Best single-season team?

[Canadiens1958]

War

That's not remotely what I'm saying.

I fully agree that the reason a particular player misses time is irrelevant. This has nothing to do with individual players and the reasons they miss time.

This has to do with the massive number of players missing time all at once. The reason is military service, but that's irrelevant. The relevant fact is that a huge number of players, players in their primes, missed several full years of play all at the same time. A number far greater than you get from normal attrition such as injury.

You have the 1942/43 season, and then you take away a very significant number of its better players all at once. This is the 1943/44 season. Some of the replacements that come in are also quality players, but most of them are career minor-leaguers, players who would not be playing in the NHL otherwise, without this unusual mass exodus of quality players.


That's right. But it's not Syl Apps, or Maurice Richard. It's Apps and Bentley and Brimsek and Broda and Mowers and Abel and Patrick and so on and so on, all at once.

You expect a certain amount of injury and attrition every year. The amount of attrition between the 1942/43 and 1943/44 seasons was enormous relative to these normal expectations. It so happens this was because of the war, but if instead a huge chunk of the league broke their legs all at once, the effect would be the same: an immediate decrease in the quality of play, because many of the best players are no longer available.

So without war the same variance in the quality of play would be generated if there was an equivalent catastrophy. Is this a fair representation of your point.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

So without war the same variance in the quality of play would be generated if there was an equivalent catastrophy. Is this a fair representation of your point.

Yes, if there were an equivalent catastrophe the change in quality would be similar.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Perfect

Yes, if there were an equivalent catastrophe the change in quality would be similar.

Exactly my point and what I expected to hear.

Now here is the issue. Previously you and others claimed that GAA ave and SV% described performance just as well making "shutouts" a garbage stat, totally irrelevent I do not agree and since hockey history is not bound by time or statues of limitations will address and present my side in the "shutout" dispute when I deem appropriate.

Conversely your position, as all positions have to be bound by logical coherence. Specifically within the context of this sub debate missed time stats data and descriptions better portray and explain performance variance then attributing same to a garbage reason like WWII would ever do.

 

[Super Fadio Bro]

Had the 1996 Red Wings won the cup, they could have been consider one of the best single season teams of all-time.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Specifically within the context of this sub debate missed time stats data and descriptions better portray and explain performance variance then attributing same to a garbage reason like WWII would ever do.

I find this sentence very difficult to parse. I'll take a guess at what you're trying to say.

If you're trying to say that specific data explains things better than a shorthand term like WWII or wartime, then I'd agree and point out that this in no way contradicts anything I've said.

The discussion in this thread is very different than the shutout discussion, because in this case "wartime" is just a shorthand way of saying "massive player losses due to military service", because no other event has ever produced the level of player losses that wartime does.

Shutouts and save percentage, on the other hand, measure two different things, and one is not simply a shorthand term for another. "Shutout" is not a shorthand term for "high save percentage", because one does not necessarily mean the other.

 

[Canadiens1958]

I find this sentence very difficult to parse. I'll take a guess at what you're trying to say.

If you're trying to say that specific data explains things better than a shorthand term like WWII or wartime, then I'd agree and point out that this in no way contradicts anything I've said.

The discussion in this thread is very different than the shutout discussion, because in this case "wartime" is just a shorthand way of saying "massive player losses due to military service", because no other event has ever produced the level of player losses that wartime does.

Shutouts and save percentage, on the other hand, measure two different things, and one is not simply a shorthand term for another. "Shutout" is not a shorthand term for "high save percentage", because one does not necessarily mean the other.

Constant data is the issue. Loses of playing time in any form or length, are constant throughout the history of hockey. Rule changes are constant since the start of hockey. Because they are constant it is valid to study their impact and compare the results. There are constants in hockey dating back to the beginning of the game. These are valid reasons. There are transient reasons that may be eye-catching but are irrelevent or garbage reasons that just as easily fit and contribute more within a playing time loses grouping.

The concept of a shutout is a constant It cannot be changed or redefined by rule changes or criteria. The concept of SV% is not a constant but extremely fluid and subject to changes in definition. Example SV% during game conditions which is defined within a team concept and SV% in shoot-out conditions which is defined within individual conditions. That the NHL may choose to lawyer or twist such definitions does not detract from the definition just exposes the NHL.

