Modano - Francis

[overpass]

. Further complicated by the fact that raw, saw the team players(excluding Morenz) score 81 goals with Morenz obtaining 18 assists or assisting on 22.2% of the goals while adjusted the team players(excluding Morenz) scored 161 goals within realistic range of the Morenz adjusted goals BUT Morenz is credited with 130 adjusted assists or assisting on 80.7% of the other goals. Combined, this would mean that ADJUSTED Morenz participated in 201/232 goals scored by the team or 86.6% of the goals whereas RAW he only participated in 51/114 of the goals or 44.7%

I agree completely. Those adjusted assists end up with the player having an unrealistically high percentage of assists on team goals in some seasons. Even Wayne Gretzky only assisted on 75% of the goals he was on the ice for and didn't score.

One way to estimate adjusted assists from this time period would be to estimate the goals the player was on the ice for that he didn't score, and give him an assist on a certain % of those. Take Frank Boucher in 1928-29. Bill Cook scored 15 goals, and Bun Cook scored 13 - assume Boucher was on the ice for all of those. Defencemen scored 9 goals (if Sparky Vail was playing defence). Assume Boucher was on the ice for 5 of those, slightly more than half. Assume Boucher assisted on 75% of those goals. (This may be generous - that's a Wayne Gretzky number - but Boucher has a reputation as a great playmaker.) 0.75*(15+13+5)=24.25, call it 24. So my best guess for Boucher's assists adjusted for different scoring practices is 24. And that's assuming that the game was played in such a way that a player could assist on 75% of the goals he was on the ice for. Pre-forward pass, I'm not sure that was the case.

Hockey-reference has Boucher's adjusted assists at 125, and adjusted goals at 27. Take out the scoring level and games played adjustment, and he has 10 goals and 46 assists. The total of 46 is much higher than my estimate, and in fact he would have to have assisted 75% of the goals scored by the rest of the Rangers entire roster to achieve that.

Edit: Just realized this was pretty OT, for some reason every thread around here is turning into an adjusted stats discussion. On topic: I think Modano was among the best players in the league from about 1996 to 2003, just a tremendous two-way player and the best player on a Cup contender and winner. Francis was very good for a remarkably long time,but I don't think he ever matched Modano at the highest level.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

I believe I'm the one who first argued that goaltending is different, so I'll try to explain.

1) There is only room for 1 starting goaltender per team, so you don't have "almost as good" goaltenders on lower lines who can have career years like you do for skaters. In the O6 era, it's pretty certain that nobody in the minor leagues could beat out any of the leaders among skaters. Goalies? Johnny Bower is the most famous example of a guy stuck in the minors. This is the most important point. See JohnnyD's post above.

2) Goaltending is notoriously difficult to evaluate. See Hasek stuck behind Belfour for a few years. With only 6 starting spots, things like this were more common. A defenseman or forward stuck behind a superstar can still get a shot, just on a lower line, and then he can show what he can do.

3) Goaltending, by the nature of the position, is more open to the "flash in the pan" seasons, before the league figures out a goalie's weaknesses.

__________________________________
This is the example I used to illustrate: Patrick Roy in Colorado.

He finished out of the top 6 in save % in most of his seasons in Colorado. Compare to the original 6, where the worst starting goalie would be top 6 in save % by default. And yet because of up and down nature of goaltending, Roy was actually 2nd in the league to Hasek in cumulative save % over this time. Basically, you only get situations like this with goaltending, and it's because of the 3 factors above.

And the situation really only affects "flash in the pan" types of goalies who literally come out of nowhere to win a Vezina, then flame out. Can you think of a forward in the NHL today who finished at the top of the leaderboards who wouldn't be in the NHL if it had fewer teams? I can't.

funnily enough-- and i say this as a canucks fan who had more fun watching them this year than i have since '94-- i don't think the sedins would ever have cracked the NHL in the 06, at least not crack an NHL roster and actually stick. it's a rare case, but i'm sure there have been cases of late bloomers like that. they certainly would not have challenged for an NHL roster spot early on, and the reason they got to where they are today is because they were allowed an extraordinarily long time to develop their games, slowly working their way up the roster in a 30 team league.

