NHL's Greatest Playmakers

[Masao]

Thank you for the insults.

Hey, no one's insulting anyone. We're just... discussing

 

[dolfanar]

A couple of points,

First, I am measuring NHL success. Not other leagues, other countries or anything else. If you are outside of the NHL, you are not included in this system. I probably will do a rating system for the other "major" leagues of hockey but, for this list it is irrelevant.

You obviously don't understand your own position... or much else about quantitative methods or hockey history for that matter...

You said: 6 teams in the NHL means you have the 120 best players. Add 24 more teams to the mix and you have just added 480 bad players that were not good enough to be in a six team NHL.

This is pure unadulterated bunk, as I demonstrated. Again, you are trying to claim that finishing as the 10th highest grossing NA enterprise in 1492 is equivalent to finishing as the 10th highest grossing NA enterprise in terms of accomplishment.

With that kind of position you expect people to take your analysis seriously? Again a good try, but hardly anything to crow over. Improve your method to adjust for the realities of a changing hockey world, and maybe you have something more workable.

But again, as I said the definitive method is adjusting for REAL numbers across the board comparing scoring levels from all periods against a baseline, as done by Total Sports (NOT Stats, Inc, my bad) in 1999.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Hey, no one's insulting anyone. We're just... discussing

I was only referring to the insults in dolfanar's post. Everyone else has been reasonably civil.

 

[Ogopogo*]

You obviously don't understand your own position... or much else about quantitative methods or hockey history for that matter...

You said: 6 teams in the NHL means you have the 120 best players. Add 24 more teams to the mix and you have just added 480 bad players that were not good enough to be in a six team NHL.

This is pure unadulterated bunk, as I demonstrated. Again, you are trying to claim that finishing as the 10th highest grossing NA enterprise in 1492 is equivalent to finishing as the 10th highest grossing NA enterprise in terms of accomplishment.

With that kind of position you expect people to take your analysis seriously? Again a good try, but hardly anything to crow over. Improve your method to adjust for the realities of a changing hockey world, and maybe you have something more workable.

But again, as I said the definitive method is adjusting for REAL numbers across the board comparing scoring levels from all periods against a baseline, as done by Total Sports (NOT Stats, Inc, my bad) in 1999.

I am not too concerned it you take my system seriously or not. You obviously have an idea in your head that you refuse to let go of.

You can adjust the REAL numbers if you like but, I will continue to run my system my way. I have chosen to do it this way because it fits well into my framework for the bigger project "NHL's greatest players"

You are looking for raw assist totals. I am not. I am looking for GREAT seasons that is very different. Players could hang around for years accumulating 30 or 40 assists to add to thier totals. My system does not recognize that because I am measuring GREAT seasons not total assists.

I am measuring something completely different than you think so, my system is not inaccurate at all. My system measures exactly what I am looking to measure. I was never interested in assist totals and my system does not measure that.

Again, thank you for the insults.

 

[dolfanar]

I am measuring something completely different than you think so, my system is not inaccurate at all. My system measures exactly what I am looking to measure. I was never interested in assist totals and my system does not measure that.

Exactly, we agree completely, and what you are measuring cannot be considered in any way the "NHL's Greatest Playmakers".

 

[Ogopogo*]

Exactly, we agree completely, and what you are measuring cannot be considered in any way the "NHL's Greatest Playmakers".

So, what makes you think hanging around for 5 or 6 years picking up 30 assists per season is greatness?

Your OPINION of greatness is far different from mine. Your OPINION is, at best, equal to my opinion. Your OPINION is not definitive.

Great seasons = a great career, IMO. You feel that any season should be included the calculation of a great career. I disagree with you.

Once again, thank you for the insults. It really does add credibility to your posts.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

First of all, good work Ogopogo. I know work like this can be tough but the results are (usually) worth it. It's nice to see Frank Boucher in 4th place--I also think he's one of the top five playmakers of all time.

A couple points. There is a method for adjusting pure stats by comparing overall #'s of assists and goals/game played. Stats, Inc did that a few years ago in their hockey enclyopedia. You take the average number of goals per game and assists per game for every season, then you find the global average, and adjust every players stats based on a comparison between that years average vs the global average. You also need to decide on a standard # of GP, and then adjust for years where the schedule was different (eg, if you choose 80 games as a standard, and a player played 30 out of a 40 game season, you multiply by 2). This is a HUGE job however, and unfortunately there just isn't a comprehensive DB out there you can Download to run these kinds of heavy numbers.

