Captain Bowie
Registered User
- Jan 18, 2012
- 27,139
- 4,414
Jagr, Hasek, Crosby and one of Lidstrom or Shore are my guesses for the next 4 names added to the list.
Edit- @ John Carlson- I'll prefer your listed 4th next, in the dark, over your prediction (as a player- not as a prognostication).
Yeah Kelly is a guy that I hope is in the next round. I kind of want to know where to place him generally among Dmen. I generally have it Orr-Harvey-Bourque-Shore-Potvin-Lidstrom, but could Kelly crack that? I know it's technically off topic but since we're in a lull.Lidstrom and Kelly were the only two in my top 10 that weren't available this go-round...
Two fringe top 20 guys were in their place...
Yeah Kelly is a guy that I hope is in the next round. I kind of want to know where to place him generally among Dmen. I generally have it Orr-Harvey-Bourque-Shore-Potvin-Lidstrom, but could Kelly crack that? I know it's technically off topic but since we're in a lull.
I just want to discuss him more because he's such an interesting player to me.Lol considering you have 3 players ahead of Kelly who aren't here yet - are you sure you want Kelly next round? Seems a bit much
I don't have Jagr anywhere close to the next vote. So overrated to me. Mediocre playoff production, no defense, and while he has that peak in the late 90s, he did it against an era that was just completely devoid of top-end talent, and has the distinction of having the two lowest Ross wins post-expansion until the end of the DPE. I recognize I'm probably underrating him too much, but at the same time I think his point totals/Ross' are given too much credit and the context of them isn't examined nearly enough.I think Hasek and Jagr have 2 of the most intriguing cases for #5 overall. I think they're absolute musts in the next round or it will be very disappointing.
The idea of ranking Roy next round without ever weighing him against Hasek for example seems silly.
I'm a bit less worried about active players because I fully expect there to be an anti-active player bias, for lack of longevity.
I don't have Jagr anywhere close to the next vote. So overrated to me. Mediocre playoff production, no defense, and while he has that peak in the late 90s, he did it against an era that was just completely devoid of top-end talent, and has the distinction of having the two lowest Ross wins post-expansion until the end of the DPE. I recognize I'm probably underrating him too much, but at the same time I think his point totals/Ross' are given too much credit and the context of them isn't examined nearly enough.
I'm keeping out the lockout season - 70 in 48 is what like a 130 pace? That's fine. Was referring to the 102 finish and the 96 point finish. Obviously the (I think 00?) season he would have had a more impressive total if he had played a full season, but I'm strictly talking about the trophy-counting aspect rather than how impressive his offense was in a vacuum. That season is why we have the second-worst Hart-trophy season in NHL history.What do you mean by that?
Wouldn't the fact that the DPE is likely the lowest scoring era post expansion be a big reason why? And weren't those 2 seasons - a shortened one (1995) and one where he only played 63 out of 82 games? I'm not sure how those are knocks against him.
Unless i'm misunderstanding you.
I'm keeping out the lockout season - 70 in 48 is what like a 130 pace? That's fine. Was referring to the 102 finish and the 96 point finish. Obviously the (I think 00?) season he would have had a more impressive total if he had played a full season, but I'm strictly talking about the trophy-counting aspect rather than how impressive his offense was in a vacuum. That season is why we have the second-worst Hart-trophy season in NHL history.
Except you are conflating team TOI with individual TOI.
I get the theory, really I do. (I think...) How about we add 100 or so goals to my last search and look at these guys? Team Game Finder | Hockey-Reference.com
The tiers look random by GF/GA, and well-ordered by GD. The .706 win % guys all have similar GDs, and the ratios are between 1.48 and 1.62. By eyeballing it, there seems to be a clearer correlation in real world results between the GD than the GF/GA ratios. But that's just eyeballing, which is tricky given I don't know how to filter to get teams with the same GP count.
