Reference - VsX comprehensive summary (1927 to 2023)

[Hockey Outsider]

And the top three years for goal-scoring:

Player	TOTAL
Bobby Hull	81.3
Gordie Howe	74.5
Maurice Richard	74.2
Brett Hull	72.7
Phil Esposito	72.6
Charlie Conacher	71.8
Wayne Gretzky	70.8
Mario Lemieux	64.3
Jean Beliveau	63.2
Bill Cook	63.0
Alex Ovechkin	62.1
Steven Stamkos	61.4
Bernie Geoffrion	60.5
Pavel Bure	60.4
Mike Bossy	58.3
Howie Morenz	56.8
Frank Mahovlich	56.2
Norm Ullman	55.6
Stan Mikita	55.5
Teemu Selanne	55.1
Bryan Hextall	54.7
Nels Stewart	54.5
Jari Kurri	54.5
Roy Conacher	54.4
Jarome Iginla	53.8
Marty Barry	53.8
Dickie Moore	53.2
Jaromir Jagr	53.0
Steve Yzerman	52.7
Peter Bondra	52.5
Gordie Drillon	52.3
Guy Lafleur	52.2
Busher Jackson	52.1
Ted Lindsay	51.7
Marcel Dionne	51.4
Evgeni Malkin	51.3
John LeClair	51.2
Doug Bentley	50.7
Sidney Crosby	50.6
Corey Perry	50.2
Lynn Patrick	49.7
Kenny Wharram	49.6
Alexander Mogilny	49.5
Sweeney Schriner	49.4
Joe Sakic	49.4
Ilya Kovalchuk	49.4
Cecil Dillon	49.3
Herb Cain	49.2
Tod Sloan	49.1
Andy Bathgate	48.8
Toe Blake	48.6
Mickey Redmond	48.6
Tim Kerr	48.6
Sid Smith	48.4
John Bucyk	48.3
Sid Abel	48.2
Gaye Stewart	48.2
Cam Neely	48.0
Aurel Joliat	47.8
Camille Henry	47.8
Rick Martin	47.7
Ken Hodge	47.6
Keith Tkachuk	47.6
Patrik Laine	47.5
Rick Nash	47.4
Steve Shutt	47.3
Max Bentley	47.2
Reggie Leach	47.2
Markus Naslund	47.2
Ed Litzenberger	47.1
Michel Goulet	47.0
Theoren Fleury	46.9
John Tavares	46.9
Jeff Carter	46.8
Luc Robitaille	46.7
Syd Howe	46.7
Tony Amonte	46.4
Dany Heatley	46.3
Brendan Shanahan	46.1
Bill Mosienko	46.1
Dit Clapper	46.0
Owen Nolan	46.0
Charlie Simmer	45.9
Lorne Carr	45.8
Paul Kariya	45.8
Patrick Kane	45.7
Milan Hejduk	45.4
Pat LaFontaine	45.3
Eric Lindros	45.3
Ace Bailey	45.3
Lanny McDonald	45.2
Marian Gaborik	45.2
Wally Hergesheimer	45.1
Ziggy Palffy	45.1
Vladimir Tarasenko	45.1
Glen Murray	45.0
Pierre Larouche	44.9
Syl Apps Sr	44.9
Danny Gare	44.8
Marian Hossa	44.8
Mike Gartner	44.7
Paul Thompson	44.6
Ted Kennedy	44.5
Yvan Cournoyer	44.3
Auston Matthews	44.3
Eric Staal	44.3
Jeremy Roenick	44.1
Alex Shibicky	44.1
Bobby Bauer	44.1
Joe Nieuwendyk	44.1
Rick MacLeish	44.1
Max Pacioretty	44.0
Bernie Nicholls	44.0
Joe Pavelski	44.0
Kevin Stevens	44.0
Bill Guerin	44.0
Red Hamill	43.9
Cooney Weiland	43.8
Tyler Seguin	43.8
Milt Schmidt	43.8
Rod Gilbert	43.8
Jean Ratelle	43.8
Woody Dumart	43.7
Alex Delvecchio	43.6
Patrick Marleau	43.2
Vincent Lecavalier	43.2
Alexei Yashin	43.1
Garry Unger	43.1
Larry Aurie	43.0
Glenn Anderson	42.9
Mats Sundin	42.9
Bronco Horvath	42.9
Mike Modano	42.8
Joe Benoit	42.7
Zach Parise	42.7
Miroslav Satan	42.7
Hooley Smith	42.6
Blaine Stoughton	42.6
Ray Sheppard	42.6
Bryan Trottier	42.6
Bill Goldsworthy	42.5
Brad Marchand	42.5
Phil Kessel	42.4
Rick Vaive	42.4
Baldy Northcott	42.3
Stephane Richer	42.3
Nikita Kucherov	42.3
Dennis Hull	42.3
Patrik Elias	42.2
Claude Provost	42.1

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

 

[GlitchMarner]

How are Matthews and Laine on that last table after just two seasons?

