Future HOFers: Judge them

Ogopogo*

Guest
Stephen said:
You have Alexei Yashin, Sergei Gonchar and Brad Richards above Scott Niedermayer. That alone is enough to completely undermine your formula for ranking these players. You're only looking at numbers and you completely ignore more intangible things. I can only imagine how you've managed to skew and overrate 'past greats' just by looking at numbers and ignoring everything else.

Actually if you remember Yashin's days in Ottawa, for a time he was quite dominant. I don't remove credit for not playing as well in the future. I am quite sure that Niedermayer will pass Yashin and Gonchar on the list by the end of this season or next. Perhaps he will pass Richards as well.
 

God Bless Canada

Registered User
Jul 11, 2004
11,793
17
Bentley reunion
Wisent said:
But Sundin has the international success to show that he can elevate his play under pressure. He was a very important part in the titles Sweden won.
Unfortunately, international play counts for little in the eyes of the HHOF voters, and it seems to mean nothing for those who spent the majority of their career in North America, or those who spent their prime years in North America. If it did mean anything to the voters, Sundin would be a lock. The HHOF voters have become very NHL-centric in recent decades.

It took Kharlamov nearly 25 years to get into the HHOF. Sergei Makarov is perhaps the best eligible player not in the HHOF, has a distinguished international portfolio that surpasses Sundin, and has been passed over five times. Fetisov got in on the first ballot, but Fetisov managed to win three Stanley Cups.
 

Chili

En boca cerrada no entran moscas
Jun 10, 2004
8,440
4,269
ClassicHockey said:
Sometime when rating players, stats don't tell the whole story.

I find that is true all the time. How do you measure leadership and the impact a player has on his teammates? Conversely, what impact did his teammates have on that player? What tells you that a player is willing to dive in front of a shot with the game on the line? Which players showed up for the big games? What impact did injuries have on their career?

That's why I don't like the rating players, too many variables. And I believe they all contain biases, intended or not.
 

Bluesfan1981

Registered User
Mar 21, 2006
591
2
USA
That fact that Jari Kurri is ranked #138 is evidence that there is certainly a flaw in those rankings.
 

Hockey Outsider

Registered User
Jan 16, 2005
9,056
13,986
How would people rate Mark Recchi's chances of making the Hall of Fame, especially in comparison to Sundin, Modano and Nieuwendyk?
 

Sens Rule

Registered User
Sep 22, 2005
21,251
73
Hockey Outsider said:
How would people rate Mark Recchi's chances of making the Hall of Fame, especially in comparison to Sundin, Modano and Nieuwendyk?

Similar to those guys... Maybe but maybe not. He definately has a chance to, especially if he is an important player in the Canes winning a cup this year or next year. And if he plays a couple of more years at a high level.

He likely would not make it if he retired tomorrow. But it would be possible.
 

God Bless Canada

Registered User
Jul 11, 2004
11,793
17
Bentley reunion
Hockey Outsider said:
How would people rate Mark Recchi's chances of making the Hall of Fame, especially in comparison to Sundin, Modano and Nieuwendyk?
I'd rate Recchi in the same class as Modano and Sundin: just a cut below HHOF status, but a player who, if he finishes with a flourish, could make it. 1,265 points in 1,256 games, a durable, solid, all-round winger. He won a Cup with Pittsburgh in 1991, and had a pretty big role, with 34 points on the top line. Had two or three other really impressive seasons.

Was third in scoring in 2000, tied for fifth in 1993-94, and I believe he was top 10 in 1990-91 and 1992-93. But like Sundin and Modano, I think he's still one or two pieces missing in his portfolio. It's a no, but with a "not yet" distinction.
 

Ogopogo*

Guest
Bluesfan1981 said:
That fact that Jari Kurri is ranked #138 is evidence that there is certainly a flaw in those rankings.

Or perhaps your perception of Kurri overrates him slightly? Based on the facts of the criteria I set out, Kurri had the 138th most dominant NHL career.

