Round 2, Vote 5 (2009 update)

[Dark Shadows]

Sources please.

Other than Legends of Hockey, my sources are newspaper clippings which I looked up at the library, not linkable sources.

I am sure I posted them, or referenced them last time the big Doug vs Max topic came up.

Granted it is speculation on my part and perhaps I worded that badly. But Doug is the member of that line that is consistently praised in the clippings (And on Legends of Hockey)for his two way backchecking and defensive work, while Max is the guy praised for his outstanding offensive skills and his two way play is not mentioned. When he went to Toronto, a more defensive oriented team, his numbers on average were lower.

Another reason I rank Max and Doug a bit lower is that their best efforts came in a diluted time in NHL history. This is eased somewhat by the fact that both missed 1-2 years during this diluted war era. But would they have lead the league in scoring if many great players were not off serving?

 

[overpass]

No, I didn't. Read it again.

If comparing points finishes between a pre-1940 player and a post-1940 player you must account for the scarcity of assists before 1940.

It seems to me that assists may have been legitimately less important before 1940, and that's why they were handed out less. For example, in a league where the forward pass is prohibited, goals will be mainly scored by individual rushes rather than team passing plays.

In Boucher's case, however, it's possible that scorekeepers were slow to adjust to the changing style of play that came with forward passing, and didn't hand out enough assists. I'm not knowledgeable enough about the style of hockey of this period to say how many assists there should have been to reflect contributions to scoring.

 

[seventieslord]

It seems to me that assists may have been legitimately less important before 1940, and that's why they were handed out less. For example, in a league where the forward pass is prohibited, goals will be mainly scored by individual rushes rather than team passing plays.

In Boucher's case, however, it's possible that scorekeepers were slow to adjust to the changing style of play that came with forward passing, and didn't hand out enough assists. I'm not knowledgeable enough about the style of hockey of this period to say how many assists there should have been to reflect contributions to scoring.

It was mainly that second assists were rarely handed out, if ever.

Our safest assumption is that if assists were handed out at a rate similar to other eras, the leaderboards for assists would look the same, only multiplied by some factor (I think around 1.5)

The points leaderboards, therefore, would be different.

Boucher's 2, 3, 3, 4, 6, 6, 7, 10 in the points race adjust to 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 4, 4, 7 because as a playmaker his point totals don't fully reflect his abilities.

Conversely, Charlie Conacher's 1, 1, 3, 4, 4 become 1, 1, 5, 6, 7. Nels Stewart's 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 adjust to 3, 5, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, DNP, DNP. Their point totals overstated them as balanced offensive machines because goals were easier to get than assists.

However, Max Bentley's 1, 1, 3, 5, 5 adjust to exactly that - 1, 1, 3, 5, 5, because by his time, assists were given out at a rate very similar to today's rate.

* I know you understand this, I'm just explaining for everyone.

 

[pappyline]

Other than Legends of Hockey, my sources are newspaper clippings which I looked up at the library, not linkable sources.

I am sure I posted them, or referenced them last time the big Doug vs Max topic came up.

Granted it is speculation on my part and perhaps I worded that badly. But Doug is the member of that line that is consistently praised in the clippings (And on Legends of Hockey)for his two way backchecking and defensive work, while Max is the guy praised for his outstanding offensive skills and his two way play is not mentioned. When he went to Toronto, a more defensive oriented team, his numbers on average were lower.

Another reason I rank Max and Doug a bit lower is that their best efforts came in a diluted time in NHL history. This is eased somewhat by the fact that both missed 1-2 years during this diluted war era. But would they have lead the league in scoring if many great players were not off serving?

Legends really isn't a good source And you made an erroneous statement based on it. Without looking at it, I expect they made some offhand comment on Doug's defensive play & mentioned nothing about Max's. But I betcha they say lots about Max's offensive skills. Ii don't think you quoted any nespaper articlles at the time. I do remember someone quoting their grandfather (raleh maybe?) who saw both Bentley's play & he remembered Max as the superior player.

As far as the Bentley's be products of the war year, I would disagree. Max missed 2 & Doug 1 prime season because of the war. Plus they had great seasons post war. Most notably 48-49 for Doug & 50-51 for Max.

 

[seventieslord]

Max missed 2 & Doug 1 prime season because of the war. Plus they had great seasons post war

That is all true, but as Sturminator, the very knowledgeable champion of ATDs 10 and 11 has demonstrated in the past, the NHL wasn't exactly a high-competition league in the 1946, 47, and 48 seasons. It took a while to recover from the effects of the war, perhaps due to the weakening of the population base that fed hockey's talent pool. If you look at the top-10 and top-20 lists from those three seasons you see a ton of players who didn't hang on much longer, or settled into niches as role players shortly after.