 

[Hockey Outsider]

How are Matthews and Laine on that last table after just two seasons?

Actually I realized I had an error in the two tables I just posted - you'll see they're already there (Laine is at 47.5, and Matthews is at 44.3). I forgot to set up the formula to give them a zero for the third season that they haven't yet played (so it's just a two-year average for them, while everyone else has a three-year average). But, since it's interesting, I'll leave the table as is.

As for the question of where they rank after their first two seasons (going back to 1927) - Laine has the 4th best start in NHL history (behind only Bossy, Cook, and Roy Conacher). Matthews is 9th (behind those four, plus Ovechkin, Gretzky, Drillon and, surprisingly, Wally Hergesheimer).

 

[Hockey Outsider]

The 12 main posts on the first page have been updated for 2019. The 2019 benchmark for goals is 50; thanks to Kucherov's domination, I've used a lower threshold for assists and points (71 and 110 - which follows Sturminator's original method).

My standard disclaimer - all this data is posted in good faith, and I've automated the process to reduce the risk of human error, but let me know if you see anything that looks surprising/wrong.

A few observations:

• Despite narrowly winning an all-time record eight goal-scoring crown, this only qualified as Ovechkin's 9th best goal-scoring season (so it doesn't boost his seven-year score). He now ranks 7th all-time with 739 adjusted goals. He has very little chance of passing Gordie Howe for first, but it looks likely that he'll end up in second place.
• Crosby had, objectively, a very good year, but it didn't move the needle much for his peak rankings. But he's now 29th in all-time adjusted scoring (and is a hat trick away from 500 adjusted goals).
• McDavid doesn't (yet) appear on any of these lists. He looks very strong based on best three years - he's already in the top twenty all-time. Assuming last night's injury isn't as serious as it looked, he should be able to shoot up these lists over the next decade.
• The same is largely true for Kucherov. His three-year peak is now only slightly behind McDavid (but he also has two more good seasons - 2015 and 2016 - that'll keep him higher, at least in the short term).
• Kane continues to beef up his resume. His 7-year scoring peak now ranks roughly on par with Yzerman and Selanne. He's still climbing the ranks on the 10-year tables (his 66 point 2012 campaign is holding him back). He finished the year with 998 adjusted point.
• Stamkos had a great year. He now ranks 13th both in 7-year and 10-year goal-scoring peak. He's about one season away from 500 adjusted goals.
• Joe Thornton had a solid season for a 39 year old. He's now 11th all-time in adjusted scoring (just behind Sakic and Yzerman), and rose to 5th all-time in adjusted assists (behind only Gretzky, Howe, Jagr and Francis).
• Blake Wheeler moves into 100th place for highest 7-year offensive peak.
• I've never been overly impressed with Claude Giroux but his numbers are rising. Surprisingly he's now on par with Kurri, Hull and Mahovlich for 7-year peak. He still needs time to build out the 10-year peak but he's around Sundin and Sittler territory.
• Marleau now has over 600 adjusted goals and 1,200 adjusted points.

 

[kruezer]

I was just looking at Marchand being at 74 (close to Keon and Toews) I wonder was he the top gainer this year? Not sure if it could be calculated easily but I’d be curious who has the greatest difference between their score for the current season and the score for what is now their 8th best point year. Would have to be only players that had 7 years booked going into this year I guess.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

I was just looking at Marchand being at 74 (close to Keon and Toews) I wonder was he the top gainer this year? Not sure if it could be calculated easily but I’d be curious who has the greatest difference between their score for the current season and the score for what is now their 8th best point year. Would have to be only players that had 7 years booked going into this year I guess.

