Gretzky, Lemieux and Crosby comparables

[tazzy19]

Your obsession on the 91 hit is noted.

The ESGF and Ron/off and plus/minus are measuring different metrics.
Haven't you read what I've been talking about the last couple of pages?

Bold: obviously, and of course, duly noted. But once again, you still haven't answered the question.....

 

[Czech Your Math]

If one were to agree that 87 was his last peak season, in terms of plus/minus, it's not to say that he wasn't still elite offensively but rather that his overall impact, say for example being a huge 70 plus to a prorated 47 and less afterwards, was less overall after 87 right?

Some of the noise in the crowd is only focused on the GF and points part of the equation.

It would be one thing for one season to be an aberration but after 87 there was a clear downwards trend in Wayne's value as measured by plus/minus.

Of course it's somewhat open to interpretation, but one must consider:

A) Point production tends to be much more reliable from one year to the next in comparison to plus-minus data, because the former is much more in the player's control than the latter.

B) The pattern between his actual plus-minus thru '87 vs. post-'87 is different than that between his adjusted plus-minus numbers. The reason for that is that his actual plus-minus is helped by him playing SH and hurt by him playing on PP, while the adjusted plus-minus uses estimates to factors those situation numbers out of the equation. So his adjusted plus-minus data in '88 and '89 is still not out of place for the period '80-'89, although it's still at the lower end of the spectrum. Also, his actual ESGF/GA ratio was quite strong in '91, but not his adjusted plus-minus, because strangely that '91 Kings team had the highest R-off of any team on which Gretzky played.

I don't totally disagree that other factors (age, injury, different team, etc.) may have played a role in his decline, but because the plus-minus data tends to vary so much more from season to season, it's much more difficult to pinpoint exactly when such factors may have come into play.

If your hypothesis is that the change in league quality/dynamics affected Gretzky negatively, then it might help to examine the data of other similar players. Unfortunately, players of Gretzky's caliber have few, if any, equals with which to compare. It should be noted, however, that Lemieux had his two best ES seasons in '89 & '93.

 

[tazzy19]

I honestly believe 1987 to be his absolute peak. He had a 183 point season on a team that was still the most offensive in the league but also focused more on preventing mistakes like Steve Smith the year before and creating a more responsible game. Then he won the Cup in 1987 with another fine performance and then the 1987 Canada Cup. Many of us will agree this was Gretzky at his finest. Almost impossible to top. But for a couple years he was right on that level. I would say the 1987 Canada Cup and the 1988 playoffs were as good as we ever saw him play. He was just as offensive as before, but more polished and refined. So it only makes sense that he would start a slow decline around 1987 and afterwards.

You are looking far too much into the plus/minus stat. It really isn't that big of a drop off from 1987 to 1988. A player's personal points totals are the most important stat, and they didn't change at all from a PPG basis. Plus/minus is a nice stat, but it is more like a side dish. More of a cherry on top. You seem to be using it as more of a stat that tells the entire story.

I totally agree Phil. The (less than) 365 day span between the 1987 Stanley Cup and the 1988 Stanley Cup might be the greatest year for any one player in NHL history. I can't think of another player that won 2 Stanley Cups, a Canada Cup, a Conn Smythe, a Canada Cup MVP, and a Hart Trophy (would have been two Harts without his 16 game injury) all in less than 365 days!! Wow....

The Wayne Gretzky of the 1988 Stanley Cup playoffs was very much a peak Wayne Gretzky. His 43 points in only 19 games was done without Paul Coffey, and his record 13 points in a Stanley Cup Finals was done in only 4 games (not including the black out in Boston). Ridiculous stats, even for a prime Wayne Gretzky.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Of course it's somewhat open to interpretation, but one must consider:

A) Point production tends to be much more reliable from one year to the next in comparison to plus-minus data, because the former is much more in the player's control than the latter.

