Dominance

[Stonefly]

How do you define dominance? And who would you use as an example.
Ogo got me thinking about this in another thread. I'm thinking there will be two schools of thought on the definition.

Click to read more...

 

[Ogopogo*]

How do you define dominance? And who would you use as an example.
Ogo got me thinking about this in another thread. I'm thinking there will be two schools of thought on the definition.

Dominance to me is how much a player stands out among his peers. Things like winning the scoring race by 69% (Gretzky in 1987) or winning the goal scoring title by 69% (Brett Hull 1991) are dominant. These players stood out among their peers.

Dominance can also be based on eyewitness accounts, not just scoring totals. For example, a player like Orr won 8 Norris trophies (voted on by hockey writers who watched the games of the era), that is dominance. Finishing consistently in the top 3 or 5 voting for the important awards (Norris, Hart, Vezina) over the span of 5, 10 or 15 years is dominance as well. Winning multiple Conn Smythe trophies resonates with me as well. That is standing above your peers, IMO.

**Since the Vezina has only been voted on since 1982, the 1st all star goalie position is the "real" Vezina for years previous.**

To me, being dominant does not necessarily mean you are the best player in your era but, that you are among the best 3 - 5 players of your era consistently for several years.

Dominant players are players like: Gretzky, Howe, Orr, Lemieux, Shore, Beliveau, Hall, Roy, Bourque, Esposito, Jagr, Richard, Harvey, Sawchuk, Dryden, Hasek, Mikita, Kennedy, Clancy, Coffey, Kelly, Cowley, Morenz, Lafleur, Bossy, Trottier.

Players that I do not consider dominant would include: Gartner, Francis, Sundin, Ciccarelli, Anderson, Sittler, Nicholls, Foote, Gillies, Federko, Weight, Modano, Larmer. They weren't among the top 5 in the league for an extended period of time. Top 20 or 25? Sure. But, that lands them outside my definition of dominant.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

How do you define dominance? And who would you use as an example.
Ogo got me thinking about this in another thread. I'm thinking there will be two schools of thought on the definition.

I think there are two main ways of discussing player performance. You can look at "peak value" and "career value". I'm stealing both of these terms from baseball writer Bill James.

Basically, "peak value" measures how good a player was during their prime. It's synonymous with dominance. It looks at how much a player stood out, relative to their peers. Still, peak value is a very fuzzy term unless you clarify it further. There are many problems:
- Peak value could refer to offense only; it could refer to overall play; it could refer to other factors as well. When people discuss peak value, it's their responsibility to define what they're measuring.
- There's no consensus definition of how long a peak lasts. Is it one year, three years, five years, etc? Do the seasons have to be consecutive? Someone like Jim Carey or Denis Maruk could rank very high on peak value if you only look at one or two years.
- There's also no consensus regarding how "dominant" a player needs to be. Some people think that unless a player won an award, they weren't dominant. (Personally I think that's a very shallow and narrow way of looking at a player). Others think that finishing in the top five or ten is dominant. Again, there's no consensus.

"Career value" measures how long a player was able to contribute as an average player (or better). Therefore it looks at their longevity/consistency. As long as a player is healthy enough to play at the NHL level, they can never hurt their career numbers (though they can decrease their points-per-game [though I think that's a misleading and overused stat anyway]).

====

Ogopogo gave you a really good list of dominant/not dominant players and I agree with most of that list.

A lot of discussions on HFBoards turn into shouting matches when people don't clarify what they're talking about. Lindros is far more dominant than Francis ever was (however one defines dominant), but Francis has a much higher career value. Which player is better? It depends on your criteria.

 

[NOTENOUGHJTCGOALS]

Dominance to me is how much a player stands out among his peers. Things like winning the scoring race by 69% (Gretzky in 1987) or winning the goal scoring title by 69% (Brett Hull 1991) are dominant. These players stood out among their peers.

Dominance can also be based on eyewitness accounts, not just scoring totals. For example, a player like Orr won 8 Norris trophies (voted on by hockey writers who watched the games of the era), that is dominance. Finishing consistently in the top 3 or 5 voting for the important awards (Norris, Hart, Vezina) over the span of 5, 10 or 15 years is dominance as well. Winning multiple Conn Smythe trophies resonates with me as well. That is standing above your peers, IMO.

**Since the Vezina has only been voted on since 1982, the 1st all star goalie position is the "real" Vezina for years previous.**

To me, being dominant does not necessarily mean you are the best player in your era but, that you are among the best 3 - 5 players of your era consistently for several years.

Dominant players are players like: Gretzky, Howe, Orr, Lemieux, Shore, Beliveau, Hall, Roy, Bourque, Esposito, Jagr, Richard, Harvey, Sawchuk, Dryden, Hasek, Mikita, Kennedy, Clancy, Coffey, Kelly, Cowley, Morenz, Lafleur, Bossy, Trottier.

Players that I do not consider dominant would include: Gartner, Francis, Sundin, Ciccarelli, Anderson, Sittler, Nicholls, Foote, Gillies, Federko, Weight, Modano, Larmer. They weren't among the top 5 in the league for an extended period of time. Top 20 or 25? Sure. But, that lands them outside my definition of dominant.

How long do they have to be at that top? Would you consider a guy like Bure or Kariya dominant?

 

[Ogopogo*]

How long do they have to be at that top? Would you consider a guy like Bure or Kariya dominant?

I guess you could say that there are degrees of dominance. Bure and Kariya were dominant but, in my rankings they come in around #80 or 90 for dominant careers. They didn't have as many dominant seasons - and to the degree of dominance - as some of the others that I mentioned.

 

[Lexicon Devil]

The peak value vs. career value is an important distinction.

I believe that Mario Lemieux had the greatest peak value of any hockey player, but certainly his career value was far short of Gretzky's.

 

[Wetcoaster]

Top 5 in scoring for 20 seasons - would that not qualify as peak value and career???

 

[Czech Your Math]

How long do they have to be at that top? Would you consider a guy like Bure or Kariya dominant?

Bure was dominant when healthy.

Kariya only approached dominance while playing with an equal or greater talent (Selanne).

 

[VanIslander]

Dominance?
Dominator.
Dominic.

 

[Ogopogo*]

The peak value vs. career value is an important distinction.

I believe that Mario Lemieux had the greatest peak value of any hockey player, but certainly his career value was far short of Gretzky's.

I am curious as to how you determine that Mario had the highest peak value.

Do you have some data and evidence or are you just eyeballing it?

 

[Big Phil]

Dominance is what Gretzky or Orr did. Gretzky had seasons where his assists would have landed him #1 in the scoring race. Orr won a scoring title as a defenseman. He could kill an enitre two minute penalty by himself. There are other cases too.

 

[Blue Dragon]

Dominant players are players like: Gretzky, Howe, Orr, Lemieux, Shore, Beliveau, Hall, Roy, Bourque, Esposito, Jagr, Richard, Harvey, Sawchuk, Dryden, Hasek, Mikita, Kennedy, Clancy, Coffey, Kelly, Cowley, Morenz, Lafleur, Bossy, Trottier.

Players that I do not consider dominant would include: Gartner, Francis, Sundin, Ciccarelli, Anderson, Sittler, Nicholls, Foote, Gillies, Federko, Weight, Modano, Larmer. They weren't among the top 5 in the league for an extended period of time. Top 20 or 25? Sure. But, that lands them outside my definition of dominant.

I would probably add Sakic to the dominant list, in the late 90s and early 2000s he was unstoppable. He's still damn good too.