100 Greatest NHL players

[chooch*]

This is just pathetic. We are back to Lefleur being better than Gretzky? KL has nothing on this. BTW, Lafleur was a '-' player the last ten years of his 17 season career as well.

Back to the ignore. While you have been 'watching' hockey for longer, it seems pretty clear I have been 'understanding' it for much longer.

I guess your "understandng" runs to reading teh scoring leaders every morning.
btw. Lafleur and 99 were 2 very different players. Where did I say Guy was "better " than 99. I'm certianly not saying that Guy is above criticism especially if you saw him play or even if you didnt and are relying on the stat you quoted. "better" to you means scoring stats becasue you never saw Guy or it helps yoru fav player.

 

[chooch*]

What year did they change the +/- rule? This is an honest question, I really don't have the answer, because this would make a difference.

Orr's +/- record is so high because in those days you got a + on the PP and a - on PK. However, I don't know when the rule was changed to eliminate the PP + and the PK -. It makes a difference when comparing the 70's to the 80's.

dont know. Gd point.

 

[KOVALEV10*]

This is just pathetic. We are back to Lefleur being better than Gretzky? KL has nothing on this. BTW, Lafleur was a '-' player the last ten years of his 17 season career as well.

Back to the ignore. While you have been 'watching' hockey for longer, it seems pretty clear I have been 'understanding' it for much longer.

No he wasnt Lafleur was a minus ONLY 4 times in his career on one of the worse teams if not the worse Quebec.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

What year did they change the +/- rule? This is an honest question, I really don't have the answer, because this would make a difference.

Orr's +/- record is so high because in those days you got a + on the PP and a - on PK. However, I don't know when the rule was changed to eliminate the PP + and the PK -. It makes a difference when comparing the 70's to the 80's.

Actually, they never changed it. The same plus/minus rules have been in effect for as long as they kept track of plus/minus (1967-68). So Orr's +124, Lafleur's +89, Gretzky +98, etc., are all calculated the exact same way plus/minus is kept today.

 

[wedge]

your list is interesting but it's obvious it doesn't say all. Nobody will ever convince me that Bourque was a better player than Lemieux.

I haven't read all the posts but think you discussed about it. I just wanted to tell you that even with all the flaws, your list is very interesting. good job man.

 

[Murphy]

Exellent job pnep & ogopogo.

By no means is it perfect but with the amount of thought and work that went into putting these list's together it's probably as close as can get. I just want to say thanks for the facinating subject.

Perhaps instead of a greatest players list, it might be more fitting to call it a greatest careers list?

 

[Stephen]

Nice effort, but any system that uses an arbitrary award system for very specific individual accomplishments to judge an athlete is just never going to work. This is just random math.

 

[Quiet Robert]

Actually, they never changed it. The same plus/minus rules have been in effect for as long as they kept track of plus/minus (1967-68). So Orr's +124, Lafleur's +89, Gretzky +98, etc., are all calculated the exact same way plus/minus is kept today.

Thanks for clearing that up.

I guess that explains why I couldn't find any info on when the rule changed. I had always heard that in the beginning PP & PK goals counted towards +/- but that seems to be wrong.

Anyways, thanks for the info.

 

[JCD]

No he wasnt Lafleur was a minus ONLY 4 times in his career on one of the worse teams if not the worse Quebec.

Yes, he was. Between 1981 and 1991, Guy was a -2. That isn't debatable, that is fact.

He was on a bad team. So was Wayne in LA and the NYRs. Why is that an excuse for Guy but not Gretzky?

Regardless, it is a stupid measure for either of them. +/- is a team statistic more than anything else.

 

[Ogopogo*]

The Truth is staring you in the face: Bob Gainey Conn Smythe Trophy winner, Best player in the world according to the Soviets at the time, Selke Award created for him, captain of the Habs, 5 Cups, HoF.

But your scoring-based list (heavily favoring players in a weak/run and gun division from the 80's ie West) can leave Gainey off totally.

If you were truly objective you'd admit Gainey was as valuable to the Habs of the 70's as Messier was to the Oilers.

Let me guess: you never saw the Habs of the 70's so you just have "objective" stats.
If you are using the eyeballs of the people who did see the players - please factor in that Morenz was named the greatest player of the First Half Century. You have 13 players of the next half century better than him. He is likely up there as Orr and Mario as the best ever. And oh, why dont you give something extra for Orr winning a Ross twice or his 124 plus minus as a defenceman without having to score 200+ points!!!

Your #99 bias is obvious as you impute the same points to a Ross as a Hart. So if the voters are just giving the Hart to the Ross winner that easily doubles the players points .I mean 99 was so valuable your Oilers won the Cup AFTER he left - or was that due to 99 making them better players ?

Maybe some research on the number of times a Hart was given to a Ross winner
can be done. And for a player who wins both in a year , then in your system you should put in a a reduction factor.