I've made a database like this. It took a long time but the results are worth it. If yo (or anyone else) wants a copy, PM me.

Oates
Year, Adjusted GP, Adjusted Assists
1986 39 9
1987 78 27
1988 65 33
1989 71 51
1990 82 66
1991 63 80
1992 82 70
1993 82 78
1994 75 73
1995 82 71
1996 70 64
1997 80 62
1998 82 66
1999 59 46
2000 82 61
2001 81 74
2002 80 73
2003 67 40
2004 60 18
Total 1,379 1,062


Lemieux
Year, Adjusted GP, Adjusted Assists
1985 75 45
1986 81 73
1987 65 45
1988 79 82
1989 78 94
1990 60 65
1991 27 23
1992 66 77
1993 59 73
1994 21 18
1996 70 88
1997 76 75
2001 43 44
2002 24 28
2003 67 70
2004 10 9
Total 900 908

Overall I agree with Ogopogo that Oates had a higher "career value" than Lemieux. He was in the lineup for a longer time and his presence on the ice resulted in more goals for his teammates. Lemieux was more talented for sure, and would have accomplished more if healthy, but sadly he didn't.

In terms of "peak value", Lemieux is higher. Oates had one season with 80+ assists and 7 seasons of 70+ assists. Lemieux had three seasons with 80+ assists and 8 seasons of 70+ assists. Overall they probably played with linemates of approximately equal skill, so that shouldn't be a huge factor. So Lemieux in his prime, despite missing a lot of games due to injury, still put up more assists than Oates.

 

[KOVALEV10*]

First of all, good work Ogopogo. I know work like this can be tough but the results are (usually) worth it. It's nice to see Frank Boucher in 4th place--I also think he's one of the top five playmakers of all time.



I've made a database like this. It took a long time but the results are worth it. If yo (or anyone else) wants a copy, PM me.

Oates
Year, Adjusted GP, Adjusted Assists
1986 39 9
1987 78 27
1988 65 33
1989 71 51
1990 82 66
1991 63 80
1992 82 70
1993 82 78
1994 75 73
1995 82 71
1996 70 64
1997 80 62
1998 82 66
1999 59 46
2000 82 61
2001 81 74
2002 80 73
2003 67 40
2004 60 18
Total 1,379 1,062


Lemieux
Year, Adjusted GP, Adjusted Assists
1985 75 45
1986 81 73
1987 65 45
1988 79 82
1989 78 94
1990 60 65
1991 27 23
1992 66 77
1993 59 73
1994 21 18
1996 70 88
1997 76 75
2001 43 44
2002 24 28
2003 67 70
2004 10 9
Total 900 908

Overall I agree with Ogopogo that Oates had a higher "career value" than Lemieux. He was in the lineup for a longer time and his presence on the ice resulted in more goals for his teammates. Lemieux was more talented for sure, and would have accomplished more if healthy, but sadly he didn't.

In terms of "peak value", Lemieux is higher. Oates had one season with 80+ assists and 7 seasons of 70+ assists. Lemieux had three seasons with 80+ assists and 8 seasons of 70+ assists. Overall they probably played with linemates of approximately equal skill, so that shouldn't be a huge factor. So Lemieux in his prime, despite missing a lot of games due to injury, still put up more assists than Oates.

And Lemieux in his first 6-7 seasons didn't exactly have a Brett Hull like player with him to say the least. Ogopogo was the one saying Lemieux and Gretzky are in a league of their own yet he's the one saying Oates was the better playmaker. I dont get it.

 

[SChan*]

isn't Forsberg in reality the guy with the 4th best Assist / Game average?

 

[Ogopogo*]

And Lemieux in his first 6-7 seasons didn't exactly have a Brett Hull like player with him to say the least. Ogopogo was the one saying Lemieux and Gretzky are in a league of their own yet he's the one saying Oates was the better playmaker. I dont get it.

It depends on what you are measuring.

Like hockey outsider said, if you are measuring "peak value" then Gretzky and Lemieux would definitely be above anyone else for the past 25 years. At their best, Gretzky and Lemieux could not be touched.

For "career value" Lemieux moves down the list because injuries prevented him from playing for long stretches. Adam Oates is higher on the greatest playmakers list because he had more seasons at or near the top of the assist chart than Lemieux did.

Injuries suck but, that is life.


Talent around a player is mistakenly overrated.

Did Gretzky need superstars around him to be great? Did Mario? Does anybody? I say no.

