BraveCanadian
Registered User
- Jun 30, 2010
- 14,844
- 3,803
I'll be happy to eat my words when someone scores 400 goals on a salary capped team.
Hasn't the league decided who is the greatest hockey player?
- Thread starter Tranq
- Start date
I'll be happy to eat my words when someone scores 400 goals on a salary capped team.
BraveCanadian
Registered User
- Jun 30, 2010
- 14,844
- 3,803
70| 80| -122| 202
71| 192| -121| 313
72| 126| -94| 220
73| 145| -177| 322
74| 128| -147| 275
75| 149| -265| 414
76| 163| -170| 333
77| 216| -126| 342
78| 176| -107| 283
79| 144| -121| 265
80| 73| -100| 173
81| 95| -154| 249
82| 135| -121| 256
83| 99| -142| 241
84| 132| -136| 268
85| 107| -105| 212
86| 116| -149| 265
87| 88| -28| 116
88| 92| -107| 199
89| 128| -73| 201
I'm not sure how these numbers can be spun to try and argue that the 80s didn't have more parity than the 70s and therefore less chance of a huge +/- by a player on a top team.
The average top team in 70-79 had a differential 297 goals better than the worst team when looking at the extremes in the league.
The average top team in 80-89 had a differential 218 goals better than the worst team when looking at the extremes in the league.
RabbinsDuck
Registered User
tarheelhockey
Offside Review Specialist
Part of the reason for that is that until the expansion era teams played shorter schedules, making huge totals impossible to achieve. For example, the 43-44 Habs would have been plus-205 over an 82-game schedule.
The first season of the 78-game schedule was 1970-71 when the Bruins really took off. And the first season of the 80-game schedule was 74-75, the year before Montreal's +100 season. At that point the Habs were playing 14% more games per season than any O-6 era dynasty. Bigger numbers come with the territory.
Regarding the 80s dynasties. The Islanders' most dominant regular season was actually in '79, and that was the year Trottier and Potvin put up numbers over +70. But the Isles were never a powerhouse regular season team, their forte' was the playoffs. It's not a surprise that they didn't put up huge regular season numbers.
As for the Oilers, there is a simple and straightforward explanation for why they didn't put up enormous differentials -- they didn't play defense! Even at the very peak of their dominance, it was routine for them to allow 60 more GA than the better defensive teams. In their best season they allowed 88 more goals than the Caps! And we have seen already that Gretzky was on the ice for a ton of GA. Not playing defense = lower +/- by definition.
Since then, we haven't seen many players or teams that compare well to those 4 dynasties. Nicklas Lidstrom is a great defenseman but he is no Bobby Orr. Some people would argue that Forsberg or Lindros could have been in that category in a different world, but I'm not so sure. Despite some amazing goalies, we simply haven't seen a transcendent skater since Lemieux's prime, and a couple of potential dynasties have fallen just a little short. The table just hasn't been set for that kind of dominance, regardless of labor rules.
tarheelhockey
Offside Review Specialist
The proper way to do this is not to just look at the top and bottom teams, but to show the bell curve for the entire league each year. Otherwise it comes right back to the circular argument that dominant 70s teams were advantaged because they were dominant.
BraveCanadian
Registered User
- Jun 30, 2010
- 14,844
- 3,803
It isn't circular if they were dominant both because they were great teams AND the competition was lack luster. Which is the case in the 70s.
I mean are you honestly going to tell me the Isles and Oilers dynasties wouldn't compete with the top 70s teams? Really?
Because if the ceiling stays the same the only thing that can change is where the basement is...
overpass
Registered User
- Jun 7, 2007
- 5,271
- 2,808
You've shown that more teams were great, you haven't shown that it was easier for teams to be great.
I think that 1. The 1970s had some great teams, and 2. One of those great teams, the Boston Bruins, was great mostly because of Bobby Orr. Your numbers are completely consistent with this theory.
At least one of your numbers is off. The difference for 86-87 should be 163, not 116. Also, while I don't endorse your line of thinking, shouldn't you at least remove Boston and Edmonton from this analysis? It's to Orr's credit that Boston dominated the league, and likewise with Gretzky and Edmonton.
tarheelhockey
Offside Review Specialist
And this is precisely the point where evidence is lacking. We can easily see their dominance from stats and firsthand observation, but so far you haven't presented any corresponding evidence that their competition was unusually weak.