Shutout and SV% are distinct stand alone valid concepts as statistics each with valid uses under the proper circumstances.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Constant data is the issue. Loses of playing time in any form or length, are constant throughout the history of hockey.

Some losses of playing time are constant throughout history. Losses due to wartime, which are much more extreme than most (affecting many more players and generally for a longer period of time), are very rare and limited to very specific time periods, and thus need special consideration.

Shutout and SV% are distinct stand alone valid concepts as statistics each with valid uses under the proper circumstances.

If you want to discuss shutouts and save percentage, we had a thread for that.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Special Consideration

Some losses of playing time are constant throughout history. Losses due to wartime, which are much more extreme than most (affecting many more players and generally for a longer period of time), are very rare and limited to very specific time periods, and thus need special consideration.


If you want to discuss shutouts and save percentage, we had a thread for that.

Special considerations present unnecessary distractions such as the size and adequacy of a sample space and the time element - length of the conflict with resulting unsupportable claims.

The slippery slope of "Special Considerations" then extends to every facet of every game. Every blip becomes viewed as special without end..

 

[livewell68]

I'm surprised no one mentioned the 1993 or 1996 Penguins.

In 1996 they had Lemieux with 161 Pts, Jagr with 149 Pts who were both 1st and 2nd in scoring and the 3rd nearest guy to them was Sakic with 120 Pts.

Francis was 4th in scoring with 119 Pts and Nedved had 99 Pts.

Sandstrom had 70 Pts in 58 games and Subov had 66 Pts in 64 games playing defense.

They scored 114 PPG (NHL record).

They also had a young Markus Naslund.

They had a total of 4 players who scored 35 goals or more including 2 60 goal scorers. That might have the best offensive team of all time.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

The slippery slope of "Special Considerations" then extends to every facet of every game. Every blip becomes viewed as special without end..

Not if you apply the special considerations only to the things that need them. In this thread, we've only discussed the effects of two World Wars on the quality of the NHL. Nothing else. We haven't really even discussed WWI, just WWII.

So this is another red herring. Focus on what I'm actually saying, not on things I've never said. I never said special consideration needs to be extended to every little thing. You have made a literal slippery slope argument, and I suggest that it's fallacious in this case.

When something like 30% of all players disappear in the span of two seasons, that's not a little thing. That's a major thing, and an extremely rare thing. You can't ignore it. Especially when it's on top of normal player attrition from injury and retirement. These things still happened in wartime, and then the military service of many players was added on top of that.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

I'm surprised no one mentioned the 1993 or 1996 Penguins.

I'm not - they didn't win the Cup in either of those seasons.

The 1996 edition was fourth place in the regular season, which certainly doesn't scream "best of all time" to me.

The 1993 team might merit some consideration though.

 

[livewell68]

I'm not - they didn't win the Cup in either of those seasons.

The 1996 edition was fourth place in the regular season, which certainly doesn't scream "best of all time" to me.

The 1993 team might merit some consideration though.

This is the best single season team.

No where does it say that the playoffs have to be considered as well.

They might have had a few defensive shortcomings but if it wasn't for Florida using border line illegal tactics to try and slow down Jagr and Lemieux, the Penguins would have been in the finals.

Find a single team that had 3 players finish 1st, 2nd and 4th in scoring the way Lemieux, Jagr and Francis were.

Also Jagr and Lemieux were the single most dominant players in the NHL that season by a massive margin.

It was Lemieux

Jagr






... and the rest.

 

[Never]

1976-77 Canadiens. Not even close.

Sure the 60 win mark was eventually eclipsed by the 95-96 Red Wings, but the 76-77 Canadiens lost EIGHT games in an 80 game schedule. I doubt that'll ever be matched.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

No where does it say that the playoffs have to be considered as well.

And yet, you'd have to expect a poster base as knowledgeable as this one to consider them strongly... and with good reason, imo.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Incomplete

Not if you apply the special considerations only to the things that need them. In this thread, we've only discussed the effects of two World Wars on the quality of the NHL. Nothing else. We haven't really even discussed WWI, just WWII.

So this is another red herring. Focus on what I'm actually saying, not on things I've never said. I never said special consideration needs to be extended to every little thing. You have made a literal slippery slope argument, and I suggest that it's fallacious in this case.

