It'd be incredibly difficult to do, but it'd be interesting to factor in the standard deviation of the top-x number of players. For example, coming in second when two players are far ahead of the pack would be worth more than coming in second when there are five guys who are close together.
It'd be incredibly difficult to do, but it'd be interesting to factor in the standard deviation of the top-x number of players. For example, coming in second when two players are far ahead of the pack would be worth more than coming in second when there are five guys who are close together.
Crosby and Naslund were Hart and Pearson winners/finalists. I'm guessing that puts them ahead.
I think that's one thing that hurts this system. Players who play during eras where there were dominant players get hurt. If Naslund played during Kurri's years or Kurri during Naslund's, I think you'd see them end up in different positions.
Stephen
Moderator
- Feb 28, 2002
- 78,654
- 53,117
That's not satisfying either, because as Phillippe Boucher and Dan Boyle's position in the balloting this year shows, a lot of these rankings are unreliable.
Also, if we were to look at balloting and awards, you could come away with the belief that Sergei Fedorov was better than Yzerman on account of his great seasons in 1994 and 1996 because of his Hart, Pearson and Selke Trophies, All-Star teams and Stanley Cups. But clearly you've made adjustments because you know more about the situation.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Wow, this is pretty spot-on at the top and pretty spotty at the bottom. Since it's forumla-based, this is bound to happen. Among skaters it's practically flawless down to #18. Among goalies, you have the 7 best in the top 7. I have Hall 3rd myself but I credit you for acknowledging that he was better than his contemporaries Sawchuk and Plante.
That's a very interesting list. I'm not going to dispute any of the rankings because I realize it's formula based and everybody is going to have different opinions about what variables should be used and what weight they should receive. All in all though I think it's pretty representative. What impresses me is that players like Tom Anderson and Paul Thompson didn't slip through the cracks. That tells me it's a pretty good ranking system. Good job!
It's an admirable project, but there are still more than a few kinks to be worked out.
The Naslund/Kurri thing mentioned previously stands out - one Hart nomination clearly holds way too much weight. We see this again, when a player like Yashin with 1 great season is ahead of Michel Goulet, who was a post-season All-Star 5 times between 1982-88 and top-10 in scoring 4 times.
It seems to be a consistent thing that guys who were clearly top-10 players in the 1980s but had little/no chance of winning a Hart behind Gretzky/Lemieux will be rated behind lesser players from the post-1994 period who managed to throw themselves into Hart contention once in a much weaker field.
Good to hear you're going to address the top-7 or nothing thing which has been a problem every time you do this. Some sort of weighted gradient from 1st-20th in scoring makes a hell of a lot more sense.
The Naslund/Kurri thing mentioned previously stands out - one Hart nomination clearly holds way too much weight. We see this again, when a player like Yashin with 1 great season is ahead of Michel Goulet, who was a post-season All-Star 5 times between 1982-88 and top-10 in scoring 4 times.
It seems to be a consistent thing that guys who were clearly top-10 players in the 1980s but had little/no chance of winning a Hart behind Gretzky/Lemieux will be rated behind lesser players from the post-1994 period who managed to throw themselves into Hart contention once in a much weaker field.
Good to hear you're going to address the top-7 or nothing thing which has been a problem every time you do this. Some sort of weighted gradient from 1st-20th in scoring makes a hell of a lot more sense.
Any list with that many players is hard, but whatever the formula the last addition should be "common sense".
Potvin at 34 had me baffled, Messier at 35 as well.
Thornton over Forsberg, Iginla over Stasny, Naslund over LaFontaine or fedorov or Lindros or Bure... etc etc.... just make no sense.
Potvin at 34 had me baffled, Messier at 35 as well.
Thornton over Forsberg, Iginla over Stasny, Naslund over LaFontaine or fedorov or Lindros or Bure... etc etc.... just make no sense.
The main difference between Kurri and Naslund is that Naslund was near the top of the Hart Trophy balloting each of those three seasons. Kurri never had any consideration for the Hart. That makes Naslund's top three seasons superior to Kurri's in my book.
What makes this tough to say is, I hate the Canucks and Kurri is my 2nd favorite player of all time!
