Measuring offensive production

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Yeah i know thier downsides, i just didnt expect them to rank so high on these lists, dionne was no defensive wizard but he was gritty and could get his nose dirty, its not like he's pierre turgeon.

Yup. In terms of regular season offense alone, Bathgate is really close to Jean Beliveau.

Bathgate played on the worst team in the o-6, not much of an opportunity to develop a playoff resume.

Definitely, and that's why I am more critical of Dionne's postseason performances, despite the fact that Bathgate's are statistically worse.

 

[WilliamRanford]

Another observation: Selanne has a chance to go from #48 to #29 in the Top 10 pace rankings if he keeps up his pace over this year's final ~25 games and leapfrog some very big names. His play the last few seasons should really cement his legacy...

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

This is a very cool idea.

One possible way to express this data would be to show what percentage of their normalized careers they played at a top-5, top 10, etc pace. Howe played much longer than Gretzky, so you'd expect his absolute number to be higher. But it Gretz played 78% of his career at a top 5 pace while Howe played 72% at a top 5 pace, that would be the paydirt, IMO.

Thoughts?

Wouldn't this just punish guys that played longer and credit guys that retired early for whatever reason?

Mike Bossy might end up having the best Top 10 pace percentage of all-time just because he only played 10 seasons.

Why is 10 seasons of elite better than 10 seasons of elite and 5 seasons of very good?

 

[WilliamRanford]

Wouldn't this just punish guys that played longer and credit guys that retired early for whatever reason?

Mike Bossy might end up having the best Top 10 pace percentage of all-time just because he only played 10 seasons.

Why is 10 seasons of elite better than 10 seasons of elite and 5 seasons of very good?

Not trying to suggest it's meaningless as is, just saying that it might be fun to look at

 

[pappyline]

Interesting exercise but rankings do benefit players that had longer NHL careers. For example, it hurts players like Bobby Hull & frank mahovlich who jumped to the WHA when still elite NHL players. I am sure that if Bobby Hull had 18 NHL seasons rather than 15, he would vault ahead of Maurice Richard in these rankings.

 

[canucks4ever]

There's no guarantee that Bobby Hull would have more top 5 finishes. He was 7th in scoring in 1972 and he was just going to get older. The 'what if' game can easily be applied to jagr considering that 1995 was a shortened season and he missed the 2005 season due to a lockout.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

matnor, when you get a chance can you post the number of games Dale Hawerchuk played at a Top 10 pace?

Thanks

 

[Breakfast of Champs]

Another cool thing would be to see % of games played at that pace. For instance, Lemieux played over 91% of his games at a top 5 pace

 

[canucks4ever]

I don't understand how Maurice Richard has '111' games played scoring at a top 1 pace, when he only lead the league in ppg once, even if you include his 28 games in 1958, he's still well below what hes being given credit for. Bobby Hull, Jean Beliveau and Jagr were all better offensive players than him.

In 1955 he was first in ppg and played 67 games, in 1958 he played 28 games. 67+28=95, what are these phantom games that he is being rewarded for?

Bobby Hull lead the league in points per game for 2 full seasons, there is no way Richard can be above him.

 

[Big Phil]

A common way of measuring how good players are offensively around here is to count top-5, top-10 and top-20 finishes in goals, assists and points (see, for instance http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=614595 and http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=633070). While I think it's a relatively good way of comparing players I feel it punishes players who misses 10-15 games in a season disproportionally. For instance, let's say Crosby finishes outside the top-10 in scoring this season. Just comparing top-10 finishes would then ignore his amazing play the during the first half of the season. An alternative way is then to use top-10 finishes in ppg. That, on the other hand gives too much credit for players who are injured often.

I'll say what I have always said. You can't reward a player for sitting on the bench or the press box or the hospital for that matter. Crosby had a good first half of the season. However, there will be at least 10 other guys who had better seasons, maybe 20. Just because he WOULD have likely dominated the NHL over a full year doesn't mean we give him credit for things he failed to do.