Here are the 20 biggest gainers this year (7-year VsX):

Nikita Kucherov	68.5	51.8	16.6
Connor McDavid	53.9	38.9	15.1
Patrick Kane	92.9	78.6	14.3
Leon Draisaitl	45.5	31.8	13.6
Brad Marchand	74.2	61.2	13.0
Johnny Gaudreau	34.4	21.6	12.9
Nathan MacKinnon	60.0	47.1	12.9
Steven Stamkos	90.9	78.2	12.7
Aleksander Barkov	51.1	38.7	12.5
Mitch Marner	31.7	19.5	12.2
Jonathan Huberdeau	56.6	44.6	11.9
Brayden Point	27.6	15.7	11.9
Blake Wheeler	80.7	68.9	11.8
John Tavares	83.3	71.8	11.4
Artemi Panarin	47.0	35.7	11.3
Mikko Rantanen	29.3	18.0	11.3
Mark Scheifele	56.1	45.2	10.9
Brent Burns	68.9	58.1	10.8
Sebastian Aho	28.3	17.5	10.8
Sean Monahan	54.9	44.3	10.6
Jack Eichel	37.8	27.1	10.6
Phil Kessel	83.1	72.5	10.6
David Pastrnak	41.6	31.1	10.5
Jonathan Toews	74.3	63.7	10.5
Tyler Seguin	81.0	70.7	10.4

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

The columns are results including 2019, results excluding 2019, and the increase.

 

[kruezer]

Brilliant thanks.

 

[Zuluss]

VsX goals for best 7 years and best 10 years are somehow identical, at least top20 values are (did not check further)

 

[The Panther]

And the top three years for goal-scoring:

Player	TOTAL
Bobby Hull	81.3
Gordie Howe	74.5
Maurice Richard	74.2
Brett Hull	72.7
Phil Esposito	72.6
Charlie Conacher	71.8
Wayne Gretzky	70.8

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

I'm surprised Gretzky doesn't come out higher than 7th on this. (I assume you're looking at top-3 seasons, but not necessarily consecutively.) But I guess the matter is that while his top-2 (1981-82 and 1983-84) blow away all competition, his third-best (1983-83 or 1984-85 or 1986-87?) isn't an overly large margin of 'best'.

In 1982 he's 28 goals ahead of the 2nd-place player (Bossy), which is to say 44% more goals than the total of the #2 guy.

In 1984, he's 31 goals ahead of the 2nd-place player (Goulet), which is to say 55% more goals than the total of the #2 guy.

Surely, Howe and Richard never had an individual year as dominant, goals-wise?

But Gretzky's third-best wouldn't be as dominant, and I guess the benchmark is higher for his best seasons.

 

[Pominville Knows]

I'm surprised Gretzky doesn't come out higher than 7th on this. (I assume you're looking at top-3 seasons, but not necessarily consecutively.) But I guess the matter is that while his top-2 (1981-82 and 1983-84) blow away all competition, his third-best (1983-83 or 1984-85 or 1986-87?) isn't an overly large margin of 'best'.

In 1982 he's 28 goals ahead of the 2nd-place player (Bossy), which is to say 44% more goals than the total of the #2 guy.

In 1984, he's 31 goals ahead of the 2nd-place player (Goulet), which is to say 55% more goals than the total of the #2 guy.

Surely, Howe and Richard never had an individual year as dominant, goals-wise?

But Gretzky's third-best wouldn't be as dominant, and I guess the benchmark is higher for his best seasons.

Howe and Richard was indeed at times very dominant percentagewise, and they probably gain huge from not having their careers fully coinciding with eachothers.

 

[shazariahl]

I'm really starting to think Esposito is the most underrated player of all time. Also, Gretzky's level or dominance offensively is just ridiculous.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

@Hockeyoutsider What is the benchmark for the 2018-19 season? If I remember right, if 1st place is 10% or more than 2nd place then it is considered an outlier, and I forget how it goes from there, maybe 3rd place is considered the bench mark? Anyway...

McDavid's 116 pts x 110% = 127.6 pts, does this mean Kucherov's 128 pts is an outlier?

 

[Hockey Outsider]

VsX goals for best 7 years and best 10 years are somehow identical, at least top20 values are (did not check further)

Sorry not ignoring this, just haven't had time to update the post yet.

@Hockeyoutsider What is the benchmark for the 2018-19 season? If I remember right, if 1st place is 10% or more than 2nd place then it is considered an outlier, and I forget how it goes from there, maybe 3rd place is considered the bench mark? Anyway...

McDavid's 116 pts x 110% = 127.6 pts, does this mean Kucherov's 128 pts is an outlier?

Correct, Kucherov is an outlier both for assists and points. The benchmark for goals is 50 (2nd place Draisaitl), assists is 71 (3rd place Wheeler), and points is 110 (3rd place Kane).

 

[decma]

What is the benchmark for the 2018-19 season? If I remember right, if 1st place is 10% or more than 2nd place then it is considered an outlier, and I forget how it goes from there, maybe 3rd place is considered the bench mark? Anyway...

