Wins/ Points Above Replacement Results

[Hockey4Lyfe]

Yes. After injuries. Not through injuries. Pretending Crosby is the tougher player here is just laughable. So many other legitimate arguments to be made on your end.

No one is claiming he’s the tougher player. Just the better player. And this stat just backs it up with actual statistics.

 

[TaLoN]

OK, missread the table... But still, the table suggests that without McD and Drai they would right now be in a battle for the playoffs, that is more than odd...

And without just McD they would still be third in the North, hmmm....

Probably says more about the division they're in, since play is confined to said division.

 

[gtrower]

No one is claiming he’s the tougher player. Just the better player. And this stat just backs it up with actual statistics.

Might want to re-read the thread.

And yes, this HF-user-generated model that discounts durability gives your guy a higher number than the rest of the guys.

 

[Hockey4Lyfe]

Might want to re-read the thread.

And yes, this HF-user-generated model that discounts durability gives your guy a higher number than the rest of the guys.

Do you understand that Crosby missed games in the prime of his career that would probably make his number even higher?

Or are you just trying to throw shit at the wall and see what sticks with your nonsense?

 

[gtrower]

Do you understand that Crosby missed games in the prime of his career that would probably make his number even higher?

Or are you just trying to throw shit at the wall and see what sticks with your nonsense?

I understand that if Crosby had been more durable then his career statistics would have been better, yes.

Is also understand that the WAR model created by the OP ignores the games in which players force these inferior replacements into action.

 

[Midnight Judges]

There is no one-size-fits-all system that can accurately reflect hockey player values like baseball. Baseball is a mano-a-mano sport by its very nature.

Sorry OP, you wasted your time and your equations are arbitrary garbage.

I remember in years past where you valued Bergeron's faceoffs more than his defense, and arbitrary secondary assists more than powerplay goals. Those finding ought to have been huge red flags.

So yeah, this system is a joke.

 

[kladorf2005]

I understand that if Crosby had been more durable then his career statistics would have been better, yes.

Is also understand that the WAR model created by the OP ignores the games in which players force these inferior replacements into action.

There is no one-size-fits-all system that can accurately reflect hockey player values like baseball. Baseball is a mano-a-mano sport by its very nature.

Sorry OP, you wasted your time and your equations are arbitrary garbage.

I remember in years past where you valued Bergeron's faceoffs more than his defense, and arbitrary secondary assists more than powerplay goals. Those finding ought to have been huge red flags.

So yeah, this system is a joke.

I love it when people who don't have a clue about math/statistics/analytics make erroneous claims like this because they don't like the results

@OP this is some good stuff. I'm a bit of a math nerd and can appreciate what you've done here. It's unfortunate the haters refuse to take the time to educate themselves. They might actually learn something instead of just blindly yelling and screaming on the internet.

 

[Midnight Judges]

I love it when people who don't have a clue about math/statistics/analytics make erroneous claims like this because they don't like the results

@OP this is some good stuff. I'm a bit of a math nerd and can appreciate what you've done here. It's unfortunate the haters refuse to take the time to educate themselves. They might actually learn something instead of just blindly yelling and screaming on the internet.

I would disagree with your argument, but you didn't make one.

So here, finish this sentence:

Alex Ovechkin has more points than Sidney Crosby, and 53% more goals scored, but Crosby's way fewer goals and fewer points are worth way the hell more than Ovie's points because _________.

Let's do some more of these.

Alex Ovechkin has 588 assists. Patrice Bergeron's faceoffs alone are worth significantly more than Ovechkin's 588 assists. This is a true reflection of the value of faceoffs because ________.

 

[gtrower]

I love it when people who don't have a clue about math/statistics/analytics make erroneous claims like this because they don't like the results

@OP this is some good stuff. I'm a bit of a math nerd and can appreciate what you've done here. It's unfortunate the haters refuse to take the time to educate themselves. They might actually learn something instead of just blindly yelling and screaming on the internet.

Mechanical Engineer who teaches prob/stat on the side checking in.

Would love to hear your analysis on what I said that was incorrect.

 

[kladorf2005]

Mechanical Engineer who teaches prob/stat on the side checking in.

Would love to hear your analysis on what I said that was incorrect.

I'm an Actuary (look it up). We think it's cute when Engineers think they're good at math

Your argument is fundamentally flawed. You point out Crosby has played fewer games. But you ignore when those missed games occurred. You also over estimate the impact of 13.9% fewer games played on the WAR model. But you know all that already because you're an engineer and you read OP's source links that explains how it all works

I have plenty more arguments to make. But OP laid most of them out very nicely. And I'm talking to someone who is clearly smart enough to understand all of this (seriously), but is too angry/stubborn to want to.

