Player with the most impressive on-ice Goal Differential?

[Vujtek]

Here is a list of random players' ratios for career totals, ranked according to positive ratio, including the 5 players above, who are the only ones I've come across who are at 2.00 -- 1 or better for career:

2.50 Mike Bossy
2.28 Guy Lafleur
2.25 Steve Shutt
2.11 Bobby Orr (lacking data from first season)
2.04 Peter Forsberg
_________________

As I pointed out in the above post, Orr falls below the 2.00 threshold. However here are some that are over it (I only checked the ones that have been on ice for atleast 1,000 goals for during their career):

2.41 Yvan Cournoyer (1270 GF / 490 GA)
2.12 Jacques Lemaire (1290 GF / 609 GA)
2.11 Clark Gillies (1186 GF / 561 GA)
2.01 John LeClair (1203 GF / 598 GA)

Pavel Datsyuk was two more GF or one less GA shy of the threshold (1262 GF / 632 GA).

Cournoyer, Lemaire and Gillies are expected names - HHOF'ers from dominant dynasties. Cournoyer wasn't a penalty killer as he was never on ice for PP goal against. Gillies also was only on ice for 3 PP goals against. Lemaire was a penalty killer and was on ice for 52 PP goals against. His ratio when removing those jumps to 2.32.

LeClair would count as the surprise amongst these players, being the only non-HHOF'er here (atleast so far). He did play on some very good teams though, had a superstar linemate for a good portion of his career and himself was a very good player. Like Cournoyer and Gillies, not much of a penalty killer, so that helps in this kind of stat.

 

[seventieslord]

Has anyone mentioned yet that these all-situation numbers greatly favor players who played on the power play but didn't kill penalties? It's actually all these numbers really tell us.

Orr is the exception. He killed a ton of penalties, yet still shows up very highly.

If you're looking at this for some statistical fun, that's fine, go nuts, but if you want meaningful GF:GA data you have to isolate even strength goals.

 

[decma]

Has anyone mentioned yet that these all-situation numbers greatly favor players who played on the pet play but didn't kill penalties? It's actually all these numbers really tell us.

Orr is the exception. He killed a ton of penalties, yet still shows up very highly.

If you're looking at this for some statistical fun, that's fine, go nuts, but if you want meaningful GF:GA data you have to isolate even strength goals.

Yes, it has been mentioned on at least one other thread.

 

[MadLuke]

Has anyone mentioned yet that these all-situation numbers greatly favor players who played on the power play but didn't kill penalties? It's actually all these numbers really tell us.

More than half the message talk about it and the OP remove power play goal against pointing the obvious bias power/pk usage meant for the stats, to the point this sound like possible sarcasm.

the message just above yours:
Cournoyer wasn't a penalty killer as he was never on ice for PP goal against. Gillies also was only on ice for 3 PP goals against. Lemaire was a penalty killer and was on ice for 52 PP goals against. His ratio when removing those jumps to 2.32. ... Like Cournoyer and Gillies, not much of a penalty killer, so that helps in this kind of stat.

 

[The Panther]

Has anyone mentioned yet that these all-situation numbers greatly favor players who played on the power play but didn't kill penalties? It's actually all these numbers really tell us.

Orr is the exception. He killed a ton of penalties, yet still shows up very highly.

If you're looking at this for some statistical fun, that's fine, go nuts, but if you want meaningful GF:GA data you have to isolate even strength goals.

I mentioned it about 12 times in the OP. It's not a bad idea to actually read the posts.

 

[seventieslord]

I read it alright, I'm just not sure what the point is of removing PPGA but not PPGF.

 

[The Panther]

I read it alright, I'm just not sure what the point is of removing PPGA but not PPGF.

The ratios I (and others) listed first in the posts on page one are not with PPGA removed. So, you can just look at those if it helps you.

(For the record, the purpose of removing PPGA is to even the playing field of players -- esp. high scoring, offensive players --, some of whom often killed penalties and some of whom didn't. Of course, you can go ahead and remove PPGF if you like, but for me that's really pointless, as producing on power plays is a specific and expected responsibility of most high-skilled players. Whereas killing penalties is more of a "specialist" skill, not something expected when you draft an offensive winger, say.)

 

[BobbyAwe]

Yes, it has been mentioned on at least one other thread.

True, whether or not a player killed penalties makes a huge difference. Also how much the player in question played the PP. If possible, the stat would be fantastic if it could just reflect even strength goals for/against.

 

[danincanada]

Good thread and topic. I've looked at this on my own over the years because it's an interesting way to view careers.

I agree with regards to the impact special teams has but most high end players are on the PP but not all kill penalties so that's a bigger difference in my mind. League parity is another because the 70's and 80's had a lot of extremely weak teams, which is reflected in basic +/- as well. No one has really been posting huge +/- numbers in the last 30 years whereas prior to that it was quite common due to a lack of league parity.

Last but not least, some players were tasked to match up against the other teams top players and this especially applies to shutdown defensemen. This impacts the numbers as well.

I like it as another source of comparing players but like anything else there are other factors involved.