How about +/_ difference to scoring points so a guy who hangs at centre and gets 215 points but is only a +98 gets a big deficit versus someone who scores 136 and is a +80.


Hint: instead of using stats, because we never saw players of the 20's, I suggest you read books. They will tell you the things your very random system doesnt.

+ Sorry if I implied you didnt create this list yourself.

I fail to understand your comment that my list favors players from the 80s. Please explain how it does that. I put specific parameters in place to eliminate the offensive era bias, and from what I see, it has done that quite nicely.

Now that I have some additional information on the Conn Smythe it will benefit Gainey. But, the reality is, he was never named and all-star or a Hart Trophy winner. Although he was very good, he was not as good as you are saying - in the eyes of the hockey writers. His Conn Smythe will definitely move him up, though.

I think you totally underestimate the amount of research I have done and hockey knowledge that I have. That is fine. You don't know me so you cannot be expected to know what is inside my head. I assure you that I have left personal bias out of these ratings. If a particular player that I like is near the top, that is just how it plays out. I didn't try to put together a system just to make my favorites look better - what is the point of that?

Again, +/- is a meaningless statistic. Steve Yzerman was -35 in 1985-86. What does that tell you? He was a horrible player that year? No, he played on a horrible team that year, that is all it says. +/- is a flawed and nearly useless stat.

My system is not perfect but, it is not biased as you like to think.

 

[Ogopogo*]

"HHOF Monitor" formula for Goalies =
Adjusted Wins/5 +
Adjusted (W-L)/2 +
2* Adjusted PO Wins +
Cup - 50 pts +
Final - 25 pts +
All Star Games - 20 pts +
Calder - 150 pts +
Calder Runner Up - 70 pts +
1 ALL STAR TEAM - 125 pts +
2 ALL STAR TEAM - 100 pts +
Vezina - 100 pts +
Vezina Runner Up - 75 pts +
Jennings - 50 pts +
Jennings Runner Up - 30 pts +
Konn Smythe - 200 pts +
LESTER PEARSON - 300 pts +
Hart - 250 pts +
Hart Runner Up - 200 pts +


"HHOF Monitor" formula for LW,C,RW =
Adjusted PTS/2 +
PO PTS +
Top 10 Goals/Season - 5 pts +
# 1 Goals/Season - 75 pts +
# 2 Goals/Season - 50 pts +
Top 10 Assists/Season - 5 pts +
# 1 Assists/Season - 75 pts +
# 2 Assists/Season - 50 pts +
Top 10 PTS/Season - 5 pts +
# 1 PTS/Season - 75 pts +
# 2 PTS/Season - 50 pts +
# 1 "+/-" /Season - 35 pts +
# 2 "+/-" /Season - 25 pts +
Cup - 50 pts +
Final - 25 pts +
All Star Game - 20 pts +
HART - 150 pts +
HART Runner Up - 100 pts +
BYNG - 75 pts +
BYNG Runner Up - 50 pts +
1 ALL STAR TEAM - 75 pts +
2 ALL STAR TEAM - 50 pts +
CALDER - 35 pts +
CALDER Runner Up - 20 pts +
SELKE - 30 pts +
SELKE - 20 pts +
CONN SMYTHE - 150 pts +
LESTER PEARSON - 100 pts


"HHOF Monitor" formula for DEF =
Adj Games/10 +
Adj Pts/10 +
PO Games +
PO Pts +
Top 10 DEF Goals/Season - 5 pts +
Top 10 Assist/Season - 15 pts +
Top 10 DEF Assist/Season - 5 pts +
Top 10 PTS/Season - 30 pts +
Top 10 DEF PTS/Season - 5 pts +
# 1 "+/-" /Season - 50 pts +
# 2 "+/-" /Season - 35 pts +
Cup - 50 pts +
Final - 25 pts +
All Star Game - 20 pts +
HART - 175 pts +
HART Runner Up - 150 pts +
1 ALL STAR TEAM - 75 pts +
2 ALL STAR TEAM - 50 pts +
CALDER - 35 pts +
CALDER Runner Up - 20 pts +
CONN SMYTHE - 200 pts +
NORRIS - 150 pts +
NORRIS Runner UP - 125 pts +
LESTER PEARSON - 250 pts

Why do you use number of seasons, all-star games, +/-, Byng, Selke, Pearson and Jennings awards?

I guess, if this is a guideline as to who makes the HOF, that stuff makes sense. As far as judging greatest players of all time, things like # of seasons, all-star games and +/- are quite misleading, IMO.

The Byng is not what I would call an important award and the Selke, Pearson and Jennings have only been around a short time so, they give modern players a distinct advantage in the ratings.

Again, if this is a guideline for determining if a player will make it into the Hall, it is probably very effective.

As a strict "greatest players" list, it has a few things that I would question. But, no system is complete perfection.

Good work.

 

[Ogopogo*]

What if I admit to you that I found him generally very classy on and off the ice; a smart hockey guy and the 2nd best offensive player of his generation. Is that good enough?

