Are rankings meaningful?

[YippieKaey]

Yeah so on here there's a lot of list about top ten (insert role here) and especially in places like the HHOF there's an overrepresentation of offensive players. Rarely do you se lists like "Who's the best pokechecker ever?". When ranking players stats usually matters and d-oriented guys get a bit overlooked. Marc-Edouard Vlasic for example is nowhere near discussions about the best players in the league even though he is amazing in his role. Hockey is much more complex than it is possible to illustrate with stats and lists so is there really a point comparing players at all? Every single player in the top 20 all time has great numbers but some of them sucked at defence for example. Is there a tilt towards appreciating the offensive part of hockey a lot more in list-making?

Click to read more...

 

[Michael Farkas]

Naturally, there's a good deal of bias in terms of things that can be counted because it's more "accessible". There are no stats for defense, there are no real trophies for defense and it's a lot tougher to understand than a red light. Now, some players can be so far above and beyond at offense that the defense isn't gonna bring them down (I mean, Gretzky's got 1000 more points than everyone else that's ever played ever and that's on a scale of 3000...I mean, sit down and shut up, that's ridiculous). But you're right, there are measures for goals scored and no measures for goals prevented.

Moreover, when you wander away from the box score, now you need to trust one's judgment of the game all the more. This is.......uhh...less than reliable, let's say...for roughly 98% of the people on this board. There isn't a meaningful way to quantify it and measure it against another...you need to have a good feel for and understanding of the game...

I will say, I enjoy discussions (mostly on the HoH board, I try to steer clear of the main boards if I can...they are horrific and make me really question whether I undershot that 98% number haha) and these rankings provide a vehicle for discussion and that discussion leads to education. I understand that these lists, my lists, your lists, etc. aren't going to be perfect (@seventieslord his might be...I'm not sure, you'd have to check with him) but it's still a great opportunity to learn along the way if you're willing.

 

[Doctor No]

is there really a point comparing players at all?

Yes.

And it sounds as though you agree (and that you just happen to disagree with some others' rankings).

 

[The Panther]

I can think of two reasons why offense is more often measured and tabulated than defence: (1) offense can be attributed to individual players (who scored = 1 person, assists = max. 2 players), and (2) creating high-level offense is a much, much rarer skill than competent defence.

Over the past 4 years or so that I've used this forum, one thing that has surprised me is how many posters are excited about 'ranking' individual players, and how few posters are enthusiastic about ranking teams. Generally whenever I've started threads about teams, they die a fast death, whereas threads comparing players (see: Yzerman / Sakic for the ultimate example) go on for years and years.

And yet hockey is fundamentally not at all about individuals.

 

[YippieKaey]

Over the past 4 years or so that I've used this forum, one thing that has surprised me is how many posters are excited about 'ranking' individual players, and how few posters are enthusiastic about ranking teams. Generally whenever I've started threads about teams, they die a fast death, whereas threads comparing players (see: Yzerman / Sakic for the ultimate example) go on for years and years.

And yet hockey is fundamentally not at all about individuals.

Yeah that's a good point. I think comparing teams is a much more daunting task than comparing players. I too enjoy individual comparisons and i think it is because it concretizes(real word?) things and can be done semi-casually. But comparing for instance the 80:s Oilers with the trapping Devils is probably less gratifying.

 

[YippieKaey]

No

Yes.

And it sounds as though you agree (and that you just happen to disagree with some others' rankings).

Not at all. I enjoy rankings as much as the next guy but apart from stating obvious things like Gretzky is the best is there relevance to it?

 

[YippieKaey]

Naturally, there's a good deal of bias in terms of things that can be counted because it's more "accessible". There are no stats for defense, there are no real trophies for defense and it's a lot tougher to understand than a red light. Now, some players can be so far above and beyond at offense that the defense isn't gonna bring them down (I mean, Gretzky's got 1000 more points than everyone else that's ever played ever and that's on a scale of 3000...I mean, sit down and shut up, that's ridiculous). But you're right, there are measures for goals scored and no measures for goals prevented.

Moreover, when you wander away from the box score, now you need to trust one's judgment of the game all the more. This is.......uhh...less than reliable, let's say...for roughly 98% of the people on this board. There isn't a meaningful way to quantify it and measure it against another...you need to have a good feel for and understanding of the game...

