81-83 Isles vs. 91-93 Pens

[Chili]

The playoffs are as much about matchups as they are about the calibre of teams. If the Sens play the Leafs in a playoff series, the odds are high they are going down. If they play the Flyers I like their chances. Does that mean the Leafs are better than the Flyers? Obviously not from recent matchups between those two teams.

The luck of the draw is a huge factor in the playoffs.

 

[mcphee]

When a team wins the Stanley Cup, it is true that they were better than all teams in the NHL that season. It is irrelevant who they faced in the first or second round, they beat everyone.

Ogo, do you say that for the sake of definition? eg, they win the Cup,therefore they weren't beaten,therefore they're the best team ?
This is more true for 4 round playoffs I guess, but I'd be hard pressed to find a Hab fan like myself who believes that the 86 or 93 Habs were the best team. They got on the last [best] hot streaks, put it together at the right time. I don't think many hockey people believe that the Leafs were the best team in 67, though they won. I realize much of the debate around here centers around how we define greatness,or 'the best'.

 

[Snap Wilson]

Ogo, do you say that for the sake of definition? eg, they win the Cup,therefore they weren't beaten,therefore they're the best team ?
This is more true for 4 round playoffs I guess, but I'd be hard pressed to find a Hab fan like myself who believes that the 86 or 93 Habs were the best team. They got on the last [best] hot streaks, put it together at the right time. I don't think many hockey people believe that the Leafs were the best team in 67, though they won. I realize much of the debate around here centers around how we define greatness,or 'the best'.

True. As much as I love the 2003 Ducks, it would be silly of me to suggest they were a better team than the President's Trophy-winning Wings who average 100 points year after year, despite the four-game sweep.

Anything can happen in a seven game series.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Ogo, do you say that for the sake of definition? eg, they win the Cup,therefore they weren't beaten,therefore they're the best team ?
This is more true for 4 round playoffs I guess, but I'd be hard pressed to find a Hab fan like myself who believes that the 86 or 93 Habs were the best team. They got on the last [best] hot streaks, put it together at the right time. I don't think many hockey people believe that the Leafs were the best team in 67, though they won. I realize much of the debate around here centers around how we define greatness,or 'the best'.

That is why I weight the regular season and the playoff equally. If a team has a great regular seaon but dies in the playoffs, that must be accounted for. If a team has a mediocre regular season and wins the cup, that must be accounted for as well. The regular season and playoffs are two different entities and must both be given equal weight in determining the greatest teams of all time.

Winning the president's trophy is not that big a deal without a Stanley Cup to go with it. If a great team chokes in the playoffs, they were not that great. If a mediocre team wins the cup, they were greater than their regular season record indicates - they rose to the challenge of the playoffs.

Two separate "seasons" within a season should be weighed equally when determining the best teams of all time. If one side is weak, that will bring down your rating. If you dominate both, you will have a great rating.

 

[mcphee]

Ogo, another question. You've mentionned Bill James in the past and I've read some of his stuff over the years and always enjoyed his work. Do you believe his theories are more applicable to baseball than hockey ? There are less immeasurables in baseball than hockey I believe, most apply to defense in baseball.Hockey due to the constant motion, seems to have more intangibles making up a player than other sports. Seems to me that if a fan claimed that an early 90's Stevens was better than Bourque, how would it be dis-proved ? In that I'm real cynical about the integrity of award voting, I listen to the opinions of analyts that I've grown to respect. I just think hockey may be the hardest sport to analyze in the manner you enjoy.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Right, so explain to us how you're arbitrary point system for awards can be construed as "effective analysis?"

You're just crunching numbers. Nothing about it is remotely analytical.

So, discounting the playoffs as a "vacuum" is considered analysis to you?

I think you have some sort of jealousy problem with me posting my ratings on this board. Perhaps you consider yourself to be the "top dog" with stats and ratings and it bothers you that I have done my own. You clearly don't understand my ratings so, there is no reason to bash like you do. A polite, "I disagree" is fine.

Or adding up the regular season and playoff winning percentages and goal percentages is "effective analysis?"

Winning is what hockey is all about, no? Scoring more goals than you allow is what adds up to winning, no? Think of it like an election. The goal % is the popular vote and the winning % is the number of elected seats. Winning % and goal % are everything when considering how dominant a team is. Those numbers are the only ones that really matter.