Lemieux was the best player in the NHL in the 1989-'90 season. He had a 46 game point streak. Then he got hurt. In total he missed 21 games. Messier won the Hart and three other players had more points than him. Who had a better season Messier or Lemieux? Mario might have been the better player but he didn't have the better season because of injuries. Or the 1993-'94 season. Mario was seemingly on pace to win the Art Ross but he didn't, he only played in a third of the games. I don't get into the habit of rewarding a player for woulda, coulda and shouldas.


Now, there are exceptions. Mario in 1993 played in 60 games but he won the Art Ross and was so dominant in those 60 games he did more than the players who played in 80+ games. Same with 1992. He played in 64 games and won the Art Ross. I would say he had a better season than anyone else, although Messier won the Hart. Jagr in 2000 missed 19 games and still won the Art Ross. He still had the best season in the NHL despite Pronger winning a narrow Hart race.

These exceptions are scarce though.

 

[Darrelle Lundqvist]

Very interesting. Suprised not to see Gretz at top

 

[JackSlater]

I'll say what I have always said. You can't reward a player for sitting on the bench or the press box or the hospital for that matter. Crosby had a good first half of the season. However, there will be at least 10 other guys who had better seasons, maybe 20. Just because he WOULD have likely dominated the NHL over a full year doesn't mean we give him credit for things he failed to do.

Lemieux was the best player in the NHL in the 1989-'90 season. He had a 46 game point streak. Then he got hurt. In total he missed 21 games. Messier won the Hart and three other players had more points than him. Who had a better season Messier or Lemieux? Mario might have been the better player but he didn't have the better season because of injuries. Or the 1993-'94 season. Mario was seemingly on pace to win the Art Ross but he didn't, he only played in a third of the games. I don't get into the habit of rewarding a player for woulda, coulda and shouldas.


Now, there are exceptions. Mario in 1993 played in 60 games but he won the Art Ross and was so dominant in those 60 games he did more than the players who played in 80+ games. Same with 1992. He played in 64 games and won the Art Ross. I would say he had a better season than anyone else, although Messier won the Hart. Jagr in 2000 missed 19 games and still won the Art Ross. He still had the best season in the NHL despite Pronger winning a narrow Hart race.

These exceptions are scarce though.

As far as I can tell this is not about who was the most valuable in a given year was, which is what you are talking about, but who was actually the best. When I think of the 2010-2011 season and who the best player was, I and many others will think that it was Crosby and not whoever wins the Hart. This is a means of reflecting this, at least with regards to offensive play.

 

[Big Phil]

As far as I can tell this is not about who was the most valuable in a given year was, which is what you are talking about, but who was actually the best. When I think of the 2010-2011 season and who the best player was, I and many others will think that it was Crosby and not whoever wins the Hart. This is a means of reflecting this, at least with regards to offensive play.

I'll admit Crosby had a wicked first half but what he did in 41 games will not be as good of a year as either one of the Sedins or the Tampa pair will do. Sorry, give me Martin St. Louis for 82 games over Crosby for 41. Hence, the player who had the better season is St. Louis. The better player - when healthy - is Sid, but the better season does not belong to him.

 

[seventieslord]

I'll admit Crosby had a wicked first half but what he did in 41 games will not be as good of a year as either one of the Sedins or the Tampa pair will do. Sorry, give me Martin St. Louis for 82 games over Crosby for 41. Hence, the player who had the better season is St. Louis. The better player - when healthy - is Sid, but the better season does not belong to him.

That's right, and Crosby will get Credit for playing 41 games at a "top-1" pace. That is the point of this study.

 

[JackSlater]

I'll admit Crosby had a wicked first half but what he did in 41 games will not be as good of a year as either one of the Sedins or the Tampa pair will do. Sorry, give me Martin St. Louis for 82 games over Crosby for 41. Hence, the player who had the better season is St. Louis. The better player - when healthy - is Sid, but the better season does not belong to him.

I'm not disputing that, since I was not talking about how valuable any player was this season.

 

[WilliamRanford]

I'll admit Crosby had a wicked first half but what he did in 41 games will not be as good of a year as either one of the Sedins or the Tampa pair will do. Sorry, give me Martin St. Louis for 82 games over Crosby for 41. Hence, the player who had the better season is St. Louis. The better player - when healthy - is Sid, but the better season does not belong to him.