Yes, you do have a decent idea of how it works.
Assists are only 1/3 of the scoring totals I use so, it has to be a phenomenal rating in assists to move a guy up the list. As I said, Oates is the #3 playmaker of all time and that moves him up quite a bit. Playmaking is one of the most important skills in the game.
No, I have taken that into account. Players end up where their careers put them. There is no way to be buried and miss out on your due.
If a player was consistently 3rd best in the NHL behind Gretzky and Lemieux for a decade, that player would probably be #5 or #6 on this list. There was no such player.
I disagree. I have not made adjustments to move Yzerman ahead of Fedorov artificially.
The hockey writers get to see NHL games more than any of us here. Although their balloting isn't perfect, it is better than any one person's eyewitness account (How many times did YOU see the LA Kings play this year?) and it is quantifiable. The balloting records are the most reliable eyewitness accounts available.
Actually, Naslund received a significant amount of consideration for the Hart three times not just once. That makes a difference. Being heavily considered for the Hart means you are one of the game's very best. IMO, that is more significant than winning post season all star awards at a weak position.
If a player was to consistently finish 3rd behind Gretzky and Lemieux, they would be about #5 or #6 on this list. I take that kind of thing into account and there is no player that is misplaced because they were buried behind others.
Thanks for the feedback.
Not sure why you are baffled. Some players have a significant amount of legendary status that transcends their true accomplishments - that describes Messier's career. I love Messier but, 35 is where he belongs.
The others all have their spot on the list based on their accomplishments.
I'm not sure I like that idea...it could punish guys who may be consistantly better offensive players, couldn't it? At the end of the day, playmaking and goal scoring are both means to the same end...
Not speaking about Oates specifically, but the theory behind it. Is a guy who had 100 goals and 1200 assists better than a guy who had 500 goals and 800 assists? They both have the same amount of points, and their careers are equal in my books.
In 2004 Scott Gomez lead the league in assists, and had 70 points. Guys like Mats Sundin (75 pts) and Daniel Alfredsson (80 pts) outscored him, but weren't in the top 10 in either offensive category. Both these guys had better offensive seasons that Gomez, but I get the feeling Gomez would have more points in your system? It seems to reward one-dimensional offense ahead of a well-balanced offensive player.
Last edited:
Messier is ranked 2nd all-time in regular season points.
He's ranked 2nd all-time in playoff points.
He's the only player ever to have captained two different NHL clubs.
Won 2 Harts, a Conn Smythe, 6 Stanley Cups.
No idea how he's ranked 35.
Yeah he's always had haters and people saying his stats were bloated in Edmonton, but c'mon...
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
I'm a big Messier booster too, but he does tend to get overrated by those who want to rank the players all-time by career points totals. 35 may be a little low, but it's not that far off. There were a lot more forwards who were more dominating in their times.
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
- Jan 16, 2005
- 9,143
- 14,445
I don't remember if you've mentioned this already, but do you currently take into account any of these?:
- Pearson
- Selke
- Calder
- Lady Byng
- Playoff scoring (i.e., 7 pts for leading the playoffs in scoring?)
- Pearson
- Selke
- Calder
- Lady Byng
- Playoff scoring (i.e., 7 pts for leading the playoffs in scoring?)
Two comments:
1) Saying a 19 year old with two "dominant" seasons makes a better player then arguably one of the greatest pure goal scorers of all time is an absolute joke.
2) I think the fact that Ogopogo gets defensive about every comment that doesn't jibe with his ratings and has yet to say "hey, you know you may be right , I'll have to rethink that" speaks volumes about his rankings.
1) Saying a 19 year old with two "dominant" seasons makes a better player then arguably one of the greatest pure goal scorers of all time is an absolute joke.
2) I think the fact that Ogopogo gets defensive about every comment that doesn't jibe with his ratings and has yet to say "hey, you know you may be right , I'll have to rethink that" speaks volumes about his rankings.
- Jul 24, 2005
- 12,478
- 4,791
I'd suggest a closer look into Ranford's career. This explaination is far too vague to give the selection of Ward over Ranford any serious consideration. Surely even you can see this leap of logic in the text of a great NHL career.
Last edited:
