Most Underrated Players

[Porn*]

Yes, his low +/- ratings are all due to the team and coach, and all those people with high ratings like Bobby Orr had are just lucky they jumped on the ice that split second...

Well put.

since when is a +4 that bad? I could have sworn being in the + was a good thing...

The game has changed quite a bit from the days of Orr... very bad comparison.

Bottom line... you don't like Tucker, therefore you can't appreciate what he brings to a team. How could you possibly be a fair judge, given that you a) live out west and b) cheer for philly... great combo

 

[ProctorSilex]

Yeah, location outside of Toronto is always a bad idea for someone to talk about hockey with. Only biased Torontonians can truly talk about Darcy Tucker.

 

[Porn*]

Yeah, location outside of Toronto is always a bad idea for someone to talk about hockey with. Only biased Torontonians can truly talk about Darcy Tucker.

well, it's widely known that western canadians loath toronto... and its quite obvious that flyer fans dislike leafs, tucker, domi, etc...

 

[pei fan]

IMO, Bathgate is the most underrated player of all-time.He was highly respected
in his time but history has seemed to leave him behind somewhat.He played
in the era of Howe and Richard and Geoffrion as right wingers and yet managed
to be selected ahead of them some years to the 1st and 2nd all star teams and he won a Hart when Howe was in his prime.This guy was considered Howes main
rival for quite a few years.his downside was he played on weak teams.Montreal
and Detroit suited some of the greatest and deepest teams in history during his career.

 

[ProctorSilex]

well, it's widely known that western canadians loath toronto... and its quite obvious that flyer fans dislike leafs, tucker, domi, etc...

Western Canadians are more indifferent to Torontonians just like Americans, you're all in the same boat. I wouldn't call it hatred, I care as much about the Leafs as I do the Redwings.

As for Flyer fans, you Toronto people really think we dislike you because of 2 playoff series? I don't even see a rivalry, I hate the NJ Devils, the NY Rangers, Ottawa might be up there.... but Toronto?

The point of the whole thing remains Darcy Tucker is a joke. It's not some conspiracy of Toronto center of the universe hatred, it's the fact he's over paid, over hyped and embarrasing to watch.

 

[BuppY]

Brad Stuart

 

[BuppY]

Western Canadians are more indifferent to Torontonians just like Americans, you're all in the same boat. I wouldn't call it hatred, I care as much about the Leafs as I do the Redwings.

As for Flyer fans, you Toronto people really think we dislike you because of 2 playoff series? I don't even see a rivalry, I hate the NJ Devils, the NY Rangers, Ottawa might be up there.... but Toronto?

The point of the whole thing remains Darcy Tucker is a joke. It's not some conspiracy of Toronto center of the universe hatred, it's the fact he's over paid, over hyped and embarrasing to watch.

Your just a hater.

 

[Ogopogo*]

your a waste of my time...

anyone care to explain why the +/- stat is meaningless?

If a guy plays on a good team, he has a good +/-, if he plays on a bad team he has a bad +/-. It is a flawed stat because the team influences it a great deal.

 

[Phil Parent]

Brian Hayward.

May have been the best backup goalie in the last 25 years.

 

[Gags1288]

If a guy plays on a good team, he has a good +/-, if he plays on a bad team he has a bad +/-. It is a flawed stat because the team influences it a great deal.

True, but you can gage a players defensive prowess by looking at his +/- in comparison to the rest of his teammates. A +4 on a 100 point team isn't very good (a -7 is simply pathetic). As for Tucker's actions on the ice, the most embarrassing thing is when he lies on the ice for about 5 minutes and then gets up and plays the next shift. He's done this numerous times and it's simply unacceptable. He's not underrated because he's not good enough to be underrated and he most certainly is prone to the cheap shot. I don't like him at all, but I appreciate him as a quality 3rd line guy.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

True, but you can gage a players defensive prowess by looking at his +/- in comparison to the rest of his teammates. ...

True, but I would take this one step further. Plus/minus tells you a bit about offense and a bit about defense. In order to determine how good a player is purely in terms of defense, look at the goals he's on the ice for, divided up into ES and PP, compared to his teammates.

For example, let's look at Darcy Tucker.