The great seasons that the Bentleys had, when you consider when they occurred, don't really indicate that they are top-50 players. However, the gap we had between the two of them last time was madness.

 

[pappyline]

That is all true, but as Sturminator, the very knowledgeable champion of ATDs 10 and 11 has demonstrated in the past, the NHL wasn't exactly a high-competition league in the 1946, 47, and 48 seasons. It took a while to recover from the effects of the war, perhaps due to the weakening of the population base that fed hockey's talent pool. If you look at the top-10 and top-20 lists from those three seasons you see a ton of players who didn't hang on much longer, or settled into niches as role players shortly after.

The great seasons that the Bentleys had, when you consider when they occurred, don't really indicate that they are top-50 players. However, the gap we had between the two of them last time was madness.

Boy, you don't want to give the Bentley's credit for anything, do you. Were 48-49 & 50-51 low competition years as well? You seem to be sniping at all their accomplishments to prove a point that really can't be proven.

Hey, I was the ATD 9 winner. Isn't my opinion worth something?

 

[overpass]

It was mainly that second assists were rarely handed out, if ever.

Our safest assumption is that if assists were handed out at a rate similar to other eras, the leaderboards for assists would look the same, only multiplied by some factor (I think around 1.5)

The points leaderboards, therefore, would be different.

If a lack of second assists is the main issue, I don't think it's accurate to use a constant multiplier on assists to fill in the missing second assists.

Second assists are different from first assists, as they seem to be less of a skill. Playmakers will get more second assists than goal scorers, but to a lesser degree than the gap in first assists.

For example, here are the goals, first assists, and second assists for Bobby Hull and Stan Mikita from 1960-61 to 1968-69 (from the Hockey Summary Project data).

Hull: 402 goals, 179 first assists, 137 second assists
Mikita: 277 goals, 292 first assists, 172 second assists.

Mikita has 59% as many second assists as first assists, while Hull has 77% as many second assists as first assists. If we had no second assist data for Mikita and Hull and wished to estimate it using their first assists and a constant multiplier, we would overestimate Mikita's second assists and underestimate Hull's second assists, simply because playmaking tendencies don't show through as strongly on second assists.

I agree that we should account for the missing assists in the 1930s, and Boucher would likely get a boost on the points leaderboard, but I think using a constant multiplier on all assists would overrate his playmaking and scoring.

 

[JaymzB]

It was mainly that second assists were rarely handed out, if ever.

Our safest assumption is that if assists were handed out at a rate similar to other eras, the leaderboards for assists would look the same, only multiplied by some factor (I think around 1.5)

The points leaderboards, therefore, would be different.

Boucher's 2, 3, 3, 4, 6, 6, 7, 10 in the points race adjust to 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 4, 4, 7 because as a playmaker his point totals don't fully reflect his abilities.

Conversely, Charlie Conacher's 1, 1, 3, 4, 4 become 1, 1, 5, 6, 7. Nels Stewart's 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 adjust to 3, 5, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, DNP, DNP. Their point totals overstated them as balanced offensive machines because goals were easier to get than assists.

However, Max Bentley's 1, 1, 3, 5, 5 adjust to exactly that - 1, 1, 3, 5, 5, because by his time, assists were given out at a rate very similar to today's rate.

* I know you understand this, I'm just explaining for everyone.

Maybe I missed it, but what season does Boucher lead the NHL in scoring if everyone’s assists are multiplied by 1.5? From what I can tell, using that formula gives him 5 seasons where he scored more than the “Real†points leader (28/29, 29/30, 30/31, 33/34, 34/35), but after doing a very quick check, I found at least 1 player who scored more when applying the same assists multiplier?

The players I found who scored more with the new points system are:

28/29: Ace Bailey 37pts, Boucher 34pts
29/30: Cooney Weiland 87 pts, Boucher 80pts
30/31: Howie Morenz: 62.5 pts, Boucher 52.5pts
33/34: Charlie Conacher: 62pts, Boucher 59pts
34/35: Charlie Conacher: 67.5pts, Boucher 61pts

Did I miss another year?

 

[seventieslord]

Boy, you don't want to give the Bentley's credit for anything, do you. Were 48-49 & 50-51 low competition years as well? You seem to be sniping at all their accomplishments to prove a point that really can't be proven.

No, 48-49 and 50-51 were not low competition years. But it could be said that those were the only seasons they really dominated that can't be somewhat discredited.

I have nothing against the Bentleys, but I still see a number of players with better offensive records and most of them bring more to the table than Max apparently did.