When something like 30% of all players disappear in the span of two seasons, that's not a little thing. That's a major thing, and an extremely rare thing. You can't ignore it. Especially when it's on top of normal player attrition from injury and retirement. These things still happened in wartime, and then the military service of many players was added on top of that.

30% disappearing means that ~ 43% entered the league as a result Less than 1967 expansion If you wish to study and compare the effects of 1943-44 with 1967-68 then within the framework of rule changes you have all that is necessary.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

This is the best single season team.

No where does it say that the playoffs have to be considered as well.

Why would the playoffs not be considered part of the season? The playoffs are often vastly overrated in their importance, but that doesn't mean they're unimportant.

I would certainly never say that a team must win the Cup to be considered - I was only pointing out that this would be one reason more people don't think of them as being among the greatest of all time.

As I said, I'd probably put the 1993 team in the discussion, though I don't like their chances.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

30% disappearing means that ~ 43% entered the league as a result Less than 1967 expansion If you wish to study and compare the effects of 1943-44 with 1967-68 then within the framework of rule changes you have all that is necessary.

The 30% number is an utter guess, of course, and yes expansion would be another thing that would likely need special consideration.

However, I will point out that adding a bunch of new players is not exactly the same as adding a bunch of new players and removing a bunch of old players at the same time.

I'm quite happy to discuss things on a case-by-case basis to determine if special considerations are required.

Edit: To be clear, contrary to what you implied in another thread, I'm not advocating special considerations for the war years because the war is big and special and should be recognized somehow. I'm advocating it because the facts and the numbers tell me special considerations are needed, regardless of the cause.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I'm not - they didn't win the Cup in either of those seasons.

The 1996 edition was fourth place in the regular season, which certainly doesn't scream "best of all time" to me.

The 1993 team might merit some consideration though.

The 1996 Penguins had a pathetic defense and scored a ton of goals by playing a firewagon offense-only system. One of the worst GAA in the league. They don't deserve to be anywhere near this conversation.

They routinely blew out weaker teams, largely on the strength of their PP (which probably was the the best PP since the 50s Canadiens), largely because Lemieux and Jagr were in their primes.

But it takes more than high end offensive talent and a great PP to make an all-time great team

 

[livewell68]

The 1996 Penguins had a pathetic defense and scored a ton of goals by playing a firewagon offense-only system. One of the worst GAA in the league. They don't deserve to be anywhere near this conversation.

They routinely blew out weaker teams, largely on the strength of their PP (which probably was the the best PP since the 50s Canadiens), largely because Lemieux and Jagr were in their primes.

But it takes more than high end offensive talent and a great PP to make an all-time great team

Is that why Jagr scored 96 Pts at evenstrength and was a + 31? Those numbers are clearly not a result of the powerplay.

Lemieux' line was more opportunistic on the powerplay but the line of Nedved and Jagr was the best 5-on-5 line in the NHL.

You make it sound like they only beat teams who were bottom feeders when they clearly beat the best teams of the NHL on numerous occasions. Wregget and Barasso both still had save percentages above .900.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

You make it sound like they only beat teams who were bottom feeders when they clearly beat the best teams of the NHL on numerous occasions. Wregget and Barasso both still had save percentages above .900.

They were 29 points out of first place in 1995/96. That's a pretty big hurdle to overcome if you want to get them into the discussion of the greatest of all time. And yes, the first-place team that year is one of the all-time best, but there were two other teams that finished ahead of the Penguins as well.

 

[Hardyvan123]

The 30% number is an utter guess, of course, and yes expansion would be another thing that would likely need special consideration.

However, I will point out that adding a bunch of new players is not exactly the same as adding a bunch of new players and removing a bunch of old players at the same time.

I'm quite happy to discuss things on a case-by-case basis to determine if special considerations are required.

Edit: To be clear, contrary to what you implied in another thread, I'm not advocating special considerations for the war years because the war is big and special and should be recognized somehow. I'm advocating it because the facts and the numbers tell me special considerations are needed, regardless of the cause.

You beat me to the punch. Top players leaving for WW2 and adding lower level players for the 67 expansion are 2 entirely different things.

To 1958's point, the only thing that is constant is that the game, players and seasons change, sometimes a little and sometimes alot.

To try to pick the "best single season team ever" is extremely subjective as there are literally 100's of variables from say 1958 to 2001.

It is easier to qauntify "best single season team ever" by defining some sort of timeline criteria and regular or regular and playoff season together IMO.

