Sakic vs. Yzerman- The Rebuttal

[Dark Shadows]

You’re weighing too much into this. Yzerman was better than Sakic in their best 2, 3, 5, 6 and 8 consecutive years offensively. It doesn’t mean Yzerman’s 22 seasons were necessarily better than Sakic’s 20 seasons. Don’t make it out to mean more than it does.

There is no reason to be looking at consecutive seasons at all. The ability to produce in consecutive seasons is largely luck based. Too many factors outside of personal skill factor in. Coaching, injuries, etc

When it comes down to it, players should not be compared based on what they did consecutively, but rather, the sum of the parts.

 

[rallymaster19]

And the Europeans coming in were players who were always good enough to make it, but just didn't come over or didn't get brought over until the floodgates were opened.

But it wasn't based on merit. It was based on which players made themselves available and were brought to camp. The Europeans could have helped the talent pool much more than they did throughout the 80s.

Though your statements are true, we in North America cannot accurately quantify how many Europeans were good enough to have played in the NHL prior to the early 90s. That is why I used European players as the relative constant in the formula and North Americans as the variable. Also, the 40-45 roster spots are an extremely conservative estimate. If you average the 1.625 North American players lost in the NHL per season from 81-89 over until 2001, the numbers work out to about a 58 roster spot discrepancy for the 2001 season. That is roughly 10% of the entire NHL, so it is not just a trivial number.

If you want to try to formulate something that considers how the Europeans would have affected play in the 80s, they would have also taken more roster spots away from NAs too, and the numbers get adjusted with greater variance.

yes, that is correct. The period of stasis helped to build up a talent pool outside the NHL that could stock new teams, just like happened in the O6 era.

That’s certainly one way to look at it. I wouldn’t because you are suggesting the NHL expanded because of a suddenly enormous talent pool when in fact it expanded because of money. Either way, as you have acknowledged yourself here, the talent pool had built up in the 80s/early 90s, thus indicative of a more competitive league during the 80s than 90s.

Right, like I said already, about 40 more NA players. And as the talent pool had built up for 13 years prior to that, as we agreed above, those 40 players should have been of a caliber to bridge the gap. The other 140 from Europe don't represent a dilution, at all.

That I agree with, except 40-45 (upwards of 58) North American roster spots, not North American players.

The league expanded. The talent pool more than offset it. Competition got better. Scoring dropped.

That is our point of contention. Everything you’ve stated in terms of expansion, talent levels and parity is all speculative and theoretical in nature; some of which has already been dismissed as nonfactual. What actually happened in the 90s (the 40-58 roster spot difference) is real evidence showing you otherwise.

What happens when your league is flooded with upwards of 10% of players that don’t belong there. You play to your strengths. I can’t teach the forth line to score like Steve Yzerman and Joe Sakic, so I’ll try to teach them to stop scorers like Yzerman and Sakic. And yes, together with changes in goaltender equipment and a stronger defensive emphasis as a whole, this is what happened. But to say the level of competition increased or remained unchanged after a 9-team (43%) expansion in less than 10 years really is ignoring the facts, and that’s even while considering the “European invasion.â€

It comes down to relative contribution to winning. The difference in the value of a goal now versus then is indisputable. The difference in the talent pool could be there, but it can't be shown the way you're trying to show it.

I’m sure you’ve noticed this but I haven’t kept slipping Hejduk and Bertuzzi’s name in the last couple posts just for the heck of it. This relative contribution to winning theory of yours needs an explanation of how those two guys could score 146+ points in a season, any season, and in the same season no less?

 

[seventieslord]

Though your statements are true, we in North America cannot accurately quantify how many Europeans were good enough to have played in the NHL prior to the early 90s. That is why I used European players as the relative constant in the formula and North Americans as the variable. Also, the 40-45 roster spots are an extremely conservative estimate. If you average the 1.625 North American players lost in the NHL per season from 81-89 over until 2001, the numbers work out to about a 58 roster spot discrepancy for the 2001 season. That is roughly 10% of the entire NHL, so it is not just a trivial number.

If you want to try to formulate something that considers how the Europeans would have affected play in the 80s, they would have also taken more roster spots away from NAs too, and the numbers get adjusted with greater variance.

No, we can't accurately quantify but we can speculate very reasonably based on what happened throughout the 90s.