early on, they couldn't skate, henrik couldn't shoot, they couldn't play defense, they were easily pushed off the puck, and they just weren't able to handle the offensive responsibility of a scoring role, nor could they do the things that a lower roster player needs to do. they took a long time to become near PPG players, but even at that point, they were barely in the top 40 in league scoring, and were probably near the bottom of the top 50 forwards in the league, which means they're barely good enough to crack an NHL roster when there are only six teams and three forward lines on each, and even in the first or second year after the lockout, they weren't anything close to ideal third liners, especially since for most of their careers you would have lost too much having just one and not the other.

but, as i said, those guys are a very rare case.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Here's how I look at it...it's harder to win the Vezina in a bigger league, because there are more legitimate contenders for the award.

In the O6 era, there were only 6 starting goalies. In the last couple decades we have all seen quite a few breakout/fluke seasons from a goalies that were not considered to be in the top 6 in the league. Those goalies would not have even been playing in the O6 era.

It is different for forwards, because even in a 6 team league, there are still at least 54 forwards (3 lines/team). Has there ever been a legit Hart contender (that was a forward) that was not considered among the top 54 in the league? The answer is no.

Using this logic, because only goalies can win the Vezina, while forwards, defensemen, and goalies can win the Hart (also factoring in that there is a clear bias towards forwards for the Hart) the effect of league size is much greater on the Vezina.

Yeah.. that is all fine and dandy except you do have super hot fluke years winning Harts too.. or is Theodore really a contender year in and year out?

I know you guys were caught in a contradiction but just own up to it.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

funnily enough-- and i say this as a canucks fan who had more fun watching them this year than i have since '94-- i don't think the sedins would ever have cracked the NHL in the 06, at least not crack an NHL roster and actually stick. it's a rare case, but i'm sure there have been cases of late bloomers like that. they certainly would not have challenged for an NHL roster spot early on, and the reason they got to where they are today is because they were allowed an extraordinarily long time to develop their games, slowly working their way up the roster in a 30 team league.

early on, they couldn't skate, henrik couldn't shoot, they couldn't play defense, they were easily pushed off the puck, and they just weren't able to handle the offensive responsibility of a scoring role, nor could they do the things that a lower roster player needs to do. they took a long time to become near PPG players, but even at that point, they were barely in the top 40 in league scoring, and were probably near the bottom of the top 50 forwards in the league, which means they're barely good enough to crack an NHL roster when there are only six teams and three forward lines on each, and even in the first or second year after the lockout, they weren't anything close to ideal third liners, especially since for most of their careers you would have lost too much having just one and not the other.

but, as i said, those guys are a very rare case.

Interesting though. But with the addition of all the Euros, the talent pool has effectively doubled since the O6 years. So would the Sedins have been in the league in a 12 team league? I think it is very likely they would. Or do it the other way and remove all the non-Canadians from the NHL. Would Canadian versions of the Sedins have gotten a shot? I'd have to think they would have, especially given their draft positions.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Yeah.. that is all fine and dandy except you do have super hot fluke years winning Harts too.. or is Theodore really a contender year in and year out?

I know you guys were caught in a contradiction but just own up to it.

This was explained in the last sentence of my post. Here it is again...

"Using this logic, because only goalies can win the Vezina, while forwards, defensemen, and goalies can win the Hart (also factoring in that there is a clear bias towards forwards for the Hart) the effect of league size is much greater on the Vezina."

No one is saying the Hart isn't affected at all by this...on occassion we see it happen (Theodore is the perfect example), but the Vezina gets affected much more heavily because it is a goalies only award.

In other words, the only time the Hart is affected (which is quite rare) is a fluke goalie season, all of the forwards and defensemen that win would still be in the league whether it was a 6 or 30 team league.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

This was explained in the last sentence of my post. Here it is again...

"Using this logic, because only goalies can win the Vezina, while forwards, defensemen, and goalies can win the Hart (also factoring in that there is a clear bias towards forwards for the Hart) the effect of league size is much greater on the Vezina."

No one is saying the Hart isn't affected at all by this...on occassion we see it happen (Theodore is the perfect example), but the Vezina gets affected much more heavily because it is a goalies only award.

It's also extremely rare that you'll see a group of forwards as weak as in 01-02.