I am a huge Kurri fan but, I am not going to artificially raise his standing just because I like him. Bias plays no part on my list. You may disagree with his spot and that is OK.
 

Bluesfan1981

Registered User
Mar 21, 2006
591
2
USA
Ogopogo said:
Or perhaps your perception of Kurri overrates him slightly? Based on the facts of the criteria I set out, Kurri had the 138th most dominant NHL career.

I am a huge Kurri fan but, I am not going to artificially raise his standing just because I like him. Bias plays no part on my list. You may disagree with his spot and that is OK.

How did you get 138?

600+ goals, almost 1400 points. 106 playoff goals, 5 Cups. 7 seasons 40+ goals, 4 seasons 50+ goals, including 68 and 71 goal seasons. 8 all-star games, and he was a very good defensive player.
 

Stephen

Moderator
Feb 28, 2002
77,849
51,516
Ogopogo said:
Actually if you remember Yashin's days in Ottawa, for a time he was quite dominant. I don't remove credit for not playing as well in the future. I am quite sure that Niedermayer will pass Yashin and Gonchar on the list by the end of this season or next. Perhaps he will pass Richards as well.

I don't know how you quantify 'dominant.'

Yashin was a big time scorer on a team on the rise. Yet he never broke 100 points, his team never won anything and he was driven out of Ottawa. As 'dominant' as Yashin was, he only had back to back seasons of 94 and 88 points, never breaking 50 goals even. He's been mediocre ever since.

Do those two years of relatively high scoring hockey make Yashin better than a guy like Scott Niedermayer, who has for most of his career done almost everything but pile on the points in suffocating New Jersey? Niedermayer had comparatively unsexy numbers, but he's got a Norris Trophy, 3 Stanley Cups, an Olympic gold, all-star teams, etc. Does Yashin's 2 years of high scoring mean more than Sundin's 12 years of excellence with Toronto?
 

MS

1%er
Mar 18, 2002
53,362
83,425
Vancouver, BC
If Alexei Yashin comes in 20 spots ahead of Michel Goulet, the system needs to be revamped.

Goulet had 4 seasons where he was top-10 in scoring, his highest being 3rd.
Yashin has 1 season where he was top-10 in scoring, his highest being 6th.

Goulet had 6 seasons where he finished top-10 in goalscoring (2nd, 4th, 4th, 4th, 6th, 9th).
Yashin had 2 seasons where he finished top-10 in goalscoring (2nd, 10th).

Goulet had 3 First-team and 2 Second-team All-star selections.
Yashin had 0 First-team and 1 Second-team All-star selections.

Goulet was an elite player for a 6-year stretch (1982-88).
Yashin was an elite player for a 2-year stretch (1998-99, 2000-01).

Goulet produced in the playoffs, Yashin is one of the biggest chokes ever.

Goulet won two major international titles, and turned in a huge performance at the 1984 Canada Cup. Yashin has never won a major international title.

Goulet's career numbers dwarf Yashin's, even if you adjust for era.

Goulet was the best in the league at his position for a 6-year stretch. Yashin was never best at his position.

Goulet was one of the defining players and all-time greats for his franchise. Yashin is hated in the city where he spent the prime of his career.

Neither player won any major awards.

Goulet comes out ahead of Yashin in every conceivable way that you could judge greatness or impact. If your system judges Yashin superior, it is seriously flawed.
 

Ogopogo*

Guest
Bluesfan1981 said:
How did you get 138?

600+ goals, almost 1400 points. 106 playoff goals, 5 Cups. 7 seasons 40+ goals, 4 seasons 50+ goals, including 68 and 71 goal seasons. 8 all-star games, and he was a very good defensive player.

Raw numbers like career goals and points are very misleading and, for the most part, must be discounted when comparing the most dominant players of all time. Kurri happened to play in the most offensive era there ever was so, his numbers are somewhat skewed upward.

Kurri receives recognition for his time spent near the top of the goal scoring and points list as well as his 5 cups. Unfortunately, he was never awarded a Conn Smythe nor was he given any serious consideration for a Hart Trophy. Kurri had 4 seasons that qualified for individual recognition on my system. I think that some people forget and assume that he had 10 huge years along Gretzky's side. 4 excellent seasons with no Hart consideration puts him about right at #138.
 

Ogopogo*

Guest
Stephen said:
I don't know how you quantify 'dominant.'

Yashin was a big time scorer on a team on the rise. Yet he never broke 100 points, his team never won anything and he was driven out of Ottawa. As 'dominant' as Yashin was, he only had back to back seasons of 94 and 88 points, never breaking 50 goals even. He's been mediocre ever since.

Do those two years of relatively high scoring hockey make Yashin better than a guy like Scott Niedermayer, who has for most of his career done almost everything but pile on the points in suffocating New Jersey? Niedermayer had comparatively unsexy numbers, but he's got a Norris Trophy, 3 Stanley Cups, an Olympic gold, all-star teams, etc. Does Yashin's 2 years of high scoring mean more than Sundin's 12 years of excellence with Toronto?

You have to consider that Yashin was 2nd in Hart trophy balloting the year he picked up 94 points. Niedermayer has never been seriously considered for the Hart. Perhaps, after this season, Niedermayer will pass Yashin on my system but, being considered the 2nd best player on the planet is worthy of significant consideration. Niedermayer has never been considered among the top 7.

Yashin't 2 years of great play is worth more than Sundin's 12 years of being a good player - NOT excellence - in my mind. Being considered the 2nd best player on the planet once is worth more than being a top 25 player 10 times, IMO. Sundin has been good for a long time but rarely excellent and dominant.

Many people see greatness differently than I do. Being the best on the planet one time is better than being a face in the crowd (top 25) many times. That is how I see it and that is how my ratings are structured.
 

Ogopogo*

Guest
MS said:
If Alexei Yashin comes in 20 spots ahead of Michel Goulet, the system needs to be revamped.

Goulet had 4 seasons where he was top-10 in scoring, his highest being 3rd.
Yashin has 1 season where he was top-10 in scoring, his highest being 6th.

Goulet had 6 seasons where he finished top-10 in goalscoring (2nd, 4th, 4th, 4th, 6th, 9th).
Yashin had 2 seasons where he finished top-10 in goalscoring (2nd, 10th).

Goulet had 3 First-team and 2 Second-team All-star selections.
Yashin had 0 First-team and 1 Second-team All-star selections.

Goulet was an elite player for a 6-year stretch (1982-88).
Yashin was an elite player for a 2-year stretch (1998-99, 2000-01).

Goulet produced in the playoffs, Yashin is one of the biggest chokes ever.

Goulet won two major international titles, and turned in a huge performance at the 1984 Canada Cup. Yashin has never won a major international title.

Goulet's career numbers dwarf Yashin's, even if you adjust for era.

Goulet was the best in the league at his position for a 6-year stretch. Yashin was never best at his position.

Goulet was one of the defining players and all-time greats for his franchise. Yashin is hated in the city where he spent the prime of his career.

Neither player won any major awards.

Goulet comes out ahead of Yashin in every conceivable way that you could judge greatness or impact. If your system judges Yashin superior, it is seriously flawed.

Goulet had 5 excellent goal scoring seasons and one excellent point scoring season. He finished 7th in Hart balloting once. Yashin had one great goal scoring season and one great point scoring season. Most importantly, Yashin considered the 2nd best player on the planet in his best season. Thus, Yashin is ahead of Goulet.

The thing to remember as well, it is a very fine line. One season just a little bit better for Goulet and he is ahead. Post season all-stars are nice but, because of the disparity between positions (LW is traditionally a weak position) it is not an effective method of evaluation. Using post-season all stars, a case could be made that John LeClair had a greater career than Steve Yzerman. It is not a valid measurement.

I consider the Hart and the Smythe trophies as the highest individual awards in hockey. Players who factor into those awards the most tend to move the highest up the list.
 