 

[kladorf2005]

I would disagree with your argument, but you didn't make one.

So here, finish this sentence:

Alex Ovechkin has more points than Sidney Crosby, and 53% more goals scored, but Crosby's way fewer goals and fewer points are worth way the hell more than Ovie's points because _________.

Let's do some more of these.

Alex Ovechkin has 588 assists. Patrice Bergeron's faceoffs alone are worth significantly more than Ovechkin's 588 assists. This is a true reflection of the value of faceoffs because ________.

OP made all of the arguments. I simply agreed with them. But you don't know what they are because you didn't bother reading OP's post once you saw the results.

And to fill in your blank... "because OP laid out a well thought out model that explains why your cherry picked, over valued, misleading, misinterpreted stats aren't worth as much as you think they are."

 

[gtrower]

I'm an Actuary (look it up). We think it's cute when Engineers think they're good at math

Your argument is fundamentally flawed. You point out Crosby has played fewer games. But you ignore when those missed games occurred. You also over estimate the impact of 13.9% fewer games played on the WAR model. But you know all that already because you're an engineer and you read OP's source links that explains how it all works

I have plenty more arguments to make. But OP laid most of them out very nicely. And I'm talking to someone who is clearly smart enough to understand all of this (seriously), but is too angry/stubborn to want to.

Think you misunderstood my post, which is fun when you then proceed to condescend.

The OP normalizes the stats over the games the player played. It ignores the games they missed. My point was that a high WAR is great for your team when you’re playing. It’s not when you aren’t. Because the hypothetical replacement against which you’re measuring is actually playing for your team now.

Im not ignoring when Crosby’s missed games were played. If he had played in those games his career stats would likely be even more impressive and his WAR would likely be marginally better. Those are some great hypotheticals, and it’s a shame it didn’t happen.

But he didn’t play in those games. And his team had to deal with him not playing in those games. WAR is a value-to-team statistic. And you’re not valuable to your team when you’re not playing. And that’s what’s being ignored by the OP. Hence the OP’s WAR model ignores durability. Which is the entire point of my post.

 

[jetsforever]

Well it has the right players up there at least

 

[kladorf2005]

Think you misunderstood my post, which is fun when you then proceed to condescend.

The OP normalizes the stats over the games the player played. It ignores the games they missed. My point was that a high WAR is great for your team when you’re playing. It’s not when you aren’t. Because the hypothetical replacement against which you’re measuring is actually playing for your team now.

Im not ignoring when Crosby’s missed games were played. If he had played in those games his career stats would likely be even more impressive and his WAR would likely be marginally better. Those are some great hypotheticals, and it’s a shame it didn’t happen.

But he didn’t play in those games. And his team had to deal with him not playing in those games. WAR is a value-to-team statistic. And you’re not valuable to your team when you’re not playing. And that’s what’s being ignored by the OP. Hence the OP’s WAR model ignores durability. Which is the entire point of my post.

Unless I missed it one of your prior posts, this is the first time you've actually articulated your point (hence my condescending tone and unwillingness to engage in a proper discussion). Now that I can tell you're serious, I'm happy to have a civil debate. So while you make a valid argument, I think you're misconstruing/overstating what OP is showing.

The missed games are largely irrelevant. Ovi has the 2 greatest WAR seasons, and in one of those seasons he missed over 12% of the games - not too different than Crosby playing 14% fewer games than Ovi throughout their careers.

It's statistics. We deal with missing data all the time. There are a plethora of ways to handle missing/bad data. There are various imputation methods that are typically industry standard, but a lot of people on this website would call that hypothetical ifs, ands or buts. Those are people that don't understand statistics. So now we have this WAR statistic, which ignores the missing data (also a common statistcal practice), and then normalizes to create an apples to apples comparison, but you don't like that either because it overlooks durability. And again, you have a point, but it's not germane to this statistic.

In all of your posts prior to this last one, you just kept hammering the fact that Crosby has missed 2 full seasons worth of games compared to Ovi. While that's true, it's irrelevant to this discussion. And it's certainly not anything that discredits WAR, as it appears you are trying to get people to believe. The OP, and his cited source clearly states that WAR is not an end all be all stat. It's just an extra tool in the toolbox. And possibly one of the better tools for comparing unlike things (i.e. a forward that has played 14% fewer games than another forward)

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Yes. After injuries. Not through injuries. Pretending Crosby is the tougher player here is just laughable. So many other legitimate arguments to be made on your end.

I'm not going to argue Crosby is the "tougher" player than Ovechkin, but I think it's silly that you think Ovechkin played through nagging injuries while Crosby didn't.