Correct, Kucherov is an outlier both for assists and points. The benchmark for goals is 50 (2nd place Draisaitl), assists is 71 (3rd place Wheeler), and points is 110 (3rd place Kane).

From the first post in this thread, I understood that an earlier version of VsX used the 2nd highest scorer as the benchmark (b/c the leading scorer would sometimes be an outlier), but that this method didn't work because the assumption that the runner-up would be a consistent benchmark each year is false.

I think the reasoning was then that the methodology was refined so that the starting point was to use the runner-up as the benchmark, but to modify this if certain conditions were met.

So why does the margin of first place over second place determine whether 2nd place is an outlier? The reasoning is that Kucherov is an outlier so we toss out the leading scorer and thus Kane becomes the 2nd scorer and thus the benchmark?

Do any versions of VsX use an average rather than an individual scoring total as the benchmark? E.g., instead of using the second scorer as the benchmark as the default case, and the 3rd scorer as the benchmark in certain circumstances, is there a version that uses the average (or median) of the 2nd through 5th (or 2nd through Nth) as the benchmark?

Thanks.

 

[decma]

Also, is there a full-season VsX?

I realize that missed games are missed games, but it would be interesting to see VsX totals where each player's totals (above a certain minimum games threshold) are projected to a full season (perhaps 80 games), and then the VsX methodology is applied from there.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Also, is there a full-season VsX?

I realize that missed games are missed games, but it would be interesting to see VsX totals where each player's totals (above a certain minimum games threshold) are projected to a full season (perhaps 80 games), and then the VsX methodology is applied from there.

There was a per game Vs.X done at some point. I don't have the link handy at the moment. Will look at try to get that for you.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

There was a per game Vs.X done at some point. I don't have the link handy at the moment. Will look at try to get that for you.

See post #63. I know it's not the easiest thing to read but it should be a good starting point.

 

[Czech Your Math]

From the first post in this thread, I understood that an earlier version of VsX used the 2nd highest scorer as the benchmark (b/c the leading scorer would sometimes be an outlier), but that this method didn't work because the assumption that the runner-up would be a consistent benchmark each year is false.

I think the reasoning was then that the methodology was refined so that the starting point was to use the runner-up as the benchmark, but to modify this if certain conditions were met.

So why does the margin of first place over second place determine whether 2nd place is an outlier? The reasoning is that Kucherov is an outlier so we toss out the leading scorer and thus Kane becomes the 2nd scorer and thus the benchmark?

Do any versions of VsX use an average rather than an individual scoring total as the benchmark? E.g., instead of using the second scorer as the benchmark as the default case, and the 3rd scorer as the benchmark in certain circumstances, is there a version that uses the average (or median) of the 2nd through 5th (or 2nd through Nth) as the benchmark?

Thanks.

I think VsX contains more subjectivity and randomness (since the sample size is minimal) than is necessary, but it is particularly useful to compare pre-expansion players to post-expansion players. The method you suggested is useful as well. I like using the top N (or 2N) scorers as a metric, with N being the number of teams, but there are distortions when comparing O6 to post-expansion. Another enlightening metric is the same, but only using North American players in the benchmark.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

VsX goals for best 7 years and best 10 years are somehow identical, at least top20 values are (did not check further)

Good catch, this has been updated.

I'm surprised Gretzky doesn't come out higher than 7th on this. (I assume you're looking at top-3 seasons, but not necessarily consecutively.) But I guess the matter is that while his top-2 (1981-82 and 1983-84) blow away all competition, his third-best (1983-83 or 1984-85 or 1986-87?) isn't an overly large margin of 'best'.

You're referring to post 76, right? Gretzky is in a virtual dead-heat with five other players for best two years (everyone's behind Bobby Hull) but his 3rd best season - although still objectively excellent - isn't quite as strong as that of Howe, Richard, Esposito and Brett Hull.

There's very little separating the top of the list (after Hull). Gretzky might "only" be 7th place, but he's only 5% behind Howe for 2nd place.

Do any versions of VsX use an average rather than an individual scoring total as the benchmark? E.g., instead of using the second scorer as the benchmark as the default case, and the 3rd scorer as the benchmark in certain circumstances, is there a version that uses the average (or median) of the 2nd through 5th (or 2nd through Nth) as the benchmark?

Here's a link to Sturminator's thread where he explains the method - Post-consolidation VsX Benchmarks

Basically using the #2 scorer is the default choice, unless you have an outlier, in which case you use another number as the basis (either the #3 scorer or an average, as circumstances dictate).