You should admit to your obvious French-Canadian bias.

 

[Ogopogo*]

So instead of saying that gertzky, the greatest goal scorer ever in your mind, did nt score 40 goals the last 12 years of his career I should have said it was 11 or something.

Big deal - you nitpick thats your problem and miss the bigger point.Even about +/- youre still missing the obvious point which everyone else understands.

As for respect I dont care what you think and neither does anyone else on this site.
Certainly not 11000 page views worth.

So again - How long is "long enough" that youve been watching hockey? 1987? Couldnt have been the season when 99 became the only Art Ross Trophy winner in nhl history to finish with a minus for the season. Is that record #62?

I hate when people are irrational and unquestioning - that was the point of the thread after all in case you missed that also. It wasnt to hate 99. It was to question unlike trained chimps.

What about my all-time goal scoring rankings:

http://www.hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=140077

Is that objective enough for you?

 

[Ogopogo*]

You are So Sensitive about 99 its hilarious! I dont get personal about these things unless provoked (or if tired) ... its only hockey afterall. Not even a big league sport anymore (so much for 99' s selling of the game in the South argument ).And I've said many many times, I like Gretzky, etc etc but he is not above some gentle cristicism which for some reason in Canada is bascially like criticising the Pope.

Let me respond a little (in a non-threatening manner; dont mean to bruise your feelings about this);

I ve already responded many times to what you say about +/-; I'm not silent on it at all or an "idiot" (why so personal ???): 99 was a total minus for the last 12 years of a 19 year career. I know you didnt understand this in a previous thread but this one of my 2 responses which I've already stated in responses earlier. Secondly, his +98 is weak in relation to how many points he actually scored. I mean lafleur was around the same +/- (+89 was it?) in a 130 point year (you can round out the exact numbers - I dont have the time). You are free to disagree about +/- and the value of it ; no need to call me an idiot or a kid - it just shows your immaturity; I've been watching/reading about hockey much longer than you (1971).

I think originally I said somethings that 99's fans nitpicked about; its ok; just dont miss teh point; his goals/points on an offensive team in a weak West/ run and gun division/ allstar games becasue of bodyguards, hanging at centre. Thsi is getting boring. I'd rather debate with somebody more knowledgable.

And to Trottier: dont believe everything you read.

#99 was a - for the last 12 years of his career? What does that tell us?

It says that he played on crappy teams for the last 12 years of his career. With the production that he maintained on those teams, this stat just makes him look even better.

 

[pei fan]

Total players who have "Hart" or "Hart Runner Up" - 164
Goalie who have "Hart" or "Hart Runner Up" - only 23

Total players who have "Conn Smythe" - 73
Goalie who have "Conn Smythe" - only 19
( http://www.hhof.com/html/newsconn.shtml for older player)

That's a major flaw in your sysem right there.A goalie is 1/6 of team on ice.
Actually for Conn Smythe they are doing better than their avg.

 

[chooch*]

#99 was a - for the last 12 years of his career? What does that tell us?

It says that he played on crappy teams for the last 12 years of his career. With the production that he maintained on those teams, this stat just makes him look even better.

Maybe in your system you should add 2800 points to any player that didnt need a bodyguard.

 

[pnep]

Why do you use number of seasons?

I do not use number of seasons.

#1, #2 or TOP 10 Goals/Season, Assists/Season, PTS/Season -- > #1, #2 or TOP 10 in Goals, Assist, PTS list after each season!!

 

[KOVALEV10*]

Maybe in your system you should add 2800 points to any player that didnt need a bodyguard.

 

[tom_servo]

Gretzky's bodyguard must've been acquired by Edmonton straight from the Marvel universe.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Maybe in your system you should add 2800 points to any player that didnt need a bodyguard.

I think you should drop the c off of your name. hooch would be more appropriate.

 

[KariyaIsGod*]

Maybe we should also take 2800 points away from the guy who wouldn't put on the jersey of the team that drafted him and then follow that up with anothert 1000 point deduction for any palyer who watched his teammate **** a woman and did nothing about it....

 

[JCD]

Perhaps knock off a 1000 points per drunk driving arrest too...

 

[reckoning]

Maybe we should also take 2800 points away from the guy who wouldn't put on the jersey of the team that drafted him and then follow that up with anothert 1000 point deduction for any palyer who watched his teammate **** a woman and did nothing about it....

Thanks for bringing up the hotel room incident; Lemieux was a great player and I`ll never deny that but it`s hard to admire him as a human being.

 

[tom_servo]

I don't think it was ever clear what happened. Quinn's charges were dropped.

 

[Daryl Shilling]

Nice job, ogopogo. This isn't too too different from my latest version of the Career Offensive Player System, the latest version of which also incorporates the same sorts of things you do.

Thanks for the work, I know first-hand that it's alot to do.

Daryl