And please don't duck my question, where do you rank Eddie Shore?

 

[Hockey Outsider]

That is why I weight the regular season and the playoff equally. If a team has a great regular seaon but dies in the playoffs, that must be accounted for. If a team has a mediocre regular season and wins the cup, that must be accounted for as well. The regular season and playoffs are two different entities and must both be given equal weight in determining the greatest teams of all time.

Winning the president's trophy is not that big a deal without a Stanley Cup to go with it. If a great team chokes in the playoffs, they were not that great. If a mediocre team wins the cup, they were greater than their regular season record indicates - they rose to the challenge of the playoffs.

Two separate "seasons" within a season should be weighed equally when determining the best teams of all time. If one side is weak, that will bring down your rating. If you dominate both, you will have a great rating.

Out of curiosity, where do the 1938 Chicago Blackhawks rank? They were, arguably, the worst team to ever win the Stanley Cup. How do they rank compared to the others teams from the same season?

 

[Chili]

True. As much as I love the 2003 Ducks, it would be silly of me to suggest they were a better team than the President's Trophy-winning Wings who average 100 points year after year, despite the four-game sweep.

Anything can happen in a seven game series.

Another thing that I've noticed is that is tough to have consectutive long runs in the playoffs. I don't think it's a coincidence. You start in September, play 100+ games and go well into June of the following year and then it's back again in September, training in August.

So when I see a team like Jersey going out meekly in the first round, the year after they have had a long playoff run or an Anaheim missing the playoffs entirely, it appears that the extended season catches up with a team.

If someone has the data, they could do an analysis of recent teams who made the final four and how they fared the following season as an example.

 

[NYIsles1*]

The Islanders of 1982 were down 3-1 with 6 minutes to play in the deciding game against the Pens (best of five) and were very lucky to comeback and win that series. They were a whisker away from having their dynasty ended in the first round.

That's true but the Isles were bombing Dionne and were missing the net a lot that night and I think they still had close to fifty shots on goal. Once Mike McEwen scored the Pens were hanging on. John Tonelli was not going let them lose that game and I think Mike Bullard (or another defender) made a huge mistake misplaying a puck.

So much is about peaking at the right time though, something the 92/93 Pens may have done too early.

What no one mentions is the 92-93 Pens broke the 80's Isles record for consecutitive wins after they swept the Devils in the opening round. I think they are a very under-rated team because they were the clear favorite to win cup #3 in a row.

I remember game one of that series and the Isles were badly outworking the Pens, from that point on the series looked like no mismatch. Ray Ferraro was everywhere in that opening game, Lemieux was injured. Isles won some high-scoring games. Healy outplayed Barrasso.

 

[Chili]

That's true but the Isles were bombing Dionne in that game and were missing the net a lot that night and I think they still had close to fifty shots on goal. Once Mike McEwen scored the Pens were hanging on. John Tonelli was not let them lose that game.

Someone had brought up the 92/93 Pens losing to the Isles so I just wanted to show how close the Isles dynasty was to losing to a far inferior team. If you were an Isles fan at the time, I'm sure you were on the edge of your seat that night.

The 92-93 Pens broke the 80's Isles record for consecutitive wins after they swept the Devils in the opening round. Mario was injured in game one, then they ran into an Islander team that won some high-scoring games. Healy outplayed Barrasso.

I've always believed the mvp of that series was ... Al Arbour. He really had the Isles believing they were going to win the series from very early on.

 

[WVP]

Winning is what hockey is all about, no? Scoring more goals than you allow is what adds up to winning, no? Think of it like an election. The goal % is the popular vote and the winning % is the number of elected seats. Winning % and goal % are everything when considering how dominant a team is. Those numbers are the only ones that really matter.

How does this apply to defensive minded teams such as the Devils? I'm willing to bet their goal differential isn't as large as most of the 'great' teams in history. But that shouldn't take away from how effective they were.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Ogo, another question. You've mentionned Bill James in the past and I've read some of his stuff over the years and always enjoyed his work. Do you believe his theories are more applicable to baseball than hockey ? There are less immeasurables in baseball than hockey I believe, most apply to defense in baseball.Hockey due to the constant motion, seems to have more intangibles making up a player than other sports. Seems to me that if a fan claimed that an early 90's Stevens was better than Bourque, how would it be dis-proved ? In that I'm real cynical about the integrity of award voting, I listen to the opinions of analyts that I've grown to respect. I just think hockey may be the hardest sport to analyze in the manner you enjoy.

