Lets do realistic analysis as opposed to the slight of hand one goal at a time.
I simply explained to you that the relative value of each additional goal scored or goal prevented depended on whether the GF/GA ratio was greater or less than 1.00. You refuted my explanation with an example in which originally a team scored 10 less than goals than they scored, but 20 GF were added or 20 GA subtracted, causing the ending ratio of GF/GA to be greater than 1.00.
There is no "slight of hand" in using one goal at a time, it was your claim that I was trying to narrow it down to a single game that was "extreme"-ly misleading and untrue. In fact, I provided a counter-example with an increment of 5 goals as further explanation. The increment doesn't matter, until you approach the equilibrium point at GA = GF + 1. Understand that I didn't decide on this magical point, it just happens to be where the effect reverses itself.
First re Gretzky and the Oilers. Effectively better defense was played when they won the cup.
1984/1985/1986 highest point total was 1986 but it corresponded to his lowest +/- during the three seasons. Something was obviously not working as well defensively. No SC in 1986.
1987. 32 point drop in points but only a drop from 71 to 70 plus/minus. So the defense improved somewhere along the line.
1988. further 34 point drop but the +/- only dropped 31. Much weaker offense but constant defense = another SC.
Maybe someone else can shed light on this, but the most obvious things to me are:
- Tikkanen's first full season was in '87
- league scoring dropped by over 7% from '86 to '87
- Gretzky missed 16 games in '88, but PPG was not lower than '87
- his adjusted PPG each season from '82-88 was in a range of less than 10% from top to bottom, which is incredibly consistent
I don't think Wayne was suddenly concentrating on defense, after all he later won a Ross with a -25 (w/o him on Kings were -10).
They lost a 7 game series to Calgary in '86. The three games they won were by scores of 6-5, 7-4 and 5-2. The four games they lost were by scores of 4-1, 3-2, 4-1 and 3-2. I doubt the Oilers are held to two goals or less in 4/7 games much during their dynasty.
Jagr 1993-94, 99 points/80 games with a plus 15. 1998-99, dead puck era with an emphasis on defense, 127 points/81 games plus 17. Basically the extra 28 points produced a net two +/-. Effectively in a defensive era Jagr was better offensively yet his defense did not keep pace, given that the opposing players were generating less offense the obviously it regressed.
Yes, he was better offensively in '99, but the team around him was worse. Jagr was second in even strength points to Fedorov in '94, so he was already a very elite player then.
So for the era in question(1997-2004) the following is a fairly accurate assessement. With Pittsburgh sacrificed defense for nice offensive numbers but his defense lagged drastically while the league was improving its defense. Looked good going against the flow but with little team contribution or value.
Pittsburgh had little defense to sacrifice from '97-01. Their top six D-men in games played were Kasparaitis, Slegr, Moran, Kevin Hatcher, Werenka and Tamer. In those five seasons, they had six goalies with totals of at least 35 games and 14 wins: Barrasso, Aubin, Skudra, Wreggett, Lalime and Snow. Not on that list are their last two playoff goalies, Tugnutt and Hedberg, who played more games in the playoffs than they had for the Pens during the season. The team was below average without Jagr in the ice in each season except 2001, when they ran into an extremely powerful Devils team in the ECF, with an aged and tired Lemieux, Jagr playing with one arm and a goalie they called up from the AHL in the last month of the season.
BTW, as you must know, the "flow" Jagr and other were going against while the league was "improving its defense" consisted of (at least in Jagr's case) literally two or three players holding, hooking and slashing... let's face it, at times practically gang tackling... while the refs swallowed their whistles, because "that big strong foreign dude should be able to fight through it" and Jagr would not dive. Seriously, can anyone who has watched Jagr in his prime think of a player who took more physical punishment from the oppositon in what Mario termed "a garage league"?
With Washington and the Rangers the offense more or less dropped to league norms with a +/- aggregate of -5 over four seasons.As a bonus Jagr joined a first place club in Washington without costing them any NHL roster players and left them a 5th place club in disarray.
Hardly what you would consider value, contribution or performance from the supposedly best player. Again the Art Ross trophies are nice but nobody holds a parade to celebrate them.
I'm sure you just made a simple error, as Jagr was
even over the
three seasons teams which were -36
The Caps were ripe for a fall, with their top 3 forwards in points averaging age 35 and 5/7 of their top d-men over 30 (their top 7 averaged over 30). They asked a 30 y/o Jagr to focus on defense and expected great things from a team that had somehow made a run to the SCF four years earlier. Guys like Bondra, Oates and Johansson were the core of that SCF team... and about ready for retirement, not more glory.
If Jagr hadn't been injured for 13 games in '02, they very likely make the playoffs (3-8-2 without him, finished 2 points out of playoff spot) and he challenges Iginla for the Ross (.03 ppg behind).
They made the playoffs in '03, then the wheels fell off in '04 and they began the rebuild a couple years later than they should have.
It wasn't exactly an ideal situation for Jagr, but then he left a less than ideal one in Pittsburgh. Despite having the same core of players, besides Jagr, as in 2001, they went from the ECF to missing the playoffs and each season from '02 to '06 was worse than any season they had since Mario's rookie season in '85. Ouch!
Talk about disarray, they were closer to bankruptcy than making the playoffs again. Why do think Mario came back? He had nothing to prove, but the team owed him a lot of dough! You can dismiss Jagr leading those weak Pens teams to the playoffs, but it kept Mario's paychecks coming and kept the lights on in the Igloo a bit longer.
As for the Pythagorean Expectation, no coach is going to install offensive or defensive systems for a one goal net benefit at the end of the exercise. That the PE reflects the weaknesses and adjustments that may have salvaged Jagr's game is another issue.
Here we go again. You want big increments, fine:
originally, team has 240 GF and 300 GA = .80 ratio
add 30 GF = 270/300 = .900
subtract 30 GA instead = 240/270 = .889
The higher ratio means a higher expected win% via Pythagorean.
Any questions or are you going to say I'm some sort of sorcerer?