Stephen

Moderator
Feb 28, 2002
77,849
51,516
Ogopogo said:
You have to consider that Yashin was 2nd in Hart trophy balloting the year he picked up 94 points. Niedermayer has never been seriously considered for the Hart. Perhaps, after this season, Niedermayer will pass Yashin on my system but, being considered the 2nd best player on the planet is worthy of significant consideration. Niedermayer has never been considered among the top 7.

Yashin't 2 years of great play is worth more than Sundin's 12 years of being a good player - NOT excellence - in my mind. Being considered the 2nd best player on the planet once is worth more than being a top 25 player 10 times, IMO. Sundin has been good for a long time but rarely excellent and dominant.

Many people see greatness differently than I do. Being the best on the planet one time is better than being a face in the crowd (top 25) many times. That is how I see it and that is how my ratings are structured.

You try to break things down into numbers and individual accomplishments and you feel that this is an objective system in judging players. But hockey isn't baseball, and a lot of numbers can be skewed to tell different things. Likewise, awards and award voting mean very little in judging the relative greatness of players.

In reality, has Alexei Yashin ever been held in such high esteem by anybody that a GM would trade Scott Niedermayer for Alexei Yashin straight up? I'd say no. As a defenseman on New Jersey, Niedermayer was never going to get any consideration for the Hart Trophy. First, he never put up sexy stats, and secondly, his worth to New Jersey goes beyong points.

Also, you fail to consider things like award voting bias. How many defensemen have won the Hart in the last 30 years? How many Hart Trophies have Denis Potvin, Larry Robinson or Ray Bourque won? Are these players somehow not as good as Martin St. Louis, a Hart Trophy and winner and a 1 year wonder?
 

Ogopogo*

Guest
Stephen said:
In reality, has Alexei Yashin ever been held in such high esteem by anybody that a GM would trade Scott Niedermayer for Alexei Yashin straight up?

Yes, during and after the 1998-99 season, I think any GM in the NHL would have gladly traded anyone off of their roster to Ottawa for Yashin straight up. Niedermayer included.

Stephen said:
Also, you fail to consider things like award voting bias. How many defensemen have won the Hart in the last 30 years? How many Hart Trophies have Denis Potvin, Larry Robinson or Ray Bourque won? Are these players somehow not as good as Martin St. Louis, a Hart Trophy and winner and a 1 year wonder?

That is why I give defensemen credit for votes gained in the Norris trophy balloting while forwards do not receive that credit.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Sens Rule

Registered User
Sep 22, 2005
21,251
73
Ogopogo said:
Raw numbers like career goals and points are very misleading and, for the most part, must be discounted when comparing the most dominant players of all time. Kurri happened to play in the most offensive era there ever was so, his numbers are somewhat skewed upward.

Kurri receives recognition for his time spent near the top of the goal scoring and points list as well as his 5 cups. Unfortunately, he was never awarded a Conn Smythe nor was he given any serious consideration for a Hart Trophy. Kurri had 4 seasons that qualified for individual recognition on my system. I think that some people forget and assume that he had 10 huge years along Gretzky's side. 4 excellent seasons with no Hart consideration puts him about right at #138.

Kurri did have 10 good seasons in Edmonton, the last 2 without Gretzky. 8 of them were truly exceptional seasons not just 4 of them. Your system doesn't really weight the playoffs... am I correct? Kurri was truly dominant from 83-90. During that stretch he averaged 61.8 goals a season including playoffs. Or from 83-88 a 6 year run he averaged 67.5. Or in the 4 year run that you consider Kurri's only time where he was dominant 1984-87 73.75. Over his 10 years in Edmonton from his rookie year until he was 30. He averaged (including playoffs) 56.6 goals and 124.5 points for 10 years! He did play in a very offensive era but cmon that is dominance by any possible definition. Plus he was highly regarded as a defensive forward at his offensive peak. He is not 138th in a list of most dominant NHL players that weren't goalies.