When evaluating and comparing any 2 teams in the NHL's history the further the distance in the timeline the more difficult the task IMO.

 

[Hardyvan123]

The 1996 Penguins had a pathetic defense and scored a ton of goals by playing a firewagon offense-only system. One of the worst GAA in the league. They don't deserve to be anywhere near this conversation.

They routinely blew out weaker teams, largely on the strength of their PP (which probably was the the best PP since the 50s Canadiens), largely because Lemieux and Jagr were in their primes.

But it takes more than high end offensive talent and a great PP to make an all-time great team

I agree, the 96 Pens might be in the running for one of the 100 single season teams depending on specific criteria but how they got into this thread is a mystery to me.

 

[blogofmike]

Is that why Jagr scored 96 Pts at evenstrength and was a + 31? Those numbers are clearly not a result of the powerplay.

Lemieux' line was more opportunistic on the powerplay but the line of Nedved and Jagr was the best 5-on-5 line in the NHL.

You make it sound like they only beat teams who were bottom feeders when they clearly beat the best teams of the NHL on numerous occasions. Wregget and Barasso both still had save percentages above .900.

96 ES points and +31 are indeed very, very good numbers, but this is about the best of all time. How do those numbers stack up against the 70s Bruins, 70s Habs, or 80s Oilers? Orr, Robinson and Gretzky had some absurd +/- stats, and Orr and Gretzky scored at a similar, if not vastly superior clip.

Jagr/Nedved may have been the best ES line in 1996, but I don't know if elite forwards extends to 5-on-5 play when your defence is so lacklustre.

Wregget and Barrasso were very good. However, the 96 Pens defenders let them get blitzed from all sides, swallowing up their good save percentages with the sheer volume of shots they faced. Again the defence was lacklustre.

I could argue for the 71 Bruins, 86 Oilers, 93 Pens, or 96 Wings based on regular season success that didn't lead to a Cup.

I could argue for a team like the 88 Oilers who were very good during the season, and went on an amazing 16-2 playoff run.

The 1996 Pens weren't the best team in the 1996 season. They weren't the best team in the 1996 playoffs. Being Top 4 in both season and playoffs makes it hard to say they were the best of all time.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Special Considerations

The 30% number is an utter guess, of course, and yes expansion would be another thing that would likely need special consideration.

However, I will point out that adding a bunch of new players is not exactly the same as adding a bunch of new players and removing a bunch of old players at the same time.

I'm quite happy to discuss things on a case-by-case basis to determine if special considerations are required.

Edit: To be clear, contrary to what you implied in another thread, I'm not advocating special considerations for the war years because the war is big and special and should be recognized somehow. I'm advocating it because the facts and the numbers tell me special considerations are needed, regardless of the cause.

This response combines issues raised in two threads. It is being placed in the more appropriate thread.

Since the mid 1970's the main focus of my research has been evaluating performance at the youth hockey level.Prior to and since I have had a casual interest, relative to my focus, in NHL history and statistics.

Both areas of study are based on two simple foundations.

Objective Valid Data
Data used has to be objective and valid. The weasel element will impact your data negatively. The lazy weasel coach will run the counter-clockwise segment of cone tests then fill in the same numbers for the clockwise segment. Easy to spot. Disqualify the data from any consideration in the accumulated data base since it is not valid.

Objective data. Everyone has a story,argument or excuse. Their situation or point of view is always unique and of course deserving of special consideration. Subjective, worse the special consideration is not given by the same people to others in similar situations. Prime example the war factor in sports. Baseball. WWII is given some leeway by some since WWII was almost universally supported by in the USA. The Korean war gets very little leeway since it was a less popular war even though greats like Ted Williams and Willie Mays amongst others, missed playing time due to military service. The Viet Nam war, unpopular, gets no leeway even though certain players missed time - Tony Kubek and others while others the likes of Rick Beck lost promising careers. In short special considerations are always subjective and have no place in any analysis.

Methodology
Analysis is based solely on objective valid data and to be worked forward. Information obtained midstream may be valid and interesting but it will always be inconclusive or speculative. Example. Valid evaluation data about a hockey player from bantam on up may be interesting but it is not complete since it does not have the numbers from pre-novice thru Pee Wee.