B) The pattern between his actual plus-minus thru '87 vs. post-'87 is different than that between his adjusted plus-minus numbers. The reason for that is that his actual plus-minus is helped by him playing SH and hurt by him playing on PP, while the adjusted plus-minus uses estimates to factors those situation numbers out of the equation. So his adjusted plus-minus data in '88 and '89 is still not out of place for the period '80-'89, although it's still at the lower end of the spectrum. Also, his actual ESGF/GA ratio was quite strong in '91, but not his adjusted plus-minus, because strangely that '91 Kings team had the highest R-off of any team on which Gretzky played.

I don't totally disagree that other factors (age, injury, different team, etc.) may have played a role in his decline, but because the plus-minus data tends to vary so much more from season to season, it's much more difficult to pinpoint exactly when such factors may have come into play.

If your hypothesis is that the change in league quality/dynamics affected Gretzky negatively, then it might help to examine the data of other similar players. Unfortunately, players of Gretzky's caliber have few, if any, equals with which to compare. It should be noted, however, that Lemieux had his two best ES seasons in '89 & '93.

I'm not sure of what caused his drop in plus/minus, there are probably many factors but the changing nature of the league was more in affect in 95 than it would ahve been in 88 I'm guessing form what I have looked at.

It's not just the 88 plus/minus drop on it's own but the trend away from his peak that I was drawing my conclusions from which was that his impact at ES was less and by quite a bit after 87 than it was before.

The drop in affect at ES using the plus/minus is greater than one would expect from his scoring totals at ES during that time period as well.

 

[Rhiessan71]

So we moved from 87-88, baby steps. Will it be 89 tomorrow?

Hahahaha
If he goes to '89, it will be the fourth time he has changed the season.
He started in the 90's remember, then '87, now '88.

While both Wayne and Mario still continued to be top elite offensive players, their style of play was less conducive and decisive in actually winning hockey games as the 90's wore on.

We can look at both their ESGF and ESGA as time went on and their focus on offense at the expense of defense starting catching up to both of them with the changing tides.

For Wayne this was especially true after leaving the more dominant supporting cast he had in Edmonton and the new less dominant supporting cast in LA.

He also said...

It's just a casual observation I have noticed and an in depth study of it might be something interesting to look at IMO.

Which of course Czech provided and it was indeed interesting to look at...just not for him unfortunately

 

[Rhiessan71]

I'm not sure of what caused his drop in plus/minus, there are probably many factors but the changing nature of the league was more in affect in 95 than it would ahve been in 88 I'm guessing form what I have looked at.

It's not just the 88 plus/minus drop on it's own but the trend away from his peak that I was drawing my conclusions from which was that his impact at ES was less and by quite a bit after 87 than it was before.

The drop in affect at ES using the plus/minus is greater than one would expect from his scoring totals at ES during that time period as well.

What do you mean you don't know what caused the drop?
Are you *** kidding me???

Gretzky went from producing 140+ ES points a year for 3 seasons straight, then down to 124, then about to about a projected 115, then 3 years straight at 100 or so.

Tell me, what's the difference between 140 and 100?
Now tell me what the difference is between 70 and 30?

Wow, that's remarkable!


With some loose assumptions, it sure looks like Gretzky's +/- numbers are dropping because he is not able to produce as many points at ES as he did during his absolute peak.
It sure doesn't look like goals being scored against his team at ES while he was on the ice is getting much larger.

85/86 143 ES points +71
90/91 103 ES points +30

Incredible!!!

 

[Hardyvan123]

Hahahaha
If he goes to '89, it will be the third time he has changed the season.
He started in the 90's remember, then '87, now '88.

We have been over this ground, the actual stats pointed to 87 as being his last elite season in regards to plus/minus.

88 was a large dip, but if you took the time to read the study and observations by Overpass, one shouldn't judge any individual season too much on it's own, by 89 the downward trend was quite apparent.

[/QUOTE]Which of course Czech provided and it was indeed interesting to look at...just not for him unfortunately [/QUOTE]

You are being quite selective in what Czech was saying in his study, as it didn't pertain to plus/minus per-say but ES scoring and R-on/R-off

He also stated and the numbers back it up that

You could argue that '87 was the last of his peak ES seasons, but it seems clearer that '91 was the last of his prime (or near-peak) ES seasons.