While one can reasonably make a point that the late 70s were watered down compared to the 80s (WHA + expansion), that point isn't nearly as strong when talking about 1971. In 1971 there was no WHA and 50% fewer teams, and the amount of Euro players in 1984 doesn't account for the difference. So you're going to have to show something to quantify how "lack luster" you believe the competition was in 1971 rather than just pointing out how dominant the Bruins were.
Sure they could compete, we're talking about dynasties. Were the '84 Oilers as good as the '76 Habs at both ends of the ice? No they weren't, I feel pretty comfortable saying that.
BraveCanadian
Registered User
- Jun 30, 2010
- 14,844
- 3,803
Not just great.. We're talking the average top 70s regular season team being over 40% better than the average top 80s team.
How does that not throw off some alarm bells for you guys?
The differential for the 70s top team is an average of 152 goals a season.
The differential for the average top 80s team is 107.
So the question then becomes, do you really think that the Bruins, Flyers and Habs are 40% better than the dynasty Isles and Oilers?
Or was the competition not quite as good?
Well obviously one of them was great mostly because of Orr. I'm simply saying that I don't think you hit +120 territory without facing some pretty mediocre competition in comparison to your own team.
Yeah I mashed through this quickly and I'm at work
)) Buffalo and New Jersey are both last in wpct but New Jersey has an extra win and more goals for.. but sure New Jersey has a worse differential so call it 163, it doesn't make much difference.
Canadiens1958
Registered User
Flawed Assumption
Quoting your post because it illustrates a flawed assumption that is common whenever adjustments are made. No intent to single out you or any specific poster.
The 1943-44 Canadiens player a 50 game schedule in a six team league balanced schedule where each team played the other 10 times 5 home / 5 away. Pre 1967 expansion the schedule length increased to first 60 games then 70 games but in both instances the league size remained at six with a balanced homa and away schedule with teams playing each other an equal number of times.
Within this limited context there was a level of parity. Regardless of how bad the sixth place team was they were rarely if ever swept over the course of a regular season by a superior team and the scheduling was such that the 3rd game in 4 nights or 4th game in 5 nights factor impacted even the dynasty teams.
At this level a simple pro-rated adjustment may be adequate.
On the other hand adjusting to an 82 game season and points in between, when there are 30 teams, an unbalanced schedule, with fewer games between teams - app 50% at the upper end, when season sweeps are commonplace is hardly adequate.
Quoting your post because it illustrates a flawed assumption that is common whenever adjustments are made. No intent to single out you or any specific poster.
The 1943-44 Canadiens player a 50 game schedule in a six team league balanced schedule where each team played the other 10 times 5 home / 5 away. Pre 1967 expansion the schedule length increased to first 60 games then 70 games but in both instances the league size remained at six with a balanced homa and away schedule with teams playing each other an equal number of times.
Within this limited context there was a level of parity. Regardless of how bad the sixth place team was they were rarely if ever swept over the course of a regular season by a superior team and the scheduling was such that the 3rd game in 4 nights or 4th game in 5 nights factor impacted even the dynasty teams.
At this level a simple pro-rated adjustment may be adequate.
On the other hand adjusting to an 82 game season and points in between, when there are 30 teams, an unbalanced schedule, with fewer games between teams - app 50% at the upper end, when season sweeps are commonplace is hardly adequate.
tarheelhockey
Offside Review Specialist
FWIW, the Bruins played an evenly balanced schedule in 70-71 as well -- 3 home and 3 road against every team.
And, interestingly enough, Boston didn't sweep a single non-playoff team that year. They swept Philly, went 5-0-1 against Minnesota, and lost exactly one game each to Montreal, Toronto, Detroit, Buffalo, Vancouver, LA, Pittsburgh and California.
The only teams to beat them more than once were Giacomin's Rangers (2-2-2) and Hull's Blackhawks (2-3-1) both of whom finished with more than 100 points that year.
I agree that comparisons get tougher in unbalanced years, but in Orr's case you can see they were basically pounding everyone except the elite, and the elite did well to keep pace with them.
And, interestingly enough, Boston didn't sweep a single non-playoff team that year. They swept Philly, went 5-0-1 against Minnesota, and lost exactly one game each to Montreal, Toronto, Detroit, Buffalo, Vancouver, LA, Pittsburgh and California.
The only teams to beat them more than once were Giacomin's Rangers (2-2-2) and Hull's Blackhawks (2-3-1) both of whom finished with more than 100 points that year.
I agree that comparisons get tougher in unbalanced years, but in Orr's case you can see they were basically pounding everyone except the elite, and the elite did well to keep pace with them.
overpass
Registered User
- Jun 7, 2007
- 5,271
- 2,808
I don't know if I'd say 40%. But yes, I think the Habs were significantly better than the Isles and Oilers, and I think the Bruins were better in the regular season.
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
See, I'm not liking this, only taking the top team and the bottom team is not a fair sample, especially in an attempt to show parity or lack there of in a league of 12-21 teams.
Taking the top 3 vs the bottom 3 while including the league average would be a better sample size and produce more accurate and meaningful results imo.
redbull
Boss
- Mar 24, 2008
- 12,593
- 654
agree with this.
i think exceptional teams (like those late 70s canadiens) and extremely poor teams (like the oilers and islanders of the past two seasons) distort results.
I imagine the larger sample size may address this in some way....but still misses because of the difference between goal differential and overall wins/losses.
if NJ wins 50 games by one goal but get blown our by 6-7 goals when they lose, they have a skewed result in team success. Teams don't play to outscore a team over a full season, they try to outscore one game at a time.
best goal differential rarely means the same as the best team.
maybe show points in the standings as well as goal differential and over a larger sample size?
I think there's something to the smaller # of teams and games among the teams that would need to factor in somehow, not exactly sure how yet...need to think about it further. (see Canadiens58 post!)
Or with modern goalie equipment, neither mind all the other subtle changes in the game from the 70's till now..
One question, although these lists aren't always as informative as it seems. If you remove Edmonton and Boston from the lists should we not also remove any negative goals (GA) from the other teams that come from the 2 teams removed?
Also the funny thing about this thread is the dominance in the later sections on this plus/minus thing. How much are we really going to rely on a stat were you can be counted on (either way) by just stepping onto the ice and having no direct influence on the goal scored in the stat?
I guess some defenders might have seen Orr stepping on the ice and they got so scared that they stopped playing defense and allowed a goal to go in but that sounds more like something Fischler would write than anything else.
To me if we take into account peak, career, times and state of the NHL when they played, influence and affect in the playoffs including Cups and international play then Gretzky comes out on top with the biggest factor being the length of his career.
He quite simply was the best player to ever play hockey period. Being 2nd, if we want to put Orr there, is nothing to be ashamed about.
In 71 we still had the further expansion of 2 teams Buffalo and Vancouver to take the league to 14 teams along with no further pipelines of talent coming in from either Europe or the US college ranks something that did take place in the 80's along with the consolidation of the WHA players.
there was still a jump in scoring in the 80's while the NHL adjusted to the 4 new teams but the NHL stayed at 21 teams for the entire 80's as well so there is no way that the level of play didn't rise from 1980 to 1989 with the influx of talent from new areas.
We also need to address the increased scoring that came about with the 1967 expansion and it's affect on Orr if you want to talk about the affect of expansion of 4 teams to Gretzky.
To over empathize the 71 year with the Plus 125 fro Orr and not look at the whole argument still remains weak IMO.
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
Crosbyfan
Registered User
- Nov 27, 2003
- 12,672
- 2,496
Well... the US College ranks were far from an "untapped resource" in 71. I would suggest that there still wasn't enough expansion at that point to warrant tapping that level at the rate that would be required by further expansion.
Both players had their advantages. Certainly Orr had the expansion and on top of that the rate of expansion. But, Gretzky had even more expansion and on top of that greater depth of expansion, though admittedly with a little more time for Europe and the US College ranks to help fill in some of that lacking depth.
My take is that Gretzky was the best. Don't kid yourself thinking he wasn't gifted athletically on top of the most brilliant ever on ice.
At the same I think that Orr would have been better if he had stayed healthy. Gifted as he was athletically he was even better upstairs. He was a genius on the ice. He would have excelled even more in a 6 team league, statistics aside, playing against stronger competition on a regular basis.
Orr was self coached. No coach he had could add anything tangible to his game, and opposing coaches and teams were driven nuts trying to figure him out. Threats like Richard, Howe, Beliveau, and Hull they could at least understand...Orr was opening up new territory, more than ever before, with the threat from the back...beyond the quarterbacking of Harvey and Pilote.
But bottom line: The injuries happened.
Orr never reached his prime. Gretzky...playing a position that required less seasoning and experience....did.
Crosbyfan
Registered User
- Nov 27, 2003
- 12,672
- 2,496
Well... the US College ranks were far from an "untapped resource" in 71. I would suggest that there still wasn't enough expansion at that point to warrant tapping that level) at the rate that would be required by further expansion.
Both players had their advantages. Certainly Orr had the expansion and on top of that the rate of expansion. But, Gretzky had even more expansion and on top of that greater depth of expansion, though admittedly with a little more time for Europe and the US College ranks to help fill in some of that lacking depth.
My take is that Gretzky was the best. Don't kid yourself thinking he wasn't gifted athletically on top of the most brilliant ever on ice.
At the same I think that Orr would have been better if he had stayed healthy. Gifted as he was athletically he was even better upstairs. He was a genius on the ice. He would have excelled even more in a 6 team league, statistics aside, playing against stronger competition on a regular basis.
Orr was self coached. No coach he had could add anything tangible to his game, and opposing coaches and teams were driven nuts trying to figure him out. Threats like Richard, Howe, Beliveau, and Hull they could at least understand...Orr was opening up new territory, more than ever before, with the threat from the back...beyond the quarterbacking of Harvey and Pilote.
But bottom line: The injuries happened.
Orr never reached his prime. Gretzky...playing a position that required less seasoning and experience....did.
BraveCanadian
Registered User
- Jun 30, 2010
- 14,844
- 3,803
Fine just look at the top teams then.. or look at the top 3 vs bottom 3.. any way you tilt it I'm sure you'll see a significant difference and that there was less parity in the 70s.
Crosbyfan
Registered User
- Nov 27, 2003
- 12,672
- 2,496
your post was so good I had to read it twice
LOL, not sure why it came up twice! (wasn't intentional)
BraveCanadian
Registered User
- Jun 30, 2010
- 14,844
- 3,803
Ok I was bored so as suggested by Rhiessan I went ahead and took the goal differential for the top 3 teams each year and the bottom 3 teams each year to get a better handle on the potential +/- advantages by playing in the 70s or the 80s.
As expected, even when selecting more of the teams, so that if there is an extreme outlier either way it has less effect, the top 3 teams of the 70s on average enjoyed a better goal differential of 72 compared to the top teams of the 80s.
The numbers speak for themselves. If you wanted to rack up some sweet +/- numbers, you wanted to play on one of the stronger teams in the 70s.
Season| Top 3 GF-GA| Bottom 3 GF-GA| Top3 - Bottom3
70| 188| -254| 442
71| 367| -287| 654
72| 353| -279| 632
73| 329| -393| 722
74| 345| -284| 629
75| 375| -513| 888
76| 378| -439| 817
77| 398| -239| 637
78| 415| -342| 757
79| 323| -263| 586
Average| 347.1| -329.3| 676.4
Season| Top 3 GF-GA| Bottom 3 GF-GA| Top3 - Bottom3
80| 278| -239| 517
81| 266| -327| 593
82| 394| -284| 678
83| 294| -387| 681
84| 295| -332| 627
85| 292| -296| 588
86| 253| -329| 582
87| 182| -135| 317
88| 227| -227| 454
89| 271| -216| 487
Average| 275.2| -277.2| 552.4
I selected the teams on their record (points %) to pick teams that had useful differences, and I think once or twice there was a tie that I did by wins then goals for but really it won't make much difference. Hopefully I didn't make too many mistakes, it's late!
As expected, even when selecting more of the teams, so that if there is an extreme outlier either way it has less effect, the top 3 teams of the 70s on average enjoyed a better goal differential of 72 compared to the top teams of the 80s.
The numbers speak for themselves. If you wanted to rack up some sweet +/- numbers, you wanted to play on one of the stronger teams in the 70s.
70| 188| -254| 442
71| 367| -287| 654
72| 353| -279| 632
73| 329| -393| 722
74| 345| -284| 629
75| 375| -513| 888
76| 378| -439| 817
77| 398| -239| 637
78| 415| -342| 757
79| 323| -263| 586
Average| 347.1| -329.3| 676.4
80| 278| -239| 517
81| 266| -327| 593
82| 394| -284| 678
83| 294| -387| 681
84| 295| -332| 627
85| 292| -296| 588
86| 253| -329| 582
87| 182| -135| 317
88| 227| -227| 454
89| 271| -216| 487
Average| 275.2| -277.2| 552.4
I selected the teams on their record (points %) to pick teams that had useful differences, and I think once or twice there was a tie that I did by wins then goals for but really it won't make much difference. Hopefully I didn't make too many mistakes, it's late!
RabbinsDuck
Registered User
And that is without allowing that scoring was up in the 80s. I'm actually surprised there has been this much resistance to the idea the 70s were watered-down and imbalanced.
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
Value of: Mitch Marner this offseason (2.5 mil retained)- Latest: Dr Johnny Fever
-
-