Baseball is very different from hockey in that, you have an accurate statistic to represent virtually everything that takes place on a baseball field. You can simply take the numbers, factor in stadiums and other Bill James variables, and you can come up with the best players - without much dispute.

The only real effective hockey statistics are goals and assists. For everything else that takes place on the ice, there is no effecive or accurate way to measure it. That is why hockey, more than any other sport, must rely on eyewitnesses to determine the talents of many players. That is where the awards come into play.

Again, I have said this many, many times: The awards are NOT perfect. But, the awards are the most reliable historical evidence that we have - outside of goals and assists. People that watched the players play voted on the awards so, they are in a better position than anyone to make judgments on their talent levels. Is there bias? Yes some. Are there mistakes. Yes, some. But, that is why so many voters are included in the balloting. The majority wins. You cannot have people from Nashville stuffing the ballot box and giving Steve Sullivan the Hart. It it set up to make it as fair as possible. Again, not perfect but, a VERY effective tool.

The lack of perfection is why I have added award runner ups into my system. If the winner wasn't really deserving of the award, most likely #2 was. They both get credit in my system. To be honest, I would love to have the complete voting records for the awards, then I could credit vote getters all the way down to #7.

I would love to see something more effective than a combination of awards and goals and assists but, I have looked. There is nothing else that I have seen as reliable. If somebody has it, please let me know.

Perfect? No. Better than a panel voting on the top 100 when they haven't seen any NHL hockey from before 1975? Yes.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Out of curiosity, where do the 1938 Chicago Blackhawks rank? They were, arguably, the worst team to ever win the Stanley Cup. How do they rank compared to the others teams from the same season?

1937-38 Chicago Blackhawks Regular Season 0.796
1937-38 Chicago Blackhawks Playoffs 1.253

Overall 2.049

A great playoff run definitely brings their rating way up. But, overall, I would think they are probably the worst rated team to ever win the cup. I have not completed my ratings yet but, they are definitely no 76-77 Habs.

 

[Ogopogo*]

How does this apply to defensive minded teams such as the Devils? I'm willing to bet their goal differential isn't as large as most of the 'great' teams in history. But that shouldn't take away from how effective they were.

The Devils numbers

Regular Season:

1994-95 New Jersey Devils 1.071
1999-00 New Jersey Devils 1.151
2002-03 New Jersey Devils 1.187

Playoffs:

1994-95 New Jersey Devils 1.463
1999-00 New Jersey Devils 1.281
2002-03 New Jersey Devils 1.272

Overall

1994-95 New Jersey Devils 2.534
1999-00 New Jersey Devils 2.432
2002-03 New Jersey Devils 2.459

It is not goal differential that I am measuring, it is goal %. This is similar to winning %, it meaures what % of goals scored are scored by the team we are rating. For example, a 3-0 win is a 100% goal %. A 3-1 win is 75%. A 8-2 win is 80%. 8-4 is 67%. Good defense and good offense are required to have a good goal %.

So, the Devils have not had a dominant regular season in any of their Stanley Cup years but, their 1995 Stanley Cup run was VERY dominant. That playoff year they were better than any of Colorado's cup runs, Tampa Bay's cup and any of Detroit's recent cup runs.

On my system, to be truly great, you need both an excellent offense and defense. One or the other will leave you down on the rankings. Look at my ratings for the '91 (1.079)and '92 (1.071) Penguins regular seasons. Great offense but not great defense. 2 of New Jersey's 3 regular seasons were well above Pittsburgh's two regular seasons.

So defensive teams can get good ratings. The greatest teams have great offense AND defense.

 

[tom_servo]

It is not goal differential that I am measuring, it is goal %. This is similar to winning %, it meaures what % of goals scored are scored by the team we are rating. For example, a 3-0 win is a 100% goal %. A 3-1 win is 75%. A 8-2 win is 80%. 8-4 is 67%. Good defense and good offense are required to have a good goal %.