This is in reference to his ES scoring so let's not confuse it with what I was , which was his plus/minus and overall impact.

I don't have a narrative that I'm trying to follow but rather ask questions and go where the data leads me.

We all know what your narrative is here.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Bold: obviously, and of course, duly noted. But once again, you still haven't answered the question.....

What question is that?

The recent answer to my plus/minus questioning has been an exclusive look at his ES scoring and not the whole equation, why is that?

Have you even bothered looking at the study that Overpass did?

 

[Hardyvan123]

Hockey players are ageless now?

No but most elite players don't peak at 26 then decline starting at 27 either.

 

[Rhiessan71]

We have been over this ground, the actual stats pointed to 87 as being his last elite season in regards to plus/minus.

88 was a large dip, but if you took the time to read the study and observations by Overpass, one shouldn't judge any individual season too much on it's own, by 89 the downward trend was quite apparent.


You are being quite selective in what Czech was saying in his study, as it didn't pertain to plus/minus per-say but ES scoring and R-on/R-off

He also stated and the numbers back it up that



This is in reference to his ES scoring so let's not confuse it with what I was , which was his plus/minus and overall impact.

I don't have a narrative that I'm trying to follow but rather ask questions and go where the data leads me.

We all know what your narrative is here.

So you're saying that if a player is producing 40 less ES points a season and if his +/- just happens to drop by about 40 points, that there's no relationship there?
Like seriously dude?

For you to prove your case, you have to show us that goals being scored against at ES while Gretzky was on the ice increased by a substantial amount.

From all the data that has been presented, it's leaning quite heavily towards his declining ES point production is by far the main culprit.

 

[Rhiessan71]

No but most elite players don't peak at 26 then decline starting at 27 either.

Most players don't start playing professional hockey at 17, playing 909 games (not even including the 27 International games in there as well) in 10 seasons by 27 either.

Unless of course you have a list of such players available for us to compare him too


Just a suggestion but you might want to think of Gretzky starting to decline after his 10th season. Not at 27 years old.

 

[Hardyvan123]

So you're saying that if a player is producing 40 less ES points a season and if his +/- just happens to drop by about 40 points, that there's no relationship there?
Like seriously dude?

Actually there is no direct relationship between 40 point drops in both points and plus minus. If there was we would see it for most of his career right?

For you to prove your case, you have to show us that goals being scored against at ES while Gretzky was on the ice increased by a substantial amount.

Assuming that your above assumption was correct, which it isn't.

From all the data that has been presented, it's leaning quite heavily towards his declining ES point production is by far the main culprit.

That's selective data and even then there is quite a dip in ES scoring from 86-88 (161,150, 146) and no correlation that you suggest between ES points and plus minus.

for example Wayne has 142 ES points and is plus 60 in 83.

In 88 he has 146 points and is plus 50

In 89 he has 128 points and is plus 15

In 90 he has 128 points and is plus 8

In 91 he has 137 points and is plus 30

Where do you see the point for point correlation for ES points and plus/minus?

Most players don't start playing professional hockey at 17, playing 909 games in 10 seasons by 27 either.

Unless of course you have a list of such players available for us to compare him too

If there is no one to compare him too then any conclusion will be purely subjective then right?

His early Jan birthdate gives the 17 year old impression rather than 18 that we have quite a bit of data for.

Like I said most elite players don't start their decline between their age 26 and 27 seasons.

 

[BraveCanadian]

In 88 he has 146 points and is plus 50
In 89 he has 128 points and is plus 15
In 90 he has 128 points and is plus 8
In 91 he has 137 points and is plus 30

Where do you see the point for point correlation for ES points and plus/minus?

Thanks for pointing out again how much +/- generally sucks in describing an individual's play.

This is also why you trying to use it in your argument here doesn't do you a lot of good.