Jagr was "dying alive" in Washington. Forsberg was out with his spleen. Sakic had an off year after dominating 2001 and this was really the start of his decline. Yzerman and Fedorov were past their primes. Thornton and St. Louis weren't there yet.

Iginla was the best forward that year by far, and he was playing on a team that missed the playoffs by a lot.

This is the Hart voting for 01-02:

HART: Jose Theodore, Mtl 434 (26-16-9-5-2); Jarome Iginla, Cgy 434 (23-18-12-5-3);
Patrick Roy, Col 283 (8-15-12-11-5); Sean Burke, Phx 172 (2-5-16-10-7); Markus Naslund, Van 64 (0-0-4-10-14); Ron Francis, Car 48 (1-2-3-2-3); Joe Sakic, Col 41 (2-1-2-1-1); Mats Sundin, Tor 35 (0-2-0-5-6); Brendan Shanahan, Det 24 (0-2-1-1-2); Michael Peca, NYI 11 (0-1-0-1-1)

Honestly, that's an absolutely pathetic group of forwards as a whole. Your top 4 vote getters are 3 goalies and a forward who missed the playoffs.

 

[BraveCanadian]

No one is saying the Hart isn't affected at all by this...on occassion we see it happen (Theodore is the perfect example), but the Vezina gets affected much more heavily because it is a goalies only award.

Actually the hockey historian was blasting someone for saying that it could be easier to win a Hart in a smaller league.

In my mind it is harder to win a Hart in a bigger league just because you have that many more chances someone will have a breakout year.

Theordore is an example and I have a feeling that Sedin will fall back to earth next year.

For Ovechkin/Crosby and whomever else you would put in the 2-5 players you'd expect to win.. Sedin made it harder this year.

I don't think you can have it both ways.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Actually the hockey historian was blasting someone for saying that it could be easier to win a Hart in a smaller league.

In my mind it is harder to win a Hart in a bigger league just because you have that many more chances someone will have a breakout year.

Theordore is an example and I have a feeling that Sedin will fall back to earth next year.

For Ovechkin/Crosby and whomever else you would put in the 2-5 players you'd expect to win.. Sedin made it harder this year.

I don't think you can have it both ways.

Sedin isn't the only player to come of nowhere and win the Hart trophy. Buddy O'Connor in 47-48 might be a good comparison? Edit: I guess it's different since that was O'Connor's first season with a new team, but it was so much better than any other year of his career, it's kind of similar.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Sedin isn't the only player to come of nowhere and win the Hart trophy. Buddy O'Connor in 47-48 might be a good comparison? Edit: I guess it's different since that was O'Connor's first season with a new team, but it was so much better than any other year of his career, it's kind of similar.

I'm not familiar with him but you get the point..

There are fluke winners. And in a bigger league there are obviously more chances for it to happen and keep the hardware away from the handful of players you would "expect" to compete for it.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Actually the hockey historian was blasting someone for saying that it could be easier to win a Hart in a smaller league.

In my mind it is harder to win a Hart in a bigger league just because you have that many more chances someone will have a breakout year.

Theordore is an example and I have a feeling that Sedin will fall back to earth next year.

For Ovechkin/Crosby and whomever else you would put in the 2-5 players you'd expect to win.. Sedin made it harder this year.

I don't think you can have it both ways.

I hadn't seen the original argument, my posts were comparing the Vezina and Hart. I think it is harder to win the Hart in a bigger league, but by a very small amount. The fluke goalie season combined with a weak year for forwards is the only time it will happen. That's happened once in the last 30 years, so if you want to say it's 3% harder, I'm fine with that.

As for the Sedin argument, I don't think it is valid here. You may be correct that he may never be TOP of the league again, but he most certainly would still be a 1st or 2nd line player in a 6 team league, receiving plenty of ice time and PP time. If 09'-10' does happen to be his "one year" it could have happened just as easily in the O6 era.

 

[BraveCanadian]

I hadn't seen the original argument, my posts were comparing the Vezina and Hart. I think it is harder to win the Hart in a bigger league, but by a very small amount. The fluke goalie season combined with a weak year for forwards is the only time it will happen. That's happened once in the last 30 years, so if you want to say it's 3% harder, I'm fine with that.