I think percentages are useless for this purpose. For instance, a 1-0 victory is a 100% goal percentage, and an 8-4 victory is only a 66% goal percentage. But which team is really stronger? The one winning by one, or the one winning by four?

 

[tom_servo]

What no one mentions is the 92-93 Pens broke the 80's Isles record for consecutitive wins after they swept the Devils in the opening round. I think they are a very under-rated team because they were the clear favorite to win cup #3 in a row.

Actually, win #17 came in the second-to-last game of the regular season, against the Rangers. The Devils snapped the streak by tying the Pens in the last regular season game, then were eliminated by the Pens in five games.

 

[Ogopogo*]

I think percentages are useless for this purpose. For instance, a 1-0 victory is a 100% goal percentage, and an 8-4 victory is only a 66% goal percentage. But which team is really stronger? The one winning by one, or the one winning by four?

But, a team would have to win every game 1-0 to maintain that %. Win 5 1-0 games in a row, then the team loses a 2-1 game. Suddenly the 100% dips to 75%. If a team actually had shutouts the whole year, they deserve 100%. But, being defensive, one goal against makes a HUGE dent in the stat.

It is a stat that works well on the macro - over the course of a whole season or a whole playoff run. When you look at it on a one game basis, a team with a shutout victory has a 100% winning % and a 100% goal %. The losing team has 0% and 0%. Winning % and goal % make more sense when you look at them over the course of a season.

 

[gary69]

The Devils numbers

Regular Season:

1994-95 New Jersey Devils 1.071
1999-00 New Jersey Devils 1.151
2002-03 New Jersey Devils 1.187

Playoffs:

1994-95 New Jersey Devils 1.463
1999-00 New Jersey Devils 1.281
2002-03 New Jersey Devils 1.272

Overall

1994-95 New Jersey Devils 2.534
1999-00 New Jersey Devils 2.432
2002-03 New Jersey Devils 2.459

It is not goal differential that I am measuring, it is goal %. This is similar to winning %, it meaures what % of goals scored are scored by the team we are rating. For example, a 3-0 win is a 100% goal %. A 3-1 win is 75%. A 8-2 win is 80%. 8-4 is 67%. Good defense and good offense are required to have a good goal %.

So, the Devils have not had a dominant regular season in any of their Stanley Cup years but, their 1995 Stanley Cup run was VERY dominant. That playoff year they were better than any of Colorado's cup runs, Tampa Bay's cup and any of Detroit's recent cup runs.

On my system, to be truly great, you need both an excellent offense and defense. One or the other will leave you down on the rankings. Look at my ratings for the '91 (1.079)and '92 (1.071) Penguins regular seasons. Great offense but not great defense. 2 of New Jersey's 3 regular seasons were well above Pittsburgh's two regular seasons.

So defensive teams can get good ratings. The greatest teams have great offense AND defense.

I might be biased on this, but how does the regular season champs & SC finalist Detroit team rate against New Jersey in 1994/95 in these calculations? For me, this is still the worst case of "wrong team won" -scenario since I've followed NHL (late 70's Habs years), although I wasn't too thrilled about 93 Habs win either. I blame (as an excuse) the (previous) lockout and the shortened season.

I liked the 99/00 Devils much more and I'm glad Detroit made up in the following years, but still...grrrr

 

[tom_servo]

But, a team would have to win every game 1-0 to maintain that %. Win 5 1-0 games in a row, then the team loses a 2-1 game. Suddenly the 100% dips to 75%. If a team actually had shutouts the whole year, they deserve 100%. But, being defensive, one goal against makes a HUGE dent in the stat.

It is a stat that works well on the macro - over the course of a whole season or a whole playoff run. When you look at it on a one game basis, a team with a shutout victory has a 100% winning % and a 100% goal %. The losing team has 0% and 0%. Winning % and goal % make more sense when you look at them over the course of a season.

I don't see how this is meaningful, though. Under these definitions, a 5-0 victory is just as good as a 1-0 victory, seeing as both teams scored 100% of the goals. But they are most certainly not the same; the latter team had a very slim margin of error compared to the former.

A one-goal lead is the same whether it's 1-0, or 5-4, regardless of your proportional share of the goals.