During Gretzky's first two seasons, he scored 137 and 164 points respectively. His rookie year he was saddled with Brett Callighen and BJ MacDonald as linemates on a horrible Oilers team that barely squeaked into the 16/21 playoff format. His second season, he broke the record for points in a season on a slightly better Oilers team where his highest scoring teammate had 75 points! Clearly Gretzky did not need great teammates to dominate.

Mario had 100 and 141 points in his first two seasons on a horrible Penguins team.

Peter Stastny, Andy Bathgate and Marcel Dionne all put up great numbers on bad teams.

Now, if a guy like Rob Brown scores 115 points once while playing on Lemieux's line, or a guy like Bernie Nicholls hits 70 goals and 150 points once while playing with Gretzky, that can be considered an anomaly based on playing with a talented teammate. But, when a player has great season after great season year in and year out, you have to conclude that he is responsible for his success. Ultimately, Jari Kurri had to put the puck in the net. It is great to get nice passes from Gretzky but, if he couldn't score he would have been gone. Remember Raimo Summanen? Exactly.

Great players produce with any teammates, under any circumstances, during any season. That is why they are great, they don't need great teammates to be great - they are the great teammate that Rob Brown and Bernie Nicholls need to lean on.

Consistent greatness is not accident.

 

[Ogopogo*]

isn't Forsberg in reality the guy with the 4th best Assist / Game average?

Possibly but, assists per game are very misleading.

Some players play in a very defensive era and some play in a very offensive era. Comparing across eras using a per game stat does not accurately show what the numbers really indicate - unless you do something like HockeyOutsider has done or something like what I have done.

 

[SChan*]

Possibly but, assists per game are very misleading.

Some players play in a very defensive era and some play in a very offensive era. Comparing across eras using a per game stat does not accurately show what the numbers really indicate - unless you do something like HockeyOutsider has done or something like what I have done.

misleading? I guess Selanne's 76 goals rookie season cannot be compared too? You can never compare the offensive vs Defensive era in a fair way. That's why stats are stats my friend.

 

[Ogopogo*]

misleading? I guess Selanne's 76 goals rookie season cannot be compared too? You can never compare the offensive vs Defensive era in a fair way. That's why stats are stats my friend.

Of course it can be compared. You just need to adjust it for the era it is in.

Stats are effective when looked at correctly. Misleading when not adjusted.

 

[SChan*]

Of course it can be compared. You just need to adjust it for the era it is in.

Stats are effective when looked at correctly. Misleading when not adjusted.

I dunno. Who are to decide these things anyway? When I think of Gretzky I think of the greatest player ever regardless that he played in an offensive era. When I think of Forsberg, I think of a top10 playmaker ever,

 

[Ogopogo*]

I dunno. Who are to decide these things anyway? Whe I think of Gretzky I think of the greatest player ever regardless that he played in an offensive era. When I think of Forsberg, I think of a top10 playmaker ever,

I think everybody has a slightly different idea of what greatness is, so there is no constant.

I also think that most people automatically discount the greats of eras past simply becuase they have never seen them play. Players like Howie Morenz, Cy Denneny and Eddie Shore deserve to be recognized as top 20 players because they dominated the 20s and 30s so greatly.

Forsberg is an excellent player but, based on my criteria of greatness he fits in #24 on the playmakers list and, when I am finished, he will be about the 50th greatest player of all time.

 

[arnie]

I have finally finished my greatest playmakers list. Much like the scorers and goal scorers list, this list is based on my 7 point system to level the playing field across all eras of NHL hockey. Assist rules, offensive eras, defensive eras, huge goalie equipment, the center red line, 80 game seasons, 30 games seasons, all of this stuff is irrelevant. The 7 point system cuts through all of that 'noise' to find out who the true playmakers are. (7pts for 1st in assists during a season, 6 pts for 2nd, 5pts for 3rd, 4 pts for 4th, 3 pts for 5th, 2 pts for 6th, 1 pt for 7th) 2 extra points for winning assist title by 25%. 4 extra points for winning by 50%. 6 extra for winning by 75%.


Two things that immediately stood out when I completed these ratings are:

1) Adam Oates in 3rd place! I have always known that he was a great playmaker but 3rd all time? I had to add it up twice to make sure it was accurate. It is and I have a much greater respect for the man's playmaking abilities.