Hey, I was the ATD 9 winner. Isn't my opinion worth something?

Don't get me wrong; I don't mean to say that anyone's opinion means more than anyone else's due to voted-on criteria. But I remember that the information Sturminator posted was fact-based and very convincing.

If a lack of second assists is the main issue, I don't think it's accurate to use a constant multiplier on assists to fill in the missing second assists.

Second assists are different from first assists, as they seem to be less of a skill. Playmakers will get more second assists than goal scorers, but to a lesser degree than the gap in first assists.

For example, here are the goals, first assists, and second assists for Bobby Hull and Stan Mikita from 1960-61 to 1968-69 (from the Hockey Summary Project data).

Hull: 402 goals, 179 first assists, 137 second assists
Mikita: 277 goals, 292 first assists, 172 second assists.

Mikita has 59% as many second assists as first assists, while Hull has 77% as many second assists as first assists. If we had no second assist data for Mikita and Hull and wished to estimate it using their first assists and a constant multiplier, we would overestimate Mikita's second assists and underestimate Hull's second assists, simply because playmaking tendencies don't show through as strongly on second assists.

I agree that we should account for the missing assists in the 1930s, and Boucher would likely get a boost on the points leaderboard, but I think using a constant multiplier on all assists would overrate his playmaking and scoring.

You are right that using a constant multiplier would not be exactly correct. Good job on the numbers, by the way. They don't lie.

I'm not sure what "middle ground" can really be achieved in this regard.

In other words, players with more assists tend to have a higher proportion of first assists and players with less tend to have a higher proportion of second assists?

I don't know of a formula that would ever account for that. In the meantime, the systems used by hockey reference and Total Hockey aren't bad.

Maybe I missed it, but what season does Boucher lead the NHL in scoring if everyone’s assists are multiplied by 1.5? From what I can tell, using that formula gives him 5 seasons where he scored more than the “Real†points leader (28/29, 29/30, 30/31, 33/34, 34/35), but after doing a very quick check, I found at least 1 player who scored more when applying the same assists multiplier?

The players I found who scored more with the new points system are:

28/29: Ace Bailey 37pts, Boucher 34pts
29/30: Cooney Weiland 87 pts, Boucher 80pts
30/31: Howie Morenz: 62.5 pts, Boucher 52.5pts
33/34: Charlie Conacher: 62pts, Boucher 59pts
34/35: Charlie Conacher: 67.5pts, Boucher 61pts

Did I miss another year?

No, you didn't miss a year, you missed that I went and did all the work and found the same things you did, then realized that hockey-reference.com would already have those figures. Check out Boucher's page.

The discrepancy is basically because 1.5 was just a rough guess on my part, and the factor they actually use changed from year to year. Go with their figures; not mine/yours.

 

[pappyline]

Yes, of course, let's look only at top-5s since the only time Max was in the top-10 was his times in the top-5. Let's ignore Boucher's 6, 6, 7, 10 because those weren't superstar seasons. 5th? Superstar. 6th, 7th? drop it from the discussion.

I should have had a in my post because as I said, I was trying to make the point that the the data cut-offs one uses can lead to different conclusions. And all data cut-offs are arbitrary.

No, 48-49 and 50-51 were not low competition years. But it could be said that those were the only seasons they really dominated that can't be somewhat discredited.

I have nothing against the Bentleys, but I still see a number of players with better offensive records and most of them bring more to the table than Max apparently did.



The discrepancy is basically because 1.5 was just a rough guess on my part, and the factor they actually use changed from year to year. Go with their figures; not mine/yours.

My point was that if the Bentleys could put up high point totals in their declining years than it proves they could also do it in their prime years.

I won't comment further on your 1.5 assist factor. I will let you and the other numbers guys work that out.

I pay attention to the numbers but also do a lot of reading & base my rankings mainly on what I have read on players that I never saw. It is very difficult to compare eras but based on what I have read, I will take Bentley over Boucher.

You have changed my opinion somewhat as I now have a higher ranking for boucher but I still take Max over him. For you to say "Boucher should easily top Bentley" is not even close to being right.

Anyway, we are not going to change each others opinion.

 

[seventieslord]

I should have had a in my post because as I said, I was trying to make the point that the the data cut-offs one uses can lead to different conclusions. And all data cut-offs are arbitrary.



My point was that if the Bentleys could put up high point totals in their declining years than it proves they could also do it in their prime years.

I won't comment further on your 1.5 assist factor. I will let you and the other numbers guys work that out.

I pay attention to the numbers but also do a lot of reading & base my rankings mainly on what I have read on players that I never saw. It is very difficult to compare eras but based on what I have read, I will take Bentley over Boucher.

You have changed my opinion somewhat as I now have a higher ranking for boucher but I still take Max over him. For you to say "Boucher should easily top Bentley" is not even close to being right.

Anyway, we are not going to change each others opinion.

Some opinions should be consensus. Everyone agrees Marcel Dionne is not as good as Wayne Gretzky. Some things will never have total agreement. Bentley and Boucher would fall into that category. I'm comfortable saying that the majority of those who really looks at who dominated their era to a greater degree would pick Boucher.

 

[pappyline]

Some opinions should be consensus. Everyone agrees Marcel Dionne is not as good as Wayne Gretzky. Some things will never have total agreement. Bentley and Boucher would fall into that category. I'm comfortable saying that the majority of those who really looks at who dominated their era to a greater degree would pick Boucher.

Well, we will let the voters decide.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Second Assist

If a lack of second assists is the main issue, I don't think it's accurate to use a constant multiplier on assists to fill in the missing second assists.

Second assists are different from first assists, as they seem to be less of a skill. Playmakers will get more second assists than goal scorers, but to a lesser degree than the gap in first assists.

For example, here are the goals, first assists, and second assists for Bobby Hull and Stan Mikita from 1960-61 to 1968-69 (from the Hockey Summary Project data).

Hull: 402 goals, 179 first assists, 137 second assists
Mikita: 277 goals, 292 first assists, 172 second assists.

Mikita has 59% as many second assists as first assists, while Hull has 77% as many second assists as first assists. If we had no second assist data for Mikita and Hull and wished to estimate it using their first assists and a constant multiplier, we would overestimate Mikita's second assists and underestimate Hull's second assists, simply because playmaking tendencies don't show through as strongly on second assists.

I agree that we should account for the missing assists in the 1930s, and Boucher would likely get a boost on the points leaderboard, but I think using a constant multiplier on all assists would overrate his playmaking and scoring.

A word of caution about second assists. Never assume that they were recorded in the same fashion from arena to arena.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

#1 Vladislav Tretiak

#2 Brad Park

#3 Boom Boom Geoffrion

#4 Chris Chelios

#5 Frank Mahovlich

#6 Joe Malone

#7 Paul Coffey

#8 Marcel Dionne

#9 Bill Durnan

#10 Pierre Pilote

#11 Charlie Conacher

#12 Andy Bathgate

#13 Tim Horton

#14 Frank Boucher

#15 Max Bentley

I'm surprised Bathgate is that low on your list.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Chris Chelios Defensive Impact

After Chris Chelios was traded by the Canadiens to the Chicago Blackhawks before the start of the 1990-91 season the Hawks saw a dramatic improvement in their goals against. During the 1989-90 season the Hawks allowed 294 goals. During the 1990-91 season with Chris Chelios minus Denis Savard they allowed 211 goals, a difference of 83 goals or ~ one goal per game.

BTW the Canadiens during the 1990-91 season without Chelios allowed only 15 more goals than they did the previous year with Chelios.

 

[MXD]

After Chris Chelios was traded by the Canadiens to the Chicago Blackhawks before the start of the 1990-91 season the Hawks saw a dramatic improvement in their goals against. During the 1989-90 season the Hawks allowed 294 goals. During the 1990-91 season with Chris Chelios minus Denis Savard they allowed 211 goals, a difference of 83 goals or ~ one goal per game.

BTW the Canadiens during the 1990-91 season without Chelios allowed only 15 more goals than they did the previous year with Chelios.

Look, it's not that I disagree that Chelios had an impact on the Hawks defense, but the Hawks used a guy name Cloutier as their regular tender in 89-90. Belfour was the go-to-guy in 90-91, which reprensents a slight improvement.

 

[pappyline]

A word of caution about second assists. Never assume that they were recorded in the same fashion from arena to arena.

Of course. The well known plot to deprive the rocket of an Art ross.

 

[seventieslord]

Of course. The well known plot to deprive the rocket of an Art ross.

Someone had to say it!

After Chris Chelios was traded by the Canadiens to the Chicago Blackhawks before the start of the 1990-91 season the Hawks saw a dramatic improvement in their goals against. During the 1989-90 season the Hawks allowed 294 goals. During the 1990-91 season with Chris Chelios minus Denis Savard they allowed 211 goals, a difference of 83 goals or ~ one goal per game.

BTW the Canadiens during the 1990-91 season without Chelios allowed only 15 more goals than they did the previous year with Chelios.