As for the Sedin argument, I don't think it is valid here. You may be correct that he may never be top of the league again, but he most certainly would still be a 1st or 2nd line player in a 6 team league, receiving plenty of ice time and PP time. If 09'-10' does happen to be his "one year" it could have happened just as easily in the O6 era.

It is interesting you say that because if you see what Vadim was saying earlier he thinks that Sedin might not have made the O6 because it took so long for him to develop.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

It is interesting you say that because if you see what Vadim was saying earlier he thinks that Sedin might not have made the O6 because it took so long for him to develop.

I don't know about that. His rookie year, Sedin averages .35PPG, then has 3 years at about a half a point a game pace getting slightly better each year (all during the dead-puck era), then he moves up to a point a game after the lockout. Seems like reasonable progression and enough to stay on a team to me.

Also (I may be wrong here), but didn't players break into the leage at a later age in general during the O6 era, like 22-24 instead of 18-21? Maybe Henrik would have been given a little more time to mature?

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

It is interesting you say that because if you see what Vadim was saying earlier he thinks that Sedin might not have made the O6 because it took so long for him to develop.

i also said that the sedins are very rare cases, and i'll add now that what thedevilmademe says above about europe effectively doubling the talent pool does makes sense, though i'll have to give it some more thought before i take a position on it.

 

[BraveCanadian]

I don't know about that. His rookie year, Sedin averages .35PPG, then has 3 years at about a half a point a game pace getting slightly better each year (all during the dead-puck era), then he moves up to a point a game after the lockout. Seems like reasonable progression and enough to stay on a team to me.

Also (I may be wrong here), but didn't players break into the leage at a later age in general during the O6 era, like 22-24 instead of 18-21? Maybe Henrik would have been given a little more time to mature?

I think maybe on average they had more time just because there were a lot of players trying to fill a few spots.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

I don't know about that. His rookie year, Sedin averages .35PPG, then has 3 years at about a half a point a game pace getting slightly better each year (all during the dead-puck era), then he moves up to a point a game after the lockout. Seems like reasonable progression and enough to stay on a team to me.

Also (I may be wrong here), but didn't players break into the leage at a later age in general during the O6 era, like 22-24 instead of 18-21? Maybe Henrik would have been given a little more time to mature?

i've watched them their entire careers and my thinking on the sedins is that they got to where they are by slowing figuring out how to beat NHL competition, figuring out how to score a little better every year. they are bigger, stronger, and faster now, but they still largely succeed based on intelligence and problem solving. i don't think they learn they develop in nearly the same way destroying the competition in lower leagues.

but, as i said above re: thedevilmademe's comments, the question of whether they'd ever have to languish in the minor leagues in the first place is open to debate.

 

[mrzeigler]

Finally, if the answer to these questions are "yes", then why is Francis ranked so much higher than Modano?[/B]

Because we rank our athletes on what they did, not on what they could have (not) done if in different circumstances.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I'm not familiar with him but you get the point..

There are fluke winners. And in a bigger league there are obviously more chances for it to happen and keep the hardware away from the handful of players you would "expect" to compete for it.

If that's your point, then I kind of agree. And it very well might explain the slight bias in the Top 100 list towards Original 6 players. By that, I mean the O6 years are slightly overrepresented compared to the rest of hockey history.

But the fact that it's slightly easier to have a fluke winner in modern times doesn't, on it's own, make the second best player over a large period of time (say the 90s) necessarily better than the second best player in the 60s.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Because we rank our athletes on what they did, not on what they could have (not) done if in different circumstances.

I understand this line and I've used it myself before (probably too often...). But the thing is, Modano was the best player on one of the best teams in the league for an extended period of time. So he did, in fact, do something that Francis never did and didn't really prove he could do.

 

[BraveCanadian]

If that's your point, then I kind of agree. And it very well might explain the slight bias in the Top 100 list towards Original 6 players. By that, I mean the O6 years are slightly overrepresented compared to the rest of hockey history.

But the fact that it's slightly easier to have a fluke winner in modern times doesn't, on it's own, make the second best player over a large period of time (say the 90s) necessarily better than the second best player in the 60s.

Yeah I'm not saying that this means we have to go recheck everything..

I just didn't like that someone got blasted for bringing up a point that I think has some sense to it.