Total goals and points including playoffs
1981 37 87 rookie
1982 34 93
1983 53 127 11th in scoring 11th in assists 7th in playoff points
1984 66 141 7th in scoring and 5th in goals and missed 16 games led playoffs in goals 2nd in playoff scoring 2nd team All-Star. Won Cup
1985 90 166 2nd in scoring and goals led playoffs in goals and was 3rd in playoff scoring. 1st team All Star. Won Cup
1986 70 143 led reg seaon in goals 4th in scoring 2nd team All-Star
1987 69 133 2nd in scoring 3rd in goals led playoffs in goals 1st team All-Star Won Cup
1988 57 127 13th in scoring led playoffs in goals 3rd in playoff scoring Won Cup
1989 47 110 8th in scoring 13th in goals 2nd team All-Star
1990 43 118 19th in scoring 7th in playoff goals and 4th in playoff scoring. Won Cup
 

Ogopogo*

Guest
cup2006sensrule said:
Kurri did have 10 good seasons in Edmonton, the last 2 without Gretzky. 8 of them were truly exceptional seasons not just 4 of them. Your system doesn't really weight the playoffs... am I correct? Kurri was truly dominant from 83-90. During that stretch he averaged 61.8 goals a season including playoffs. Or from 83-88 a 6 year run he averaged 67.5. Or in the 4 year run that you consider Kurri's only time where he was dominant 1984-87 73.75. Over his 10 years in Edmonton from his rookie year until he was 30. He averaged (including playoffs) 56.6 goals and 124.5 points for 10 years! He did play in a very offensive era but cmon that is dominance by any possible definition. Plus he was highly regarded as a defensive forward at his offensive peak. He is not 138th in a list of most dominant NHL players that weren't goalies.

Total goals and points including playoffs
1981 37 87 rookie
1982 34 93
1983 53 127 11th in scoring 11th in assists 7th in playoff points
1984 66 141 7th in scoring and 5th in goals and missed 16 games led playoffs in goals 2nd in playoff scoring 2nd team All-Star. Won Cup
1985 90 166 2nd in scoring and goals led playoffs in goals and was 3rd in playoff scoring. 1st team All Star. Won Cup
1986 70 143 led reg seaon in goals 4th in scoring 2nd team All-Star
1987 69 133 2nd in scoring 3rd in goals led playoffs in goals 1st team All-Star Won Cup
1988 57 127 13th in scoring led playoffs in goals 3rd in playoff scoring Won Cup
1989 47 110 8th in scoring 13th in goals 2nd team All-Star
1990 43 118 19th in scoring 7th in playoff goals and 4th in playoff scoring. Won Cup

I am not denying that Kurri had an excellent career and had 10 very good seasons in Edmonton. I am just saying that only 4 of his seasons were truly dominant. Finishing 11th or 19th in scoring is a very good season but, you have to draw a line somewhere. Not everybody is dominant. I draw the line at 7th.
 

Sens Rule

Registered User
Sep 22, 2005
21,251
73
comparing Kurri to Messier... over the same 10 years Messiers 2nd to 11th seasons. They were almost the same age 20-30. They were on the same team. They played in the same number of playoff series.

total goals and points including playoffs
1981 25 70
1982 51 91
1983 63 127
1984 45 127
1985 35 79 missed 25 games
1986 39 94 missed 17 games
1987 49 135
1988 48 145
1989 34 106
1990 54 160

over 10 years Messier averages 44.3 goals per season and 113.4 points compared to 56.6 goals and 124.5 points. This was the prime of both players careers, when they were the most dominant. Messier continued to be a top player a few more seasons in New York and he has 2 Harts and a Smythe. But Kurri produced more points and far more goals in their primes.

Yet Messier is 34th on your list and Kurri is 138th. It doesn't make sense to me. Messier is clearly better, but not that much better.
 