Chelios had an impact, no doubt, but a Vezina and Calder winning goalie named Ed Belfour had a ton to do with it too.

If some scrub won the Vezina with the hawks that year and then faded into obscurity you could give Chelios all the credit. But Belfour proved he was an excellent, top-5 goalie everywhere he went.

 

[overpass]

Look, it's not that I disagree that Chelios had an impact on the Hawks defense, but the Hawks used a guy name Cloutier as their regular tender in 89-90. Belfour was the go-to-guy in 90-91, which reprensents a slight improvement.

In fact, the Hawks faced slighly more shots and were shorthanded more often in 90-91, suggesting that goaltending was responsible for most, if not all, of the improvement.

 

[Stonefly]

In fact, the Hawks faced slighly more shots and were shorthanded more often in 90-91, suggesting that goaltending was responsible for most, if not all, of the improvement.

Any idea how many goals were scored while Chelios was in the box for close to 200 minutes? Would be interesting to see a comparison of some players with that kind of data. How costly were the penalties they took type of thing. Not necessarily for this threads purposes but just as a general point of interest.

 

[seventieslord]

I'm not sure players should be penalized for what happens when they're in the box per se, but giving the other team a powerplay should be considered detrimental.

In other words, I am not interested in who was lucky enough to take 15 penalties and watch their team kill them all off or who was unlucky enough to take just 3 penalties but cost their team a goal each time.

Based on standard PP efficiency, you take 5 minors, you cost your team, on average, one goal.

 

[marc-edouard grier]

I'm not sure players should be penalized for what happens when they're in the box per se, but giving the other team a powerplay should be considered detrimental.

In other words, I am not interested in who was lucky enough to take 15 penalties and watch their team kill them all off or who was unlucky enough to take just 3 penalties but cost their team a goal each time.

Based on standard PP efficiency, you take 5 minors, you cost your team, on average, one goal.

Good point, but shouldn't this be based on something like how good the team is at killing penalties? I would figure that would factor somewhat in how a team would take penalties; i.e., if the team is utter crap at penalty killing, the coach may make it a higher priority to play a cleaner game, whereas a team with a high PK clip could play a riskier style, so the relative gain from the dirty/borderline play may negate the detriment on the PK?

Doubt it would be a terribly large factor, and the small sample size of PK opportunities per team would probably give this a significant luck component, but may be interesting to look at.

 

[Dark Shadows]

Legends really isn't a good source And you made an erroneous statement based on it.

I happen to think legends of Hockey is a very reliable source. Any reasons why you think Otherwise?

Without looking at it, I expect they made some offhand comment on Doug's defensive play & mentioned nothing about Max's. But I betcha they say lots about Max's offensive skills. Ii don't think you quoted any nespaper articlles at the time. I do remember someone quoting their grandfather (raleh maybe?) who saw both Bentley's play & he remembered Max as the superior player.

Both Raleh and I spoke with relatives regarding Max and Doug, and that was a big reason I rate Max ahead of Doug now. But the relative I spoke with praised Doug's defensive ability, while claiming Max did not focus on that aspect of the game, even when with Toronto. Raleh's grandfather spoke the same praise regarding Doug's backchecking, but was shocked when Raleh told him their offensive numbers were comparable.

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=551288

As far as the Bentley's be products of the war year, I would disagree. Max missed 2 & Doug 1 prime season because of the war. Plus they had great seasons post war. Most notably 48-49 for Doug & 50-51 for Max.

Its not like I am implying they were nobodies because of the war. I am merely stating an obvious fact. The years in which they had their greatest offensive numbers were diluted, and its likely had the league been full and well, that their 1st place finishes might be 2nd or 3rd, and their 3rd place finishes might be a bit lower as well.

On top of that, both had relatively short careers.

in the end, i rank them both lower as a result.

 

[FissionFire]

Good point, but shouldn't this be based on something like how good the team is at killing penalties? I would figure that would factor somewhat in how a team would take penalties; i.e., if the team is utter crap at penalty killing, the coach may make it a higher priority to play a cleaner game, whereas a team with a high PK clip could play a riskier style, so the relative gain from the dirty/borderline play may negate the detriment on the PK?

Doubt it would be a terribly large factor, and the small sample size of PK opportunities per team would probably give this a significant luck component, but may be interesting to look at.

You can also factor that players more important to a teams PK will likely have a higher PPGA rate while in the box than a player who is not as good defensively I'd imagine. So I guess a penalty taken by a primary PK option is worse than one taken by a non-PK player.

 

[pnep]

A word of caution about second assists. Never assume that they were recorded in the same fashion from arena to arena.

yep...

AST per Goal per Team (1917-56)