I will say, I enjoy discussions (mostly on the HoH board, I try to steer clear of the main boards if I can...they are horrific and make me really question whether I undershot that 98% number haha) and these rankings provide a vehicle for discussion and that discussion leads to education. I understand that these lists, my lists, your lists, etc. aren't going to be perfect (@seventieslord his might be...I'm not sure, you'd have to check with him) but it's still a great opportunity to learn along the way if you're willing.

That's a good reply. But in my mind i would say that the difference in team value between let's say Rod Langway and Jere Lehtinen in comparison to Tim Kerr and Pierre Turgeon is negligible. Obviously Gretz and those kind of megastars are in a league of their own but greatness seems quite weighted towards offence even though a large portion of coaches would probably agree that offence wins games and defence wins tournaments. I feel like maybe that sentiment is not reflected in for example the HHOF

 

[Johnny Engine]

Define relevance? Obviously, just about nothing we talk about on HFBoards is that critically important, but we can’t debate whether you think ranking players is impossible, just done badly most of the time, or in some other way anathema to serious discussion of the sport as a whole, if we don’t know what your angle is.

 

[Zegras Zebra]

Mike Farkas and The Panther basically said it. Overall stats are heavily skewed towards offensive play compared to defensive players so its much easier to compare great offensive players than great offensive players. People generally like to talk about the best of the best compared to third and fourth line grinders. Also its easier to compare high end offensive players in the "eye test" than good defense. Basically the Norris is the only trophy defenseman can win, and usually offensive defensemen are favored for that award so its more difficult to count trophies to determine who is better for defensive players.

I think the same thinking goes when comparing teams. Its just more difficult to compare teams especially teams from different eras than to compare players.

 

[YippieKaey]

Define relevance? Obviously, just about nothing we talk about on HFBoards is that critically important, but we can’t debate whether you think ranking players is impossible, just done badly most of the time, or in some other way anathema to serious discussion of the sport as a whole, if we don’t know what your angle is.

Yeah it's late here, i might not be articulate enough. Basically i think a lot of comparisons and lists simplify the game greatly and disregarding a lot of factors. Recent example i guess is William Karlsson. Last year noone would have mentioned him in a list of best goalscorers but this year he is difficult to exclude. He did not become that much better in a year so obviously role and circumstance matters. But also apparently he changed gear(sticks mainly) which also helped. Im sure there are a lot more factors and with that amount of moving parts it seems difficult to rank and compare anything but raw statistics. Which is a pretty small part of hockey. Sorry if i am not making tonnes of sense im thinking as i write

 

[YippieKaey]

Mike Farkas and The Panther basically said it. Overall stats are heavily skewed towards offensive play compared to defensive players so its much easier to compare great offensive players than great offensive players. People generally like to talk about the best of the best compared to third and fourth line grinders. Also its easier to compare high end offensive players in the "eye test" than good defense. Basically the Norris is the only trophy defenseman can win, and usually offensive defensemen are favored for that award so its more difficult to count trophies to determine who is better for defensive players.

I think the same thinking goes when comparing teams. Its just more difficult to compare teams especially teams from different eras than to compare players.

Agreed. I find that in the sport of soccer for example even guys who scored like 2 goals a year are in all-time great lists. Not so much in hockey.

 

[Ishdul]

I think it's a natural extension of the way a majority of people watch sports. Maybe they're not meaningful, in the sense that sports might not be meaningful, but people like doing it and care about it.

 

[YippieKaey]

I think it's a natural extension of the way a majority of people watch sports. Maybe they're not meaningful, in the sense that sports might not be meaningful, but people like doing it and care about it.

I guess that pretty much sums it up

 

[The Panther]

Player defensive awards are difficult to assess, largely because (so I think) defense is almost purely a team aspect. In much of NHL history, offense was more about individuals and line-combinations, though lately it, too, has changed to become a team thing (much to the detriment of entertainment value, I would argue, but I digress). But all throughout NHL history, right up to today, defense has been a team aspect.

Therefore, how to assess who is the best defender? You can look at defensive style of the individual, but that only makes sense in the team's context. So it's easier to look at offensive stats, which vary hugely from player to player. I think the "Bobby Orr Revolution", as Jean Beliveau termed it, probably encouraged Norris voters to look more at scoring stats of D-men.

That lasted for about 10 or 12 years, but then there came a point (after Randy Carlyle, basically), in the midst of the most offensive era in modern NHL history, when voters decided to go back to the 50s' mentality and look at the top defensive player -- Rod Langway. Then, when Edmonton proved it could win and Coffey's numbers were through the roof, they went to him.