Ogopogo*

Guest
cup2006sensrule said:
comparing Kurri to Messier... over the same 10 years Messiers 2nd to 11th seasons. They were almost the same age 20-30. They were on the same team. They played in the same number of playoff series.

total goals and points including playoffs
1981 25 70
1982 51 91
1983 63 127
1984 45 127
1985 35 79 missed 25 games
1986 39 94 missed 17 games
1987 49 135
1988 48 145
1989 34 106
1990 54 160

over 10 years Messier averages 44.3 goals per season and 113.4 points compared to 56.6 goals and 124.5 points. This was the prime of both players careers, when they were the most dominant. Messier continued to be a top player a few more seasons in New York and he has 2 Harts and a Smythe. But Kurri produced more points and far more goals in their primes.

Yet Messier is 34th on your list and Kurri is 138th. It doesn't make sense to me. Messier is clearly better, but not that much better.

I weight the Hart and Smythe higher than any other stat or award in the NHL. Messier winning two Harts and a Smythe while Kurri never won a Smythe and never finished in the top 7 of Hart voting even once makes the difference.

Being named the most valuable player on the planet three times is VERY significant, IMO.
 

Sens Rule

Registered User
Sep 22, 2005
21,251
73
Ogopogo said:
I am not denying that Kurri had an excellent career and had 10 very good seasons in Edmonton. I am just saying that only 4 of his seasons were truly dominant. Finishing 11th or 19th in scoring is a very good season but, you have to draw a line somewhere. Not everybody is dominant. I draw the line at 7th.

What I am saying is that if you lead the playoffs in goals and are 3rd in playoff points and your team wins the Cup and you are 13th in league scoring in a 21 team league with 400 players in it and you score 57 goals and 127 points overall for the regular season and playoffs (which puts him 5th overall in points combined) then that is a dominant season. Not to include it in ranking players on dominance is not properly defining what being dominant is.
 

Ogopogo*

Guest
cup2006sensrule said:
What I am saying is that if you lead the playoffs in goals and are 3rd in playoff points and your team wins the Cup and you are 13th in league scoring in a 21 team league with 600 players in it and you score 57 goals and 127 points overall for the regular season and playoffs (which puts him 5th overall in points combined) then that is a dominant season. Not to include it in ranking players on dominance is not properly defining what being dominant is.

The problem is that some of the best players in the league had no opportunity to play 20 extra playoff games so, the comparison is not totally valid. Kurri did have some great playoffs but comparing that directly to, say, Marcel Dionne does not make sense. Is Kurri necessarily better than Dionne because he scored 28 points in 21 playoff games while Dionne had 0 points in 0 games? It penalizes players for being on a crappy team and that skews things, IMO.

You need a level playing field to measure dominance so, regular season is quite effective.
 

Sens Rule

Registered User
Sep 22, 2005
21,251
73
Ogopogo said:
The problem is that some of the best players in the league had no opportunity to play 20 extra playoff games so, the comparison is not totally valid. Kurri did have some great playoffs but comparing that directly to, say, Marcel Dionne does not make sense. Is Kurri necessarily better than Dionne because he scored 28 points in 21 playoff games while Dionne had 0 points in 0 games? It penalizes players for being on a crappy team and that skews things, IMO.

You need a level playing field to measure dominance so, regular season is quite effective.

If you are dominant you play more playoff games. NHL hockey is about suceeding in the playoffs. If you are so dominant as to be in the top 7 in scoring and winning Hart trophies you should be able to have some significant success in the playoffs.
 

Sens Rule

Registered User
Sep 22, 2005
21,251
73
Do you weight leading the playoffs in scoring into your rating system or weight leading the playoffs in goals?
 

Ogopogo*

Guest
One player, no matter how good, cannot make a team win. I do give credit for being on a cup winner but, I don't give credit for leading the playoffs in scoring or goals. It is like I said before, I don't blame Marcel Dionne for playing on a crappy team. Some of the best players in the NHL don't get the chance to lead the playoffs in scoring. Winning does matter and that is why I reward cup wins but, to reward playoff scoring would skew things too much, IMO.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->