Even-strength goals against per 60 minutes (min 400 minutes ice time):

Robert Reichel 23 748 1.84
Alexander Mogilny 15 488 1.85
Darcy Tucker 25 805 1.86
Gary Roberts 31 981 1.90
Bryan McCabe 42 1327 1.90
Alexei Ponikarovsky 24 745 1.93
Tie Domi 28 845 1.99
Mats Sundin 38 1133 2.01
Tomas Kaberle 39 1161 2.02
Bryan Marchment 38 1041 2.19
Karel Pilar 27 721 2.25
Aki Berg 44 1171 2.26
Tom Fitzgerald 25 663 2.26
Mikael Renberg 28 732 2.30
Nik Antropov 29 736 2.36
Ken Klee 40 999 2.40
Joe Nieuwendyk 33 793 2.50
Matthew Stajan 28 663 2.53
Owen Nolan 35 796 2.64
Ric Jackman 21 446 2.82

In 2004, Tucker was one of the best even-strength defensive forwards on Toronto. He definitely got tougher defensive assignments than Reichel and Mogilny.

Bryan McCabe is by far the best ES defensive defenseman on the Leafs. It's funny how people criticize him based on one bad game (albeit an important one), but over the course of the year McCabe was the best ES defensive defenseman on Toronto.

Short-handed goals against per 60 minutes (min 100 minutes ice time):

Ken Klee 17 222 4.59
Aki Berg 18 232 4.65
Nik Antropov 9 109 4.98
Tom Fitzgerald 16 175 5.48
Darcy Tucker 19 177 6.43
Robert Reichel 18 165 6.53
Bryan McCabe 30 275 6.54
Mats Sundin 16 143 6.74
Owen Nolan 20 169 7.10
Tomas Kaberle 34 248 8.22

Tucker was above-average on the penalty kill, compared to his teammates.

Look at the huge difference between Klee & Berg, and Kaberle. The former were far better defenisvely than anyone else on the team, while Kaberle lags badly behind.

 

[Ogopogo*]

True, but I would take this one step further. Plus/minus tells you a bit about offense and a bit about defense. In order to determine how good a player is purely in terms of defense, look at the goals he's on the ice for, divided up into ES and PP, compared to his teammates.

For example, let's look at Darcy Tucker.

Even-strength goals against per 60 minutes (min 400 minutes ice time):

Robert Reichel 23 748 1.84
Alexander Mogilny 15 488 1.85
Darcy Tucker 25 805 1.86
Gary Roberts 31 981 1.90
Bryan McCabe 42 1327 1.90
Alexei Ponikarovsky 24 745 1.93
Tie Domi 28 845 1.99
Mats Sundin 38 1133 2.01
Tomas Kaberle 39 1161 2.02
Bryan Marchment 38 1041 2.19
Karel Pilar 27 721 2.25
Aki Berg 44 1171 2.26
Tom Fitzgerald 25 663 2.26
Mikael Renberg 28 732 2.30
Nik Antropov 29 736 2.36
Ken Klee 40 999 2.40
Joe Nieuwendyk 33 793 2.50
Matthew Stajan 28 663 2.53
Owen Nolan 35 796 2.64
Ric Jackman 21 446 2.82

In 2004, Tucker was one of the best even-strength defensive forwards on Toronto. He definitely got tougher defensive assignments than Reichel and Mogilny.

Bryan McCabe is by far the best ES defensive defenseman on the Leafs. It's funny how people criticize him based on one bad game (albeit an important one), but over the course of the year McCabe was the best ES defensive defenseman on Toronto.

Short-handed goals against per 60 minutes (min 100 minutes ice time):

Ken Klee 17 222 4.59
Aki Berg 18 232 4.65
Nik Antropov 9 109 4.98
Tom Fitzgerald 16 175 5.48
Darcy Tucker 19 177 6.43
Robert Reichel 18 165 6.53
Bryan McCabe 30 275 6.54
Mats Sundin 16 143 6.74
Owen Nolan 20 169 7.10
Tomas Kaberle 34 248 8.22

Tucker was above-average on the penalty kill, compared to his teammates.

Look at the huge difference between Klee & Berg, and Kaberle. The former were far better defenisvely than anyone else on the team, while Kaberle lags badly behind.

Interesting numbers Outsider. Do you have a complete database of this stuff?

 

[pei fan]

If a guy plays on a good team, he has a good +/-, if he plays on a bad team he has a bad +/-. It is a flawed stat because the team influences it a great deal.

The +/- stat is imperfect in evaluating a player but it is FAR from meaningless.
Also your argument as to why it is meaningless does not hold up very well
either.Even bad teams often have at least one good line so a top player
usually gets some pretty good linemates.looking at a players entire career
and comparing his +/- to the teams he is on usually tells a story.I agree it
doesn't always tell the whole story but it does often.

Ray Bourque played on some bad teams(would have been really bad without him)
and still had great +/- record.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Interesting numbers Outsider. Do you have a complete database of this stuff?

I got those numbers from a database by Alan Ryder, who runs a fascinating website about hockey analysis (http://www.hockeyanalytics.com). The databases for 2003 and 2004 are located at http://www.hockeyanalytics.com/Research_files/PGAA_Data_2003.xls and http://www.hockeyanalytics.com/Research_files/PGAA_Data_2004.xls.

I'm slowly putting together similar databases for previous seasons. It shines new light on many things. I've gone back to 1999 so far. I can send them to you if you want.

Interesting observation: in 2000 when Chris Pronger won MVP he was by far the best (purely) defensive player in the league at any position.

 

[God Bless Canada]

I think +/- can be a useful stat when taken into the right context. For example, in 1992-93, Phil Housley had one of the best offensive seasons by a defenceman in league history when he scored 97 points. But he was a -14, on a Jets team that was .500. Yes, Housley had a lot of PP points that year, but his +/- showed just how non-existent he was in his own end that year.

Mike Modano's +/- last year is reflective of how bad he really was. A very bad rating on a 100-point team.

A player on a bad team with a weak +/- isn't reflective of much. (Unless his +/- is absolutely atrocious). Gretzky's minus rating in 1994 is more a reflection of how bad the LA Kings were, especially in the second half. In the same breath, a player with a high +/- on a strong team doesn't reflect much. But when I see a player with a plus rating on a weak team, or when it's much higher than the rest of his teammates, that's worth noting. In the same breath, when I see a player with a bad +/- rating on a strong team (especially if it's an offensive player), it raises eyebrows.

Guy Carbonneau, I believe, once won the Selke with a -5 rating. But think of it like this: he may have been on the ice for say, 40 goals for at even strength. If he is on the ice for only 40 goals for, and is only -5, and plays as much as he does against the opposition's top line, that's still pretty damn impressive.

 

[Ogopogo*]

I think +/- can be a useful stat when taken into the right context. For example, in 1992-93, Phil Housley had one of the best offensive seasons by a defenceman in league history when he scored 97 points. But he was a -14, on a Jets team that was .500. Yes, Housley had a lot of PP points that year, but his +/- showed just how non-existent he was in his own end that year.

Mike Modano's +/- last year is reflective of how bad he really was. A very bad rating on a 100-point team.

A player on a bad team with a weak +/- isn't reflective of much. (Unless his +/- is absolutely atrocious). Gretzky's minus rating in 1994 is more a reflection of how bad the LA Kings were, especially in the second half. In the same breath, a player with a high +/- on a strong team doesn't reflect much. But when I see a player with a plus rating on a weak team, or when it's much higher than the rest of his teammates, that's worth noting. In the same breath, when I see a player with a bad +/- rating on a strong team (especially if it's an offensive player), it raises eyebrows.

Guy Carbonneau, I believe, once won the Selke with a -5 rating. But think of it like this: he may have been on the ice for say, 40 goals for at even strength. If he is on the ice for only 40 goals for, and is only -5, and plays as much as he does against the opposition's top line, that's still pretty damn impressive.

But, what exactly does +/- reflect? Wayne Gretzky had a season where he was +98, does that mean he was great defensively? It simply means a player was on the ice for more goals for than against during even strength. Does the +/- really tell us anything about defensive ability?

 

[Snap Wilson]

I'm slowly putting together similar databases for previous seasons. It shines new light on many things. I've gone back to 1999 so far. I can send them to you if you want.

I'd be interested in looking at the earlier stuff, if you don't mind.

 

[Ogopogo*]

I got those numbers from a database by Alan Ryder, who runs a fascinating website about hockey analysis (http://www.hockeyanalytics.com). The databases for 2003 and 2004 are located at http://www.hockeyanalytics.com/Research_files/PGAA_Data_2003.xls and http://www.hockeyanalytics.com/Research_files/PGAA_Data_2004.xls.

I'm slowly putting together similar databases for previous seasons. It shines new light on many things. I've gone back to 1999 so far. I can send them to you if you want.

Interesting observation: in 2000 when Chris Pronger won MVP he was by far the best (purely) defensive player in the league at any position.

Absolutely, send it over.

Good work!

 

[doc5hole]

I think +/- can be a useful stat when taken into the right context. For example, in 1992-93, Phil Housley had one of the best offensive seasons by a defenceman in league history when he scored 97 points. But he was a -14, on a Jets team that was .500. Yes, Housley had a lot of PP points that year, but his +/- showed just how non-existent he was in his own end that year.

Mike Modano's +/- last year is reflective of how bad he really was. A very bad rating on a 100-point team.

A player on a bad team with a weak +/- isn't reflective of much. (Unless his +/- is absolutely atrocious). Gretzky's minus rating in 1994 is more a reflection of how bad the LA Kings were, especially in the second half. In the same breath, a player with a high +/- on a strong team doesn't reflect much. But when I see a player with a plus rating on a weak team, or when it's much higher than the rest of his teammates, that's worth noting. In the same breath, when I see a player with a bad +/- rating on a strong team (especially if it's an offensive player), it raises eyebrows.

Guy Carbonneau, I believe, once won the Selke with a -5 rating. But think of it like this: he may have been on the ice for say, 40 goals for at even strength. If he is on the ice for only 40 goals for, and is only -5, and plays as much as he does against the opposition's top line, that's still pretty damn impressive.

Well done, GBC. +/- is not only an underrated rock band but an excellent stat when taken into context. Once you put the meat onto the bones and supplement it with specific info, just like when a baseball player is thought more of for hitting .325 in the 1 spot, or when a guy is injured and now he has better linemates so his production goes up, anything can happen, usually does, and +/- remains a very useful stat when we know enough about the situation to apply it meaningfully, just like we do with other stats.

My favorite underrated players: Gary Doak, who was a rock for the Bruins during the post-Cups 70's; and Peter Mahovlich, a big player for Montreal following the Beliveau era and key producer in the '71, '73, '76 and '77 Cups.
Modern day: P.J. Axelsson. One of these years, he's going to get a 2-way center who passes the puck. If it's not in Boston, the Bruins will rue the day.

 

[ProctorSilex]

How about Dale Hawerchuk? If Gretzky never jumped in, he'd probably have been the elite player for at least 5 years.

 

[Ogopogo*]

How about Dale Hawerchuk? If Gretzky never jumped in, he'd probably have been the elite player for at least 5 years.

Gretzky didn't prevent Hawerchuk from becoming elite. Hawerchuk prevented that.

But, that being said, Hawerchuk was an excellent player. When I finish my rankings, I suspect he will be in the top 200, maybe 150. Nothing Gretzky accomplished made Hawerchuk's career any less than it was.

 

[ProctorSilex]

Gretzky didn't prevent Hawerchuk from becoming elite. Hawerchuk prevented that.

But, that being said, Hawerchuk was an excellent player. When I finish my rankings, I suspect he will be in the top 200, maybe 150. Nothing Gretzky accomplished made Hawerchuk's career any less than it was.

I'm not saying Gretzky ruined his career because Hawerchuk had a fine career. But if Dale Hawerchuk had the luck of those elite years under a different era, and not under the greatest player of all time.... he would have been more recognized.

 

[God Bless Canada]

I wouldn't call Hawerchuk underrated. I don't know if he got the credit he deserved in his prime (playing in Winnipeg will do that for you) but I think most people in the know would place him as one of the top 25-50 offensive players of all time, and somewhere between 75-125 players overall for the history of the game. I think that's where he belongs in both categories. Yes, going against Gretzky kept him from more all-star selections and likely a Hart Trophy, but he still was going against guys like Savard, Statsny, Trottier, Dionne, Yzerman, Francis, Lemieux and many more. (All of whom were at or reached elite levels when Hawerchuk was around).

Put it this way: Hawerchuk was good enough to turn Paul MacLean into a 100-point scorer, was good enough to put up several 100-point seasons playing with inferior linemates in Winnipeg (and linemates do make a difference) and good enough to score over a point-per-game in 1993-94 on a degenerative hip, when scoring dropped to 6.5 goals per game. (And that was also with an apathetic Mogilny and an injured LaFontaine).

 

[ProctorSilex]

^^ Well put, but if you were talking to the average fan and were talking about the greatest players of the last quarter decade, how long do you think it would take for Hawerchuk's name to come up (if you didn't mention it)?

 

[God Bless Canada]

Depends where that average fan is from, and how long he's been watching the game. If you ask an adult from Canada, or someone from Minnesota, Michigan, Massechusetts, or a knowledgeable U.S. market like that, his name would probably come up fairly quickly. If you asked a 16-year-old from, say, California or Texas, it may not come up at all, but then neither would Savard, Statsny, or some of the other elite playmaking centres who graced the ice in the 80s.