games on teams that went 8-19) and being the top scorer in the playoffs among the Ducks for their deep runs of 2006 and 2007 (5 more points than the next best player) flies in the face of his reputation as a player that wilted under pressure.

You don't have to agree with every award he's received or agree with every award he didn't receive to see the larger picture: his performance in pressure games is greater than his reputation on HOH - which usually ranged somewhere between having no value outside of being a marquee name and making Joe Thornton look like Maurice Richard.

He should probably land close to Geoffrion. Selanne was the better regular season performer, Geoffrion was the better playoff performer, and Selanne has a tremendous best-on-best resume - which doesn't seem to get the same attention for NHL players as it does for non-NHL players. I think getting hung up on removing non-Canadian players, calling an MVP award an embarrassment, trying to compare him to Gordie Howe, and asking to justify his ranking above non-eligible players is all pretty eye roll worthy.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

and asking to justify his ranking above non-eligible players is all pretty eye roll worthy.

We don't have any Scottie Bowmans, Bob McKenzies, or Milt Dunnells on our panel. The THN Top 100 of 1998 got its credibility by the names of the panelists. This project gets its credibility by the documentation involved - the discussions and the research. So no, it is not "eye roll worthy" for it to be documented why Selanne should be ranked higher than 2 players he is commonly compared to. It would help someone reading this thread two years from now understand why he is ranked where he is.

Anyway, you basically did this in an earlier post, but it can be done without taking shots at the process.

 

[quoipourquoi]

We don't have any Scottie Bowmans, Bob McKenzies, or Milt Dunnells on our panel. The THN Top 100 of 1998 got its credibility by the names of the panelists. This project gets its credibility by the documentation involved - the discussions and the research. So no, it is not "eye roll worthy" for it to be documented why Selanne should be ranked higher than 2 players he is commonly compared to. It would help someone reading this thread two years from now understand why he is ranked where he is.

Anyway, you basically did this in an earlier post, but it can be done without taking shots at the process.

I'm not taking shots at the process. The process has always been to respect natural breaks and discuss eligible players. Kurri and Hull will be compared to Selanne when they're eligible, whether he's already on the list or not.

Comparing them now doesn't tell anyone where Selanne is relative to Geoffrion, Bathgate, and Kharlamov.

 

[MXD]

Does Conacher 6 years prime (with maybe one other significant season) is more impressive, on a quantitative basis at least, than Geoffrion 8 year prime (with 2 other significant seasons) ? Sure, 6.5 is lower than 9, but was it more common in Conacher's era for a player to have such a short prime ?

Some Conacher contemporaries had long careers. Shore is one, but were already way past that standard. Joliat, who is IMO in The ballpark, did have a significant career about twice as long. Sure, the peak ain't the same, and that is why Conacher is up for voting now (and Joliat isn't).

Otherwise, players like Hooley Smith and Nels Stewart did have long careers as well, and were certainly significant also in their non-prime, something Conacher wasn't.

Also, it wasn't uncommon for a forward to be moved to D at some point for whatever reason, declining of footspeed being one of them. Goodfellow, Seibert and Clapper were all in that boat - and its interesting to note that Clapper is one of these players that is probably roughly in Conacher's ballpark. Is there something to infer of Conacher being not moved to D ?

 

[ted2019]

Is there anyway top compare the following?

Bathgate: What happened after He left the Rangers? His career picked up after going to the Penguins. Is that because They were an expansion team and He played 1st line minutes?

Conacher: I have the same question about Conacher as I did with Bathgate. Better stretch then Bathgate, but His career took a nosedive suddenly. Better award record then Bathgate.

Selanne: Seemed to have 2 or even 3 careers. Also had a strange award career that seemed to be all over the map.

Geoffrion: Great player, but as great as He was, the individual hardware seems a bit lacking. The best playoff performer in the group. Does that make Him the top dog out of this 4?