Now, Rod Langway was awesome and good on him for winning two Norrises; Coffey was the all-time greatest rover. But I think this pendulum switch from "all defense, no offence!" (Langway) to "all offense, little defense!" (Coffey), was the reason why Potvin and Bourque didn't win more Norris trophies. They were both offensive and defensive, but neither to extremes.

 

[steve141]

One problem with quantifying defence is usage. For example, Datsyuk was heralded as a great defensive forward, but if you actually looked at the games Zetterberg was the one who was given most of the defensive matchups. Was this because Z was the better defender or because Datsyuk was needed more for his offense? Or a combination of both? How can this ever be quantified?

 

[sr edler]

I’m not obsessed with rankings myself, but defensively skilled players have been recognized or high-lighted at least back to Nighbor, Walker and Moose Johnson. Newspaper accounts often mentions their poke-checking (Nighbor, Walker) or sweep-checking (Johnson) abilities. Johnson was originally a forward with the Montreal Wanderers who converted to defense in the PCHA with the Portland team. They had a real small rink in Portland so he was tricky to get by.

 

[Canadiens1958]

One problem with quantifying defence is usage. For example, Datsyuk was heralded as a great defensive forward, but if you actually looked at the games Zetterberg was the one who was given most of the defensive matchups. Was this because Z was the better defender or because Datsyuk was needed more for his offense? Or a combination of both? How can this ever be quantified?

Datsyuk did not need specific defensive assignments to play elite defence. Zetterberg was better in clearly defined defensive roles but did not have the overall defensive game.

Similar to offensive hockey. Crosby and McDavid have better overall offensive games than Ovechkin except for certain elite elements that Ovi executes better.

 

[Johnny Engine]

Yeah it's late here, i might not be articulate enough. Basically i think a lot of comparisons and lists simplify the game greatly and disregarding a lot of factors. Recent example i guess is William Karlsson. Last year noone would have mentioned him in a list of best goalscorers but this year he is difficult to exclude. He did not become that much better in a year so obviously role and circumstance matters. But also apparently he changed gear(sticks mainly) which also helped. Im sure there are a lot more factors and with that amount of moving parts it seems difficult to rank and compare anything but raw statistics. Which is a pretty small part of hockey. Sorry if i am not making tonnes of sense im thinking as i write

Makes sense. On the whole, I just don't equate difficulty with pointlessness. If a list of the greatest players could be simply generated by a spreadsheet of simple stats, that would be pointless to talk very much about, but as is, there's hours and hours of debate to be had, and since we're never going to zero in on an immutable conclusion, we can come back and debate more tomorrow.
More to the point on Karlsson - an opinion or judgement in any format, whether it's a list, a short paragraph, a spreadsheet or an interpretive dance, is most useful if the terms used are defined sharply. Was Karlsson among the most productive goal scorers this season? Did he have the best collection of skills used to score goals? Is he among the most likely players to score 40 again next season? Those questions might have different answers, and the answer to "who's the best goal scorer" requires weighing all of them, and that means more debate, and more fun.
So yeah, if you find a post-it note with list of the top ten players on it in the trash and have no idea where it came from, that information in and of itself isn't very useful. If you can find some sort of reasoning behind it, that might be a bit more edifying.

 

[BenchBrawl]

There are meaningful for people interested in doing them.

If you meant that offense was too valued compared to defense on most such lists, than it's irrelevant to the meaningfulness of rankings, only relevant about the competency and/or biases of the rankers.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

That's a good reply. But in my mind i would say that the difference in team value between let's say Rod Langway and Jere Lehtinen in comparison to Tim Kerr and Pierre Turgeon is negligible. Obviously Gretz and those kind of megastars are in a league of their own but greatness seems quite weighted towards offence even though a large portion of coaches would probably agree that offence wins games and defence wins tournaments. I feel like maybe that sentiment is not reflected in for example the HHOF

Odd that of those 4 players you mention the only one who gets much attention in rankings here on the History Site is the defense-only player, Langway.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

No


Not at all. I enjoy rankings as much as the next guy but apart from stating obvious things like Gretzky is the best is there relevance to it?

That's not obvious to many of us.

Though Gretzky is usually ranked #1, its hardly a landslide vote on any reputable rankings (you know, like ours here on this site).

 

[Iapyi]

They are far to subjective for any real worth, heck there's some who don't even have Gretzky at #1 to show how pointless they are.

 

[Ishdul]

Odd that of those 4 players you mention the only one who gets much attention in rankings here on the History Site is the defense-only player, Langway.

He's also the only one in the Hall of Fame, so it's not just here.