Rk | Team | Season | G | Pts. | TPA | W-L% | Rk | G | GA | DIFF | GF% | exp win% | Rk | GD/80 | Rk |
1 | Montreal Canadiens | 1944-45 | 50 | 80 | 100 | 0.8 | 1 | 228 | 121 | 107 | 0.653 | 0.780 | 1 | 171 | 1 |
2 | Edmonton Oilers | 1985-86 | 80 | 119 | 160 | 0.74 | 2 | 426 | 310 | 116 | 0.579 | 0.654 | 17 | 116 | 3 |
3 | Philadelphia Flyers | 1973-74 | 78 | 112 | 156 | 0.72 | 3 | 273 | 164 | 109 | 0.625 | 0.735 | 2 | 112 | 8 |
7 | Philadelphia Flyers | 1974-75 | 80 | 113 | 160 | 0.71 | 4 | 293 | 181 | 112 | 0.618 | 0.724 | 5 | 112 | 7 |
6 | Boston Bruins | 1977-78 | 80 | 113 | 160 | 0.71 | 5 | 333 | 218 | 115 | 0.604 | 0.700 | 8 | 115 | 4 |
4 | Buffalo Sabres | 1974-75 | 80 | 113 | 160 | 0.71 | 6 | 354 | 240 | 114 | 0.596 | 0.685 | 13 | 114 | 6 |
5 | Philadelphia Flyers | 1984-85 | 80 | 113 | 160 | 0.71 | 7 | 348 | 241 | 107 | 0.591 | 0.676 | 14 | 107 | 12 |
8 | Philadelphia Flyers | 1976-77 | 80 | 112 | 160 | 0.7 | 8 | 323 | 213 | 110 | 0.603 | 0.697 | 9 | 110 | 10 |
9 | Montreal Canadiens | 1971-72 | 78 | 108 | 156 | 0.69 | 9 | 307 | 205 | 102 | 0.6 | 0.692 | 11 | 105 | 14 |
10 | Buffalo Sabres | 1979-80 | 80 | 110 | 160 | 0.69 | 10 | 318 | 201 | 117 | 0.613 | 0.715 | 6 | 117 | 2 |
11 | Edmonton Oilers | 1984-85 | 80 | 109 | 160 | 0.68 | 11 | 401 | 298 | 103 | 0.574 | 0.644 | 19 | 103 | 15 |
12 | Chicago Black Hawks | 1973-74 | 78 | 105 | 156 | 0.67 | 12 | 272 | 164 | 108 | 0.624 | 0.733 | 3 | 111 | 9 |
13 | Edmonton Oilers | 1982-83 | 80 | 106 | 160 | 0.66 | 13 | 424 | 315 | 109 | 0.574 | 0.644 | 18 | 109 | 11 |
14 | Montreal Canadiens | 1958-59 | 70 | 91 | 140 | 0.65 | 14 | 258 | 158 | 100 | 0.62 | 0.727 | 4 | 114 | 5 |
15 | New Jersey Devils | 2000-01 | 82 | 111 | 172 | 0.65 | 15 | 295 | 195 | 100 | 0.602 | 0.696 | 10 | 98 | 19 |
16 | Montreal Canadiens | 1980-81 | 80 | 103 | 160 | 0.64 | 16 | 332 | 232 | 100 | 0.589 | 0.672 | 15 | 100 | 17 |
17 | Ottawa Senators | 2005-06 | 82 | 113 | 177 | 0.64 | 17 | 314 | 211 | 103 | 0.598 | 0.689 | 12 | 100 | 16 |
18 | New York Islanders | 1975-76 | 80 | 101 | 160 | 0.63 | 18 | 297 | 190 | 107 | 0.61 | 0.710 | 7 | 107 | 13 |
19 | Boston Bruins | 1974-75 | 80 | 94 | 160 | 0.59 | 19 | 345 | 245 | 10 | 0.585 | 0.665 | 16 | 100 | 18 |
Given that the discussion stems from the manually timed Orr TOI from two games, the first step would be looking at the manually timed TOI for the remaining Bruins in each game to check the degree of overall ETOI validation.
Now, the one wise-guy who publicly admitted that he was leaving Lemieux outside his top-4... that's another matter. [And, he didn't even name a "best-ever-at-his-position" player in his stead!]
Tkachuk, Bure, Roenick, Yashin, ... these guys aren't even in this project, due less to lack of talent than to character issues concerning effort, work ethic and commitment.
Who are you talking about?
There are several EXCEPTIONALLY hard-working consistent performers who deserve extra credit.
But I can't think of a top 100 slacker. Gump Worsley's refusal to practice? He's a marginal candidate.
*shrug*
We simply don't know.
When someone put in the time to manually check a couple of games he was at 34 minutes.
I am sure the estimates all make sense with the limited and somewhat unrelated data points we have to figure out ice time, but apart from that being an issue in itself, we both know that those original calculations had a factor entered to make player ice time jive with what made sense based on late 90s usage.
For several reasons it is possible that they are not that precisely accurate for players of other eras
How confident are you on a difference between 31 minutes and 34? Woud you think the margin for error on these is less than say, 10%, for an outlier player like Orr?
Doing a recount. #2 and #3 are razor thin. 31/32 voters participated in Vote #1.
Naw, it was 'ted1971' who declared the same in an open and notorious manner. He was joined by one other- who is (AFAIK) closeted.Who was this? I hope you're not referring to me. I said I was willing to entertain it but I didn't end up doing it.
I am getting the same thing:
I am seeing a correlation of 0.427 between the actual win% and the GF%, 0.411 between expected win% and win%, and 0.763 between raw GD (adjusted to 80 GP) and win%.
In this extremely cherry-picked sample of teams (I don't mean that in a bad way, but it is), their raw goal differential seems to matter more than their GF%. I don't know why that is and I'd like someone with better statistical knowledge to address this (@ContrarianGoaltender perhaps?)
If we took a huge sample of all teams in all seasons, instead of just the highly dominant ones, these correlations would look much better, but as far as super high GD teams are concerned, the pythagorean theorem isn't very predictive.
Is this indicative of something, or is it just really small sample noise? 19 teams is really not very many.
The actual volume of data we would need in order to lose confidence in the estimates in a major way would be a massive undertaking that no one will be willing to begin.
What you need to do is not simply state the case for one player. You need to state the metrics being used, and apply them to all other players being considered, or at very least, another player being considered.Crosby. The perfect blend of regular and playoff resumes. Three 27+ point playoff runs. Another 21 in 12 and 19 in 13 for good measure. The best reg and playoff player of his generation. Solid #5 pick
Lidstrom should be behind Bobby Orr for top defenseman. Should be ahead of Harvey, Shore, Bourque.... It begins.
With a small surprise as I expected Hasek but not Bourque. Other nine are no surprises.
To be honest, the biggest issue for me here is... probably 2nd and 3rd. I'm not saying the reminder is open and shut... but it realistically is.