To the matter at hand. The NHL started with the 1917-18 season, coincidently a war year, end of WWI with various players away fighting the war - Punch Broadbent to name one and others who may have been competing for positions on teams were denied an opportunity.- Bill Cook, George Hainsworth to name two. The specific reason being irrelevent

The 1917-18 NHL season:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=goals

produced many interesting scoring feats but none were slogan worthy - "50 in 50" like Maurice Richard's achievement, none were by a player who had iconic status or played on a team during a season that was sufficiently long to indulge a greatest season discussion.

Eliminate the "special considerations" and various valid results follow. Maurice Richard's 50 in 50 is placed in proper context, a slogan produced artificial benchmark. Likewise most other scoring achiements from the 1917 NHL season are placed in proper context when balanced against rule factors that constrained TOI, strategy,awarding of assists etc. Sadly the most fascinating comparison is severely constrained. Scoring defensemen. Harry Cameron, Paul Coffey, Bobby Orr.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Again, I'm having difficulty parsing your point from this, but I'll provide some comments and you can let me know if they help or hinder.

To the matter at hand. The NHL started with the 1917-18 season

I'm not sure why you'd want to "start" in 1917/18; the NHL is a direct continuance of the NHA in all things except the name. Looking back a few years over the NHA's existence might help below, as I'll point out.

coincidently a war year, end of WWI with various players away fighting the war - Punch Broadbent to name one and others who may have been competing for positions on teams were denied an opportunity.- Bill Cook, George Hainsworth to name two.

If we're going to discuss player losses due to wartime, we should at least get the players right. Broadbent did miss three seasons to military service. That Bill Cook might have been playing in the NHL is pure conjecture, since he was an amateur when he went into the military, and didn't turn pro until 1922, several years after the war. Hainsworth played for the Kitchener senior team throughout the war, not turning pro until 1923, so I don't know where you get the idea the war kept him out of the NHL.

Besides Broadbent (and Scotty Davidson), there were a few other quality players that would surely have been in the NHL without the war in 1917/18: Duke Keats and Goldie Prodger are the best of them. There were quite a few others, but most of those were part-time players, or close to retirement anyway, so their losses would be closer to normal attrition. I haven't done a careful analysis of these losses, so I won't offer any comment as to whether it's as significant as the WWII losses.

The 1917-18 NHL season:

produced many interesting scoring feats but none were slogan worthy - "50 in 50" like Maurice Richard's achievement, none were by a player who had iconic status or played on a team during a season that was sufficiently long to indulge a greatest season discussion.

Are you saying Joe Malone was not one of the greatest scorers of his time? Or Cy Denneny?

There are two reasons, I think, that Joe Malone's 44 goals in 20 games is not considered in the same class as 50 in 50.

1. For casual fans, they have no idea who Joe Malone is. And if they have heard of him, the NHL of his era is distantly enough removed that it doesn't make sense to them.

2. For historians, Malone's performance was hardly unique for the time in which he played. This is what I mean about going back to the NHA. 1917/18 was the third time Malone had averaged over two goals per game; he had done it in 1916/17 and 1912/13 as well.

Frank Nighbor also did it in 1916/17. Tommy Smith did it in 1914/15, 1912/13 and just barely missed in 1913/14. Go back to the crazy first season of the NHA and you have Newsy Lalonde with 3.45 goals per game, Ernie Russell with 2.67 and Harry Smith with 2.46. So the 1917/18 goal-scoring performance don't stick out in a historical context.

Eliminate the "special considerations" and various valid results follow. Maurice Richard's 50 in 50 is placed in proper context, a slogan produced artificial benchmark.

I don't follow. What special considerations would we be removing? In order to view Richard's 50 in 50 we need to add special considerations to place it in the proper context, that is, the quality of competition was reduced due to massive player losses.

Likewise most other scoring achiements from the 1917 NHL season are placed in proper context when balanced against rule factors that constrained TOI, strategy,awarding of assists etc. Sadly the most fascinating comparison is severely constrained. Scoring defensemen. Harry Cameron, Paul Coffey, Bobby Orr.

We havan't even discussed whether special considerations should need to be given for the WWI years; we've only been discussing WWII. That would depend on the specifics of the player losses, whether it was enough to significantly impact the quality of hockey.

Because, again, "war" is not the reason special considerations are required. The reason is "massive player losses that significantly affect the quality of hockey in the league". If player losses to WWI military service have this significant effect, then that should be considered.