I'm think you may not be understanding what this is trying to do. If Sid plays only 41 games this season, he only gets credit for 41 games for his overall tally. This is asking the question, how many games did these players play at a Top-X pace? This isn't inventing games that didn't exist, it's counting those games that did.

Very novel.

 

[matnor]

matnor, when you get a chance can you post the number of games Dale Hawerchuk played at a Top 10 pace?

Thanks

Hawerchuk has 164 games at a top-10 pace (that is, two full seasons, 84/85 and 87/88). Both those seasons he was scoring at a top-5 pace.

 

[matnor]

Another cool thing would be to see % of games played at that pace. For instance, Lemieux played over 91% of his games at a top 5 pace

I think this is a bit problematic since it would favor guys who had short careers that primarily spanned their prime years. Players like Bossy and Forsberg would get very good shares (Bossy is 7th all-time in share scoring at a top-10 pace and Forsberg is 10th). Also, players like Crosby and Ovechkin who hasn't passed their prime yet place extremely well (Crosby is the only player together with Syl Apps who has a 100% share scoring at a top-10 pace). Though I should say that Bossy (23rd), Forsberg (28th) and Lindros (33rd) place very well in number of games playing at a top-10 pace despite playing much fewer games in total comparing to players like Yzerman (31st), Lafleur (35th) and Clarke (42nd).

 

[matnor]

I don't understand how Maurice Richard has '111' games played scoring at a top 1 pace, when he only lead the league in ppg once, even if you include his 28 games in 1958, he's still well below what hes being given credit for. Bobby Hull, Jean Beliveau and Jagr were all better offensive players than him.

In 1955 he was first in ppg and played 67 games, in 1958 he played 28 games. 67+28=95, what are these phantom games that he is being rewarded for?

Bobby Hull lead the league in points per game for 2 full seasons, there is no way Richard can be above him.

The reason is that I have normalized games played to a 82-game schedule. So Richard gets credit with 111 games since 67*(82/70)+28*(82/70)=111. And Hull do place higher than Richard with 158 games.

 

[matnor]

I'll say what I have always said. You can't reward a player for sitting on the bench or the press box or the hospital for that matter. Crosby had a good first half of the season. However, there will be at least 10 other guys who had better seasons, maybe 20. Just because he WOULD have likely dominated the NHL over a full year doesn't mean we give him credit for things he failed to do.

Lemieux was the best player in the NHL in the 1989-'90 season. He had a 46 game point streak. Then he got hurt. In total he missed 21 games. Messier won the Hart and three other players had more points than him. Who had a better season Messier or Lemieux? Mario might have been the better player but he didn't have the better season because of injuries. Or the 1993-'94 season. Mario was seemingly on pace to win the Art Ross but he didn't, he only played in a third of the games. I don't get into the habit of rewarding a player for woulda, coulda and shouldas.


Now, there are exceptions. Mario in 1993 played in 60 games but he won the Art Ross and was so dominant in those 60 games he did more than the players who played in 80+ games. Same with 1992. He played in 64 games and won the Art Ross. I would say he had a better season than anyone else, although Messier won the Hart. Jagr in 2000 missed 19 games and still won the Art Ross. He still had the best season in the NHL despite Pronger winning a narrow Hart race.

These exceptions are scarce though.

I'll echo what others have said, this method only rewards the player for the games ha actually played. To illustrate: Let's say Crosby does not play another game this season and hence end up with 41 games at a top-1 pace. Let's assume he then plays only 41 games next season, also scoring at a top-1 pace. According to my method he then gets credit with playing 82 games at a top-1 pace. That is, he gets the same credit as he would get if he had played all 82 games in one season and being injured the entire time in the other season. My reasoning is that it doesn't matter when he plays these games, 82 games is still 82 games. On the other hand, if we were to count the number of top-10 finishes he would not finish in the top-10 in either season if he played 41 games in each. But if he played all 82 games in one season and none in the other, he would have one top-1 finish despite playing the exact same number of games in the exact same way in the two cases.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

I think this is a bit problematic since it would favor guys who had short careers that primarily spanned their prime years. Players like Bossy and Forsberg would get very good shares (Bossy is 7th all-time in share scoring at a top-10 pace and Forsberg is 10th). Also, players like Crosby and Ovechkin who hasn't passed their prime yet place extremely well (Crosby is the only player together with Syl Apps who has a 100% share scoring at a top-10 pace). Though I should say that Bossy (23rd), Forsberg (28th) and Lindros (33rd) place very well in number of games playing at a top-10 pace despite playing much fewer games in total comparing to players like Yzerman (31st), Lafleur (35th) and Clarke (42nd).