Take last year for example. Crosby played through the hernia injury for the first part of the season before finally deciding to have the sports hernia surgery. You don't think playing through that for the first month and a half of the season affected his overall production? Then when he finally came back from the surgery, as anyone who has had the surgery will say, it affected him for the rest of that season. So while Crosby only actually missed 29 games last year due to the surgery, that doesn't mean he was completely 100% healthy and in shape for the 41 games he did play.

Which is essentially what you're suggesting; that it's only Ovechkin who plays through injuries. When Crosby is hurt, doesn't play in a game.

 

[FrozenJagrt]

How it rates your favourite players is a big test for a stat. I was personally disappointed when James Reimer was considered less valuable than Carey Price

Check the numbers again dammit! That can't be right.

 

[gtrower]

I'm not going to argue Crosby is the "tougher" player than Ovechkin, but I think it's silly that you think Ovechkin played through nagging injuries while Crosby didn't.

Take last year for example. Crosby played through the hernia injury for the first part of the season before finally deciding to have the sports hernia surgery. You don't think playing through that for the first month and a half of the season affected his overall production? Then when he finally came back from the surgery, as anyone who has had the surgery will say, it affected him for the rest of that season. So while Crosby only actually missed 29 games last year due to the surgery, that doesn't mean he was completely 100% healthy and in shape for the 41 games he did play.

Which is essentially what you're suggesting; that it's only Ovechkin who plays through injuries. When Crosby is hurt, doesn't play in a game.

Negative. I said Ovechkin is the more durable player. I think that is obvious and not worthy of debate given their respective injury histories.

Another Pens fans threw it out there that Ovi hasn’t had to play post-surgeries suggesting that actually made him the tougher player.

I’m sure Crosby has played through plenty. I also know he’s been sidelined by plenty. Ovi hasn’t. He’s the more durable player. And that’s not captured by this model. That’s all I’m saying.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Negative. I said Ovechkin is the more durable player. I think that is obvious and not worthy of debate given their respective injury histories.

Another Pens fans threw it out there that Ovi hasn’t had to play post-surgeries suggesting that actually made him the tougher player.

Don’t think I said anything about Crosby playing or not playing through injuries. That seems to be a straw man you’ve created based on me laughing at the gymnastics it takes to make Ovi’s durability a point against him (what the other guy did - not you).

These posts seemed to suggest it's only Ovechkin who had to play through injuries, and thus only his stats that are impacted by having to play at less than 100%. Whereas Crosby's stats are based on him being 100% healthy and not playing through injury.

Well when you normalize over games played this happens. The argument has always been (and likely will always be) Ovi was able to stay on the ice through injuries. Sid gets the benefit of extrapolating his healthiest games. Ovi gets his unhealthy games (when he still played) interpolated.

Yes. After injuries. Not through injuries. Pretending Crosby is the tougher player here is just laughable. So many other legitimate arguments to be made on your end.

What did you mean by the bolded if you weren't suggesting Crosby didn't play through injuries or that his stats only reflect healthy games and not games where he also played through injuries?

 

[Nickmo82]

So there are good goalies, there are great goalies and there is Henrik Lundqvist.

 

[Machinehead]

I'm glad to see Toews in that company.

He's become a meme on here but peak Toews was a savage.

 

[Machinehead]

There's always that one guy.

It says in the OP that the numbers aren't perfect. The idea that we should disregard them entirely because Joe Schmo just doesn't think so is extremely self-important on Joe's part.

 

[Luigi Lemieux]

A couple surprises:
This stat likes Letang and Toews.(Not that those both aren’t excellent, but just how highly they are ranked.)

The narrative of the post-Datsyuk/pre-McDavid era is that there’s Crosby/Ovy then Malkin/Kane then everyone else. It really should be Crosby then Ovy/Malkin/Kane then everyone else.

Just thought of a third surprise. Didn’t see Jack Johnson on the bottom of the pack list despite the fact he has played a ton of minutes. Gonna guess that he had enough offense as a young player to keep him off.

Letang is definitely underrated around here. People tend to think he's a product of Crosby/Malkin but he's a dynamic force in his own right, even now. Definitely a big reason for the pens sustained success over the past 15 years.

 

[FunkySeeFunkyDo]

Letang is definitely underrated around here. People tend to think he's a product of Crosby/Malkin but he's a dynamic force in his own right, even now. Definitely a big reason for the pens sustained success over the past 15 years.

100% agree and the worst underraters are on the Pens board.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Here's another one:

As a goal scoring winger, Ovechkin has a higher assists-per-game than Patrice Bergeron despite him being a C, but Bergeron's passing goals are worth 3x Ovie's because _________.

 

[Panthaz89]

Crosby is the best imo