Wouldn't the 1.625 per season from 1981-1989 be subtracted from the 40-45 and not added? You're saying that during those 9 years when no new spots were created, about 16 North Americans were lost as the european presence modestly increased, right? So using 1981 as a baseline, at 1989, you're at -16. By 2001, with 40-45 more spots created, you're at +24 to +29. Or am I misunderstanding you?

That’s certainly one way to look at it. I wouldn’t because you are suggesting the NHL expanded because of a suddenly enormous talent pool when in fact it expanded because of money. Either way, as you have acknowledged yourself here, the talent pool had built up in the 80s/early 90s, thus indicative of a more competitive league during the 80s than 90s.

I am not suggesting that. Clearly they expanded due to money but the talent was there to cover it. The list of players who went from getting 10 points a season and shuttling between the NHL and the minors, to being very important full time players, is pretty long. The WHA and further expansion killed all that, though. Scoring skyrocketing at that point flies in the face of your theory of all these bad players coming in and failing to score. How do you explain it?

You're misunderstanding the point about the talent pool building up during the 80s. Yes, it refers to the NHL, but also the sub-NHL players were getting better at a rate similar to that. So when expansion came, they were nearly able to fill those spots adequately, and the Europeans more than made up the rest.

That is our point of contention. Everything you’ve stated in terms of expansion, talent levels and parity is all speculative and theoretical in nature; some of which has already been dismissed as nonfactual. What actually happened in the 90s (the 40-58 roster spot difference) is real evidence showing you otherwise.

... or 24-29, depending on if my hunch about your math is correct.

Either way, we're talking about producing 24-58 players in 20 years. I have no doubt that North America was able to produce enough players to bridge that gap. It shows in the scoring levels too. it was already dropping in the early 90s. After adding three teams in two years, we saw a small spike but it was still nowhere near what it was throughout the 80s.

What happens when your league is flooded with upwards of 10% of players that don’t belong there. You play to your strengths. I can’t teach the forth line to score like Steve Yzerman and Joe Sakic, so I’ll try to teach them to stop scorers like Yzerman and Sakic. And yes, together with changes in goaltender equipment and a stronger defensive emphasis as a whole, this is what happened. But to say the level of competition increased or remained unchanged after a 9-team (43%) expansion in less than 10 years really is ignoring the facts, and that’s even while considering the “European invasion.â€

The incoming goalies and defensemen were not as good as those that were also there. Their primary purpose was to prevent offense. It should have also been easier for Sakic and Yzerman to score on those players. The argument can easily be made both ways. All things being equal, expansion should cause higher scoring. But all things weren't equal. The influx of talent from Europe (and yes, North America, too) happened at a greater rate, fooling you into thinking expansion caused lower scoring. It was more good players being added, not more bad players. Therefore, lower scoring.

I’m sure you’ve noticed this but I haven’t kept slipping Hejduk and Bertuzzi’s name in the last couple posts just for the heck of it. This relative contribution to winning theory of yours needs an explanation of how those two guys could score 146+ points in a season, any season, and in the same season no less?

guys like Maruk and Nilsson exploded for one year too, so why couldn't these guys? They're no worse than them. (Bertuzzi for three years, anyway) This is a fantasy world that assumes Jagr was a 190-point player. If he's scoring 190 regularly, why can't these two break out for 146 for one season? I'm not going to say it's absurd because it's the same in principle as a system that adjusts to an average baseline and says Dale Hawerchuk might only be a 95-pojnt scorer in 2001, it's just doing it in reverse and it produces gaudy figures for you to scoff at.

 

[rallymaster19]

Wouldn't the 1.625 per season from 1981-1989 be subtracted from the 40-45 and not added? You're saying that during those 9 years when no new spots were created, about 16 North Americans were lost as the european presence modestly increased, right? So using 1981 as a baseline, at 1989, you're at -16. By 2001, with 40-45 more spots created, you're at +24 to +29. Or am I misunderstanding you?