 

[Ogopogo*]

I don't see how this is meaningful, though. Under these definitions, a 5-0 victory is just as good as a 1-0 victory, seeing as both teams scored 100% of the goals. But they are most certainly not the same; the latter team had a very slim margin of error compared to the former.

A one-goal lead is the same whether it's 1-0, or 5-4, regardless of your proportional share of the goals.

1-0 and 5-0 are equal until you play your next game.

Lets say both teams face each other and tie 2-2.

Team A (1-0) team goes from 100% to 60%. Team B (5-0) goes from 100% to 78%. The stat works well when you use it for a season. Just like winning %.

Why this is meaningful is that it tells us how dominant a team was in the the games that they played. Winning 4-1 consistently is more impressive than winning 6-5 consistently.

 

[Snap Wilson]

So, discounting the playoffs as a "vacuum" is considered analysis to you?

I'm not discounting them at all, I'm just not lumping them into one number the way you are. Playoff performance is simply another facet that can be looked at in the analysis. One would hope that it's looked at a little more carefully than you tend to do.

I think you have some sort of jealousy problem with me posting my ratings on this board.

No, I'm just tired of seeing them on every damned thread announced as if they represent bold, empirical analysis without any justification of what the numbers are supposed to mean.

The goal % is the popular vote and the winning % is the number of elected seats.

First of all, "goal %" doesn't mean a damned thing. If you win 1-0, it's the same margin as winning 3-2. Yet you have 100% for one win and 60% for the other.

Winning % and goal % are everything when considering how dominant a team is. Those numbers are the only ones that really matter.

They may be the numbers that matter, but you don't bother to put them in any context.

And please don't duck my question, where do you rank Eddie Shore?

I don't "rank" him anywhere, having never seen him play. In fact, I don't "rank" any players anywhere. I think player rankings are pointless and silly exercises.

Now tell us again how you arrived at your various award values?

 

[tom_servo]

1-0 and 5-0 are equal until you play your next game.

Lets say both teams face each other and tie 2-2.

Team A (1-0) team goes from 100% to 60%. Team B (5-0) goes from 100% to 78%. The stat works well when you use it for a season. Just like winning %.

I understand your point; a win is a win. However, if we're trying to draw any conclusions from this analysis, I think the percentages can be grossly misleading. If these two teams are meeting in the playoffs, would you want the one who's been winning 8-4 every game, or the one who wins 1-0 every game? For a matter of comparison, give me the four-goal lead any day.

 

[Ogopogo*]

I might be biased on this, but how does the regular season champs & SC finalist Detroit team rate against New Jersey in 1994/95 in these calculations? For me, this is still the worst case of "wrong team won" -scenario since I've followed NHL (late 70's Habs years), although I wasn't too thrilled about 93 Habs win either. I blame (as an excuse) the (previous) lockout and the shortened season.

I liked the 99/00 Devils much more and I'm glad Detroit made up in the following years, but still...grrrr

Regular Season

1994-95 Detroit Red Wings 1.335
1994-95 New Jersey Devils 1.071

Playoffs

1994-95 Detroit Red Wings 1.281
1994-95 New Jersey Devils 1.463

Overall

1994-95 Detroit Red Wings 2.616
1994-95 New Jersey Devils 2.534

The Detroit Red Wings were by far the best team in the NHL in 1994-95 until they hit the New Jersey Devil brick wall. In fact, their overall rating is still higher even though they were swept by the Devils.

Did the wrong team win the cup? You could say that. But, the Devils did win where it counted - on the ice.

 

[Ogopogo*]

I'm not discounting them at all, I'm just not lumping them into one number the way you are. Playoff performance is simply another facet that can be looked at in the analysis. One would hope that it's looked at a little more carefully than you tend to do.

I evaluate both separately AND combine them. I have lists for greatest regular season team, greatest playoff team and greatest overall team. It seems that you try to factor in variables that are unnecessary or trivial, IMO.

No, I'm just tired of seeing them on every damned thread announced as if they represent bold, empirical analysis without any justification of what the numbers are supposed to mean

Maybe you missed my explanations? They represent my findings which are based on the best NHL documented evidence I can dig up. I think they are much more definitive than ESPN's farcical top 100. Perfect? No. But, pretty darn good.