Seriously, how much longer are you going to continue trying to claim that the game passed Gretzky by or whatever when the recollections of most people here and the cold hard stats line up exactly?

You're wrong.

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

Thanks for pointing out again how much +/- generally sucks in describing an individual's play.

This is also why you trying to use it in your argument here doesn't do you a lot of good.

Seriously, how much longer are you going to continue trying to claim that the game passed Gretzky by or whatever when the recollections of most people here and the cold hard stats line up exactly?

You're wrong.

Yeah, +/- is about the most worthless stat ever come up with. I seriously don't know why somebody would even argue with it.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Thanks for pointing out again how much +/- generally sucks in describing an individual's play.

This is also why you trying to use it in your argument here doesn't do you a lot of good.

Seriously, how much longer are you going to continue trying to claim that the game passed Gretzky by or whatever when the recollections of most people here and the cold hard stats line up exactly?

You're wrong.

go back and take a look at the middle column in Czech your maths graph.

ES On: ESGF/GA ratio w/ player on ice

Like he and Overpass stated, one shouldn't take too much into any single year but we can see really big trends.
82 1.84
83 1.61
84 1.78
85 2.05
86 1.65
87 1.78
His peak pretty much ends in 88 at a 1.58 ratio followed by

89 1.13
90 1.14
91 1.53
92 0.95 ect...

The cold hard stats that you refer to is the partial picture which is points and ES scoring.

The lack of context and refusal by some to look at the whole picture is really baffling.

 

[BraveCanadian]

go back and take a look at the middle column in Czech your maths graph.

ES On: ESGF/GA ratio w/ player on ice

Like he and Overpass stated, one shouldn't take too much into any single year but we can see really big trends.
82 1.84
83 1.61
84 1.78
85 2.05
86 1.65
87 1.78
His peak pretty much ends in 88 at a 1.58 ratio followed by

89 1.13
90 1.14
91 1.53
92 0.95 ect...

The cold hard stats that you refer to is the partial picture which is points and ES scoring.

The lack of context and refusal by some to look at the whole picture is really baffling.

You have to be kidding me.

You don't think that going from the most offensive dynasty in hockey history to a bottom feeder may just have something to do with his R-ON changing in 88-89?

Goals for is a 5 man stat not a 1 man stat. GF, +/- and Adjusted plus minus have all sorts of contextual information needed to go along with it.

JHC man.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Yeah, +/- is about the most worthless stat ever come up with. I seriously don't know why somebody would even argue with it.

Funny it doesn't matter which teams scores the most goals in a game either too right?

See my last post on ES On: ESGF/GA ratio w/ player on ice

Or will you just continue to ignore what doesn't fit your narrative?

Look Wayne is my number 1 player of all time but his decline in ES effectiveness is pretty darn clear here.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Funny it doesn't matter which teams scores the most goals in a game either too right?

See my last post on ES On: ESGF/GA ratio w/ player on ice

Or will you just continue to ignore what doesn't fit your narrative?

Look Wayne is my number 1 player of all time but his decline in ES effectiveness is pretty darn clear here.

ES points = what Wayne did.

+/- GF/GA adjusted plus minus and whatever derivative looks shiny today is what Wayne, four other skaters and a goalie did.

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

ES points = what Wayne did.

+/- is what Wayne, four other skaters and a goalie did.

 

[Hardyvan123]

You have to be kidding me.

You don't think that going from the most offensive dynasty in hockey history to a bottom feeder may just have something to do with his R-ON changing in 88-89?

Goals for is a 5 man stat not a 1 man stat. GF, +/- and Adjusted plus minus have all sorts of contextual information needed to go along with it.

JHC man.

Seriously are you giving Wayne that little credit for his peak in Edmonton?

Or are only some stats team driven depending on your perspective on a player?

Also it wasn't like only Wayne and Carson switched places and that LA didn't add in other areas but that's another matter.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Seriously are you giving Wayne that little credit for his peak in Edmonton?

No.