I think I didn’t describe that very well. It was confusing to me too the first time I thought it through. Basically:

Thought process:
- seeing the trends from the 80s, North American roster spots declined at a pace of 1.625 spots/year
- this means by 2001, there should have been only 362 NA roster spots (395- (395*1.624*20))
- the NHL expanded from 21 teams to 30 teams and created 180 new roster spots (20 spots/team * 9 teams)
- for competition in the NHL to remain relatively the same in 2001 as 1981 or 1989, the North American roster spots should have declined to 362 (395- (395*1.624*20)).
- there was an influx of Europeans in the NHL in the 90s but assuming players get into the NHL based on merit and not nationality, then only the best players in the world will make the NHL, regardless if they're from Canada, USA, Sweden, Russia, Finland etc.; but for the quality of competition to remain constant in the 90s/2000s after expansion, the number of North Americans should continue to fall at the pace it was falling earlier, indicating the same relative talent level post-expansion as there was pre-expansion
- with 9 new teams, 180 total new roster spots are created from 1991-2001
- of those 180 new roster spots, only 142 (I used the ’89 figure, perhaps ’91 is different but the concept is the same) spots are taken up by Europeans (180 spots in 2001 vs. 38 spots in 1989)
- therefore, 38 (180-142) new roster spots were given to North Americans
- however, in addition to the 18 (1.625*11) roster spots that went to North Americans but should have also gone to Europeans based on the declining NA trend found in the 80s, a total of 56 (38+18) roster spots went occupied by North American players that would not have been on an NHL team in 1981/89. The fact that they are termed North American in this example is irrelevant because that figure is only representative of the number of spots that would not have existed for players in 1981/89 prior to expansion keeping talent levels equal. Of course there is a margin of error of a few spots and I did not use compounded numbers here, so perhaps that counts for the 2 spot discrepancy.

I am not suggesting that. Clearly they expanded due to money but the talent was there to cover it. The list of players who went from getting 10 points a season and shuttling between the NHL and the minors, to being very important full time players, is pretty long. The WHA and further expansion killed all that, though. Scoring skyrocketing at that point flies in the face of your theory of all these bad players coming in and failing to score. How do you explain it?

You're misunderstanding the point about the talent pool building up during the 80s. Yes, it refers to the NHL, but also the sub-NHL players were getting better at a rate similar to that. So when expansion came, they were nearly able to fill those spots adequately, and the Europeans more than made up the rest.

I see your point now, especially in regards to the WHA. Original expansion increased scoring while the 90s expansion decreased it. I don’t think either one of us can prove exactly what happened each time. Other than goaltender equipment, I think it was the defensive emphasis in the game during the 90s as opposed to a less-defensive oriented approach in the 70s that caused the major skews in scoring. But that’s just my opinion and I’m sure yours is different.

I wonder if anyone else here has previously done a study to address that particular issue.

Either way, we're talking about producing 24-58 players in 20 years. I have no doubt that North America was able to produce enough players to bridge that gap. It shows in the scoring levels too. it was already dropping in the early 90s. After adding three teams in two years, we saw a small spike but it was still nowhere near what it was throughout the 80s.

The only way for the talent level in the NHL to bridge that gap would have been for the Europeans to do so. They helped bridge part of that gap but not all of it. As previously stated, for talent to have evened out with the 80s after expansion, the Europeans should have occupied approximately 56 more roster spots than they did in 2001.

guys like Maruk and Nilsson exploded for one year too, so why couldn't these guys? They're no worse than them. (Bertuzzi for three years, anyway) This is a fantasy world that assumes Jagr was a 190-point player. If he's scoring 190 regularly, why can't these two break out for 146 for one season? I'm not going to say it's absurd because it's the same in principle as a system that adjusts to an average baseline and says Dale Hawerchuk might only be a 95-pojnt scorer in 2001, it's just doing it in reverse and it produces gaudy figures for you to scoff at.

You have previously referred to the 92-93 season as a freak year in the NHL on a number of occasions because of the high scoring and huge point totals a number of players amassed. There were 21 players who scored at least 100 points and that was in an 84-game regular season. Had it been 82 games, there would have likely been 17 100-point scorers. I don’t believe there’s ever been a season where scoring has come anything close to that. Of course, I haven’t built up this season for nothing now, because based on your relative contribution to winning theory, there would have been forty (40) 100-point scorers from the 2003 season had they played in 1986. And many, many suspect names come up. Stillman, Sanderson, Gonchar, 39-year old Macinnis, Cassels, Lang, Kozlov, Koivu, Satan, Whitney, 38-year old Hull etc.

I wouldn’t believe it until I saw it myself but it wouldn’t completely shock me if a prime-Bertuzzi would have scored 146 points in 1986 but I cannot in good faith believe there would have been forty 100-point scorers in a single season. The GPG was not much different in 86 than any other 80s season and we saw some great firepower at the forward position in the 80s. Not any season in that decade or any other decade came close to what your adjusted 2003 tells you.