2) We all know that Wayne Gretzky is the greatest playmaker of all time but, he is even greater than I thought! Many people believe that Wayne's time in New York was poor performance just playing out the string. Far from it! Wayne tied for the league lead in assists in 1997 and 1998 then, in his final season of 1999 he was tied for 6th in the league in assists! That is remarkable considering the stage of his career that he was in.

Wayne also achieved an amazing 13 point assist title in 1985-86. I award 7 point to win a scoring/goal/assist title. Win by 25% and I give 9 points rather than 7. Win by 50% and I give 11 points. Wayne Gretzky won the 1986 assist title by an amazing 75.2% over Mario Lemieux!!! Gretzky had 163 assists to Lemieux's 93. Wow!! Nobody had done that in points or goals and this is the only time it has ever been done with assists. Truly the Great Gretzky.


So, here are the 100 greatest playmakers in NHL history:


1 Wayne Gretzky 137.75
2 Gordie Howe 84.5
3 Adam Oates 55
4 Frank Boucher 51
5 Mario Lemieux 50.5
6 Andy Bathgate 50
7 Phil Esposito 49
8 Stan Mikita 48.5
9 Bobby Orr 46.5
10 Bill Cowley 40.75
11 Jean Beliveau 39.25
12 Ted Lindsay 37.5
Elmer Lach 37.5
14 Paul Coffey 34
15 Jaromir Jagr 31
16 Marcel Dionne 30.5
17 Bryan Trottier 30
Guy Lafleur 30
19 Bobby Clarke 29.5
20 Cy Denneny 28.75
21 Ron Francis 28
22 Alex Delvecchio 27
23 Howie Morenz 26.17
24 Peter Forsberg 24
25 Peter Stastny 23
Art Chapman 23
27 Max Bentley 22.5
Doug Bentley 22.5
Joe Sakic 22.5
30 Sid Abel 22
31 Aurel Joliat 21.17
Joe Primeau 21.17
33 Phil Watson 20.5
34 Bert Olmstead 20
35 Reg Noble 19.58
36 Milt Schmidt 19.5
37 Henri Richard 19
Denis Savard 19
39 Mark Messier 18
40 Paul Ronty 17.5
41 Syl Apps 16.75
42 Billy Taylor 16
Dickie Moore 16
44 David Schriner 15.5
Doug Gilmour 15.5
46 Buddy O'Connor 15
Ted Kennedy 15
King Clancy 15
49 Corb Denneny 14.5
50 Frank Nighbor 14
51 Newsy Lalonde 13.7
52 Clint Smith 13
Dale Hawerchuk 13
Pierre Pilote 13
55 Reginald Smith 12.87
56 Jean Ratelle 12.5
Ray Bourque 12.5
58 Bernie Federko 12
Bobby Rousseau 12
60 Harry Cameron 11.75
61 Rod Gilbert 11.25
62 Marty Barry 11.2
63 Gilbert Perreault 11
Pete Mahovlich 11
Steve Yzerman 11
Mark Recchi 11
Louis Berlinquette 11
Bill Boucher 11
Doug Harvey 11
70 Paul Haynes 10.95
71 Doug Weight 10.5
Red Kelly 10.5
73 Ace Bailey 10
Bill Gadsby 10
Phil Goyette 10
76 Elwyn Romnes 9.25
77 Eddie Gerard 9
Ken Randall 9
Don McKenny 9
Bill Hay 9
81 Bobby Hull 8.5
Eddie Shore 8.5
83 Brian Leetch 8
Frederick Cook 8
85 Jason Allison 7.75
Syd Howe 7.75
87 Norm Ullman 7.5
Denis Potvin 7.5
Herbie Lewis 7.5
Harry Broadbent 7.5
91 Edmond Bouchard 7
Dick Irvin 7
Jack McKell 7
Gus Bodnar 7
95 Leo Reise 6.5
Bill Cook 6.5
Scott Gomez 6.5
Martin St. Louis 6.5
Barry Pederson 6.5
Earl Reibel 6.5
Bill Thoms 6.5

Congratulations. You've just further proved why arbitrary statistical analsyses are a waste of time. This is another version of the method used a few years ago to prove that Pittsburgh was the best place in the US to live - even as the population shrunk by 2/3.

 

[Backin72]

I dunno. Who are to decide these things anyway?

That's just it, it's a personal perspective.

based on my criteria of greatness he fits in #24 on the playmakers list and, when I am finished, he will be about the 50th greatest player of all time.

See what I mean.

Like I said before, these lists are NOT the be all and end all of all lists. Take them for what they are.