 

[jigglysquishy]

Why is 110 the 2019 benchmark? 110/116 is 0.948 so shouldn't McDavid's 116 be the benchmark?

 

[Zuluss]

Since the thread was bumped, I will ask my question too: can we really compare career VsX points/goals across eras?

O6 era had 70-game seasons, and currently we have 82-game seasons. Yet #2 in goals gets 50 goals regardless of the era. Effectively, O6 players are gifted 12 games they did not play and assigned pro-rated goals over those games - post-expansion players play extra 12 (and sometimes I think even extra 14) games each season, but that does not help them one bit in terms of career goals/points against O6 players.

 

[Johnny Engine]

VsX doesn't prorate season totals. Using 50 to represent the benchmark is more or less arbitrary, but it's illustrative because we're used to top-tier goal scorer's getting close to that number. You could use 50, 100, 73 or any other number to represent the benchmark and the relationships between the numbers would stay the same.

 

[Zuluss]

VsX doesn't prorate season totals. Using 50 to represent the benchmark is more or less arbitrary, but it's illustrative because we're used to top-tier goal scorer's getting close to that number. You could use 50, 100, 73 or any other number to represent the benchmark and the relationships between the numbers would stay the same.

I am not sure if you were answering my question, but if you were, I should probably rephrase it to make myself more clear.

Suppose we have two players, A and B, who both played 15 seasons, but A played in the era of 70-game seasons and B played in the era of 82-game seasons. Both of them, on average, scored 80% of #2's goals over the 15 seasons. So for both of them VsX for 15 years will be 40, and VsX career goals will be 40*15=600 for both A and B.

But A only played 15*70=1050 career games, and B played 15*82=1230 career games (assume for simplicity neither one missed any time). If they were equally productive relative to their competition, and B played 180 more games in his career, should not B have more career goals? I think he should. But VsX career goals will put them both at 600. That does not seem fair to me.

Of course, one can also raise the same point regarding average VsX for 7 years, a more widely used measure: if A maintains the same level of dominance over competition as B, but A does that for 490 games and B has to do it for 574 games just because seasons got longer, should we give B extra credit? In terms of number of games, it is a season worth difference in length of dominance period.

But in the latter case, I am more on the hedge, since VsX for 7 years is more of peak/prime measure than longevity measure. It seems unfair to call a dominant season less dominant because seasons back in the day were a bit shorter for everyone. But as far as career goals, the more games you play, the more career goals you score, and if you can play 1700 games, good for you, compile and move up. Career VsX measure seems to violate that.

 

[BenchBrawl]

I am not sure if you were answering my question, but if you were, I should probably rephrase it to make myself more clear.

Suppose we have two players, A and B, who both played 15 seasons, but A played in the era of 70-game seasons and B played in the era of 82-game seasons. Both of them, on average, scored 80% of #2's goals over the 15 seasons. So for both of them VsX for 15 years will be 40, and VsX career goals will be 40*15=600 for both A and B.

But A only played 15*70=1050 career games, and B played 15*82=1230 career games (assume for simplicity neither one missed any time). If they were equally productive relative to their competition, and B played 180 more games in his career, should not B have more career goals? I think he should. But VsX career goals will put them both at 600. That does not seem fair to me.

Of course, one can also raise the same point regarding average VsX for 7 years, a more widely used measure: if A maintains the same level of dominance over competition as B, but A does that for 490 games and B has to do it for 574 games just because seasons got longer, should we give B extra credit? In terms of number of games, it is a season worth difference in length of dominance period.

But in the latter case, I am more on the hedge, since VsX for 7 years is more of peak/prime measure than longevity measure. It seems unfair to call a dominant season less dominant because seasons back in the day were a bit shorter for everyone. But as far as career goals, the more games you play, the more career goals you score, and if you can play 1700 games, good for you, compile and move up. Career VsX measure seems to violate that.

In your first situation, when you equalized the numbers against an abstract 50 goals #2 scorer (so that at 80% of 50 they scored 40 goals), you also implicitly equalized the games played.

 

[Zuluss]

In your first situation, when you equalized the numbers against an abstract 50 goals #2 scorer (so that at 80% they scored 40 goals), you also implicitly equalized the games played.

It is the VsX measure that does that, not me I am fine with this "implicit equalizing" if we are comparing one season vs one season, but the more seasons come into play, the more I am inclined to do an adjustment. At 7 seasons, as in average VsX for best 7 seasons, I am barely putting up with this "implicit equalizing". At the career level, I am positive we have to have an adjustment.

Thoughts on how to better do this adjustment (other than multiply O6 VsX by 70/82=0.85) are welcome.