 

[Dark Shadows]

You have previously referred to the 92-93 season as a freak year in the NHL on a number of occasions because of the high scoring and huge point totals a number of players amassed. There were 21 players who scored at least 100 points and that was in an 84-game regular season. Had it been 82 games, there would have likely been 17 100-point scorers. I don’t believe there’s ever been a season where scoring has come anything close to that. Of course, I haven’t built up this season for nothing now, because based on your relative contribution to winning theory, there would have been forty (40) 100-point scorers from the 2003 season had they played in 1986. And many, many suspect names come up. Stillman, Sanderson, Gonchar, 39-year old Macinnis, Cassels, Lang, Kozlov, Koivu, Satan, Whitney, 38-year old Hull etc.

I wouldn’t believe it until I saw it myself but it wouldn’t completely shock me if a prime-Bertuzzi would have scored 146 points in 1986 but I cannot in good faith believe there would have been forty 100-point scorers in a single season. The GPG was not much different in 86 than any other 80s season and we saw some great firepower at the forward position in the 80s. Not any season in that decade or any other decade came close to what your adjusted 2003 tells you.

What is giving you that "40 100 point scorers" figure?
The average scoring year in the 80's was 7.60 goals per game vs dead puck era's 5.32(You just happened to choose the 2nd highest individual scoring year from the 80's, but a year which was almost exactly the average in the DPE, so it is better to use the averages of both era's).

Between spot 26-40, each player had 71 points or less. That puts them below 100 points once adjusted and deducted to play 2 less games(80 game season instead of 82 game season)

That gives you 25 prospective 100 point scorers, which is generous given how imperfect adjusted stats are(The 80's averaged 12 100+ point scorers a year, with their best year having 16 100 point scorers. 18 if you factor in the extra 2 games played). Factor in league size difference of 21 teams vs 30 teams(Almost a third larger than it was), and also factor in that there is more parity in the league compared to the mid 80's.

Nothing is perfect with adjusted stats. They just help paint a picture of the differences in scoring between era's.

Look at it this way. There were over sixty 70+ point scorers in 1986, while there was less than half of that in 2003(Even with 2 more games played), and even given the larger league size and talent pool with 9 more full teams.

 

[seventieslord]

I think I didn’t describe that very well. It was confusing to me too the first time I thought it through. Basically:

Thought process:
- seeing the trends from the 80s, North American roster spots declined at a pace of 1.625 spots/year
- this means by 2001, there should have been only 362 NA roster spots (395- (395*1.624*20))
- the NHL expanded from 21 teams to 30 teams and created 180 new roster spots (20 spots/team * 9 teams)
- for competition in the NHL to remain relatively the same in 2001 as 1981 or 1989, the North American roster spots should have declined to 362 (395- (395*1.624*20)).
- there was an influx of Europeans in the NHL in the 90s but assuming players get into the NHL based on merit and not nationality, then only the best players in the world will make the NHL, regardless if they're from Canada, USA, Sweden, Russia, Finland etc.; but for the quality of competition to remain constant in the 90s/2000s after expansion, the number of North Americans should continue to fall at the pace it was falling earlier, indicating the same relative talent level post-expansion as there was pre-expansion
- with 9 new teams, 180 total new roster spots are created from 1991-2001
- of those 180 new roster spots, only 142 (I used the ’89 figure, perhaps ’91 is different but the concept is the same) spots are taken up by Europeans (180 spots in 2001 vs. 38 spots in 1989)
- therefore, 38 (180-142) new roster spots were given to North Americans
- however, in addition to the 18 (1.625*11) roster spots that went to North Americans but should have also gone to Europeans based on the declining NA trend found in the 80s, a total of 56 (38+18) roster spots went occupied by North American players that would not have been on an NHL team in 1981/89. The fact that they are termed North American in this example is irrelevant because that figure is only representative of the number of spots that would not have existed for players in 1981/89 prior to expansion keeping talent levels equal. Of course there is a margin of error of a few spots and I did not use compounded numbers here, so perhaps that counts for the 2 spot discrepancy.

I can see what you're saying now, but I don't agree with the logic, mainly because what was happening in the 80s was not a natural progression. There should have been more europeans in the NHL than there were.

I see your point now, especially in regards to the WHA. Original expansion increased scoring while the 90s expansion decreased it. I don’t think either one of us can prove exactly what happened each time. Other than goaltender equipment, I think it was the defensive emphasis in the game during the 90s as opposed to a less-defensive oriented approach in the 70s that caused the major skews in scoring. But that’s just my opinion and I