Or are only some stats team driven depending on your perspective on a player?

Some more than others, very obviously.

Also it wasn't like only Wayne and Carson switched places and that LA didn't add in other areas but that's another matter.

Ok?

 

[Hardyvan123]

ES points = what Wayne did.

+/- GF/GA adjusted plus minus and whatever derivative looks shiny today is what Wayne, four other skaters and a goalie did.

I'm guessing you also haven't bothered to read the study by Overpass?

I'm guessing that you also mean that Wayne has more direct involvement in his ES points than your implication that he was on the nice by himself for those points.

But the fact remains that his ESGF/GA ratio w/ player on ice stat is also largely on him as well.

 

[BraveCanadian]

I'm guessing you also haven't bothered to read the study by Overpass?

Are you kidding?

It gets brought up on here EVERY day.

You might want to find the original post and read the list of caveats he presented with it.

I'm guessing that you also mean that Wayne has more direct involvement in his ES points than your implication that he was on the nice by himself for those points.

Yeah... no. But nice red herring. I'm pretty sure other people were on the ice too.

But the fact remains that his ESGF/GA ratio w/ player on ice stat is also largely on him as well.

I think I can very safely assume that he is MUCH more responsible for the ES points he was given credit for than the GF/GA ratio.

Wayne sucked as a goaltender for example.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Are you kidding?

It gets brought up on here EVERY day.

]You might want to find the original post and read the list of caveats he presented with it.

I read it quite clearly, what part are you referring to?

 

[BraveCanadian]

I read it quite clearly, what part are you referring to?

This:

While this method removes many of the biases from raw plus-minus, it is still an imperfect method of rating players. First, most importantly, it is for even-strength play only. Second, a player’s linemates or defence partner may exert a major influence on a player’s numbers – see Milan Hedjuk for a prime example. Third, the on-ice/off-ice method of adjusting for team implicitly compares a player to the other players on his team who play the same position but on another line or D-pairing. If a player is on the same team as a great player, the off-ice baseline may not be a fair comparison. For example, Ted Green’s 1971 season has one of the lowest adjusted plus-minus ratings ever. When you realize that much of his off-ice baseline was set by Bobby Orr, the reason for the low rating becomes clear. Also, some players play more difficult opposition than others, facing the other team’s best players and taking more defensive zone faceoffs. These differences can also skew the numbers.

For the above reasons, please keep the following in mind when using these numbers to evaluate players

• Adjusted plus-minus is best used to compare players who played in a similar role. For example, compare #1 defensemen who played the toughest ice-time on the team to other #1 defensemen, not to #6 defensemen who were sheltered by their coaches from the best players. For example, take Tom Preissing’s rating with a huge grain of salt.
  
• Adjusted plus-minus is measured against a baseline of average, so it will tend to underrate players with a long decline phase or several poor years at the start of their career (Mark Messier) and give high ratings to players who retired young and didn’t play a lot past their prime(Bobby Orr, Eric Lindros).
• Adjusted plus-minus is measured against a baseline of average, so it will tend to underrate players with a long decline phase or several poor years at the start of their career (Mark Messier) and give high ratings to players who retired young and didn’t play a lot past their prime(Bobby Orr, Eric Lindros).
• Check to see who the player’s linemates were. Did he have a great player on his line? Charlie Simmer and Dave Taylor both have very high ratings, and likely owe much of it to Marcel Dionne.
• Did the player play on a team with another great player who was on another line/D-pairing? If so, his adjusted plus-minus may be too low. Mark Messier in his Edmonton years is an example here, along with Ted Green. I don’t think there are too many cases of this kind, but there are certainly a few.
• There may be a significant amount of random variation in a single-year result. For that reason, I would look at multiple years when measuring a player’s peak, and would not use this stat as definite proof that one player was better than another in a given year.

There are a lot of disclaimers there, but I still believe there is a lot of good information in adjusted plus-minus when evaluating a player’s career. Even after taking the above possible biases into account, there are still some very interesting results.