First of all, "goal %" doesn't mean a damned thing. If you win 1-0, it's the same margin as winning 3-2. Yet you have 100% for one win and 60% for the other.

Win % doesn't mean a damned thing either, if you want to look at it that way. A 1-0 win and a 3-2 win are both 100%. When you look at goal % over the course of an entire season, it is VERY informative as to how dominant a team was. Like win % it doesn't mean much for one game. I am not using it to measure one game.

They may be the numbers that matter, but you don't bother to put them in any context..

I think you try to "overcontextualize" things. NHL play is my context.

I don't "rank" him anywhere, having never seen him play. In fact, I don't "rank" any players anywhere. I think player rankings are pointless and silly exercises.

Then why is it not a "pointless and silly exercise" to rank teams? Did you see the 50s Red Wings play? How can you rank them?

Player rankings are not "pointless and silly" when you consider how many responses there are to those threads. Many people are interested. So, when I dig up the available evidence, I like to share it.

If you choose to ignore the available evidence, that is your right.

Now tell us again how you arrived at your various award values?

I weighted the most important awards as a 7 point award and scaled back the lesser awards in accordance with their level of importance. You may not agree with my weightings but, you think it is a "pointless and silly exercise" anyway so, your opinion would be uninformed. I have enough knowledge of NHL hockey to make a fairly good determination of what awards are more significant than others for my rankings.

I don't think we should battle over who has the better rating system. I think we can politely agree or disagree. Getting into a lenghty battle is kinda foolish, IMO.

 

[Snap Wilson]

I evaluate both separately AND combine them. I have lists for greatest regular season team, greatest playoff team and greatest overall team. It seems that you try to factor in variables that are unnecessary or trivial, IMO.

They're only unnecessary or trivial if you don't bother to think about them.

Maybe you missed my explanations? They represent my findings which are based on the best NHL documented evidence I can dig up. I think they are much more definitive than ESPN's farcical top 100.

Nobody on this board is saying "ESPN ranked player X 17th of all-time" as if it represents a definitive argument.

Win % doesn't mean a damned thing either, if you want to look at it that way.

No, it doesn't, really, since NHL standings and playoff qualification aren't based on win percentage. High point totals come with a high winning percentage, but this is a case of you looking at the wrong numbers for your ratings.

A 1-0 win and a 3-2 win are both 100%. When you look at goal % over the course of an entire season, it is VERY informative as to how dominant a team was.

If you look at goal differential per game, it's even more informative. But I'm guessing you haven't figured out a way to process that information into a lump sum.

I think you try to "overcontextualize" things. NHL play is my context.

And mine is what, AHL play? What numbers am I working with? You apparently didn't learn much by reading Bill James. It's not about what the numbers are. It's about the information they represent.

Then why is it not a "pointless and silly exercise" to rank teams? Did you see the 50s Red Wings play? How can you rank them?

I haven't "ranked" anything. I've just presented some statistical information that can be used in the argument. I haven't actually made the argument myself. I might at some point, but I'd acknowledge beforehand that it's just my opinion and wouldn't assume that it empirically means anything.

Player rankings are not "pointless and silly" when you consider how many responses there are to those threads.

Most of the responses on that thread have been people poking holes in your system, but that's not the point. Most of the commentary on the "best player-team-whatever" threads will inevitably contain elements of collected experience, anecdotal *and* statistical evidence, not just a mishmash of numbers arbitrarily arrived at. There's something to learn in the experience of people who watch the game.

If you choose to ignore the available evidence, that is your right.

The "evidence" I have no problem with. Your interpretation of it, on the other hand...

I weighted the most important awards as a 7 point award and scaled back the lesser awards in accordance with their level of importance. You may not agree with my weightings but, you think it is a "pointless and silly exercise" anyway so, your opinion would be uninformed. I have enough knowledge of NHL hockey to make a fairly good determination of what awards are more significant than others for my rankings.

Somehow I don't think your knowledge of NHL hockey qualifies you to determine who would make the NHL All-Star teams prior to 1931.

I don't think we should battle over who has the better rating system. I think we can politely agree or disagree. Getting into a lenghty battle is kinda foolish, IMO.

Once again, I don't have a rating system. I'm just tired of reading about yours.