That right there is why they were better offensive players, not based on what if's. I've had debates before and so many people bring the what if stuff a little too much with these two specific players. Overall I personally see no way to conclude that Lafleur or Clarke were the better players, which is what the majority here believe, especially considering Forsberg and Lindros have an obvious edge over Lafleur defensively, and an obvious edge over Clarke offensively, bigger than his defensive edge without question. Truthfully there isn't really a defensive edge for Clarke either outside of two seasons.

 

[matnor]

That right there is why they were better offensive players, not based on what if's. I've had debates before and so many people bring the what if stuff a little too much with these two specific players. Overall I personally see no way to conclude that Lafleur or Clarke were the better players, which is what the majority here believe, especially considering Forsberg and Lindros have an obvious edge over Lafleur defensively, and an obvious edge over Clarke offensively, bigger than his defensive edge without question. Truthfully there isn't really a defensive edge for Clarke either outside of two seasons.

While I agree to some extent, in the case of Lafleur, the games he did play at a top-10 pace was actually played at a much higher level than that. I think his six elite seasons are better than anything Bossy and Forsberg did (Lafleur has 474 games at a top-3 pace, Lindros has 267, Forsberg has 195 and Bossy 151). As for Clarke, the case for him is generally built on him being vastly superior defensively to most other star players.

 

[kevinBOOMBOOMbieksa]

the only issue I have in this is that though Crosby should get credit for his 41 games at Top-1, I feel like that 41 games should not be enough to knock a zetterberg out of the Top-5 for this year. But then where do you draw the line, probably 75% of the games is a better line to draw, say 60 or 65 games.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Yup. In terms of regular season offense alone, Bathgate is really close to Jean Beliveau.



Definitely, and that's why I am more critical of Dionne's postseason performances, despite the fact that Bathgate's are statistically worse.

Not sure why you are more critical of Dionne, do you think he had more to work with in the playoffs?

Overall interesting stuff and gives another metric to measure, although I'm not surprised to see the dominance of some of the 06 guys. it is easier to get top 5,10,20 with a smaller pool there is no way around it.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

That right there is why they were better offensive players, not based on what if's. I've had debates before and so many people bring the what if stuff a little too much with these two specific players. Overall I personally see no way to conclude that Lafleur or Clarke were the better players, which is what the majority here believe, especially considering Forsberg and Lindros have an obvious edge over Lafleur defensively, and an obvious edge over Clarke offensively, bigger than his defensive edge without question. Truthfully there isn't really a defensive edge for Clarke either outside of two seasons.

Are you trying to say Clarke was one of the best defensive players in the league for only 2 seasons? Many consider him the best two-way player EVER.

Ultimate Hockey gave him 2 retro Selkes in addition to the actual one he has. Check out these coaches polls results for more proof...

BOBBY CLARKE

Best backchecker | 3rd | 1981
Best checker | 1st | 1974
Best checker | 1st | 1976
Best defensive forward | 2nd | 1981
Best forechecker | 1st | 1981
Best on faceoffs | 2nd | 1974
Best on faceoffs | 1st | 1976
Best on faceoffs | 1st | 1979
Best on faceoffs | 1st | 1981
Best on faceoffs | 4th | 1984
Best penalty killer | T-1st | 1974
Best penalty killer | 1st | 1976
Best playmaker | 3rd | 1974
Best playmaker | 1st | 1976
First player to build team around | 1st | 1976
Hardest worker | 1st | 1971
Hardest worker | 1st | 1974
Hardest worker | 1st | 1976
Hardest worker | 1st | 1979
Hardest worker | 2nd | 1984
Smartest player | 3rd | 1974
Smartest player | 2nd | 1976
Smartest player | 4th | 1979

You can say what you want about which is bigger Clarke's defensive edge or the other guys' offensive edges, but to say his defensive edge was only for two seasons is just plain wrong