 

[Hyack57]

You guys are all whack. The list is good and accurate based on the "CRITERIA SET OUT TO MAKE THE LIST WHAT IT IS!" Based on his 7pt scale Oates is #3. Why don't all you whiners who don't agree where Lemiuex et al sit take the time and effor to construct your own "all-time" list with formulas for everyone to nitpick about and post it for all to see and apparently criticize freely. Good work Ogopogo.

(( I've actually had an arguement in a bar with my buddies over something similar where I wass saying Oates is almost as good as Gretzy in passing but was not blessed with as many finishers aside from Brett Hull.))

 

[Backin72]

Why don't all you whiners who don't agree where Lemiuex et al sit take the time and effor to construct your own "all-time" list with formulas for everyone to nitpick about and post it for all to see and apparently criticize freely.

Who's whining? Yes we are criticizing, why not? If you're going to post something like that, expect it. But I guess if you feel that no one should say anything, what's the point of this place? I don't have the time, data base, or program to decipher the huge numbers, variables, etc to do it properly, so I won't do it and leave myself open to ridicule.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Congratulations. You've just further proved why arbitrary statistical analsyses are a waste of time. This is another version of the method used a few years ago to prove that Pittsburgh was the best place in the US to live - even as the population shrunk by 2/3.

Unless you understand what I am doing, you have no clue what the results mean.

Find another thread, I don't have the time or desire to explain it to you.

 

[Ogopogo*]

You guys are all whack. The list is good and accurate based on the "CRITERIA SET OUT TO MAKE THE LIST WHAT IT IS!" Based on his 7pt scale Oates is #3.

Exactly. Why more people don't get that is beyond me.

 

[Hyack57]

Who's whining? Yes we are criticizing, why not? If you're going to post something like that, expect it. But I guess if you feel that no one should say anything, what's the point of this place? I don't have the time, data base, or program to decipher the huge numbers, variables, etc to do it properly, so I won't do it and leave myself open to ridicule.

I think if a person feels the list does not give proper creadance to certain players that person should suggest a way to alter the forumla to make it so that player comes into factor. But to come out an be overly critical of something that is probably beyond your own capabilities to produce (as you suggested) it is just arrogant.

The list, by spanning multiple decades, is going to give credit to those who have played more seasons and by the same token have lead the league in assists during those seasons. Oates gets a lot of credit because he's played roughly 500 more games than Lemiuex and during that time he has had more opportunities to garner credits on Ogopogo's 7pt scale to become 3rd overall. That is NOT to say that Oates is a "better passer" or a "more creative playmaker" it says what it says, that according to the 7pt scale Oates "ranks" higher than Lemiuex et al.

This is the classic arguement between quantitative statistics (7pt scale) and qualitative statistics (he's better simply because he is MARIO LEMIEUX!). It seems everyone who is discounting Ogopogo's formula is doing so from a qualitative perspective when it would be fallacy to do so because the formula/scale is purely quantitative.

 

[Backin72]

I think if a person feels the list does not give proper creadance to certain players that person should suggest a way to alter the forumla to make it so that player comes into factor. But to come out an be overly critical of something that is probably beyond your own capabilities to produce (as you suggested) it is just arrogant.

If you read the thread, I said I've done this with these lists before. Previously I offered up suggestions on how to make them more complete but was met with a snarky attitude and then was later told the info wasn't available. So why make a list if it's incomplete? Arrogance has nothing to do with it.

 

[norrisnick]

My main issue with the Ogopogo series of rankings is the term "Greatest" in all the headings. Greatness is not something a mathematical formula can define.

That and the inconsistent manner in which dominance and longevity are treated.

You do a good job of ranking what you are looking at, Ogo, but you aren't looking at greatness. If that makes any sense.

 

[Ogopogo*]

If you read the thread, I said I've done this with these lists before. Previously I offered up suggestions on how to make them more complete but was met with a snarky attitude and then was later told the info wasn't available. So why make a list if it's incomplete? Arrogance has nothing to do with it.

A list that is lacking some information is better than no list at all. There is plenty of info available to put together a pretty comprehensive system. Perfect? No. Better than no system at all? Yes.

If the NHL provides me with the information that I have requested, I can implement it. I apologize that your favorites cannot be at the top all the time, I objectively rate the players as the system ranks them.

I have taken many suggestions from many people. When I am hit with insults and ridicule, I take a sharper tone. Perhaps you were insulting when you first posted an response and that is why you got a snarky attitude in return. I don't start an argument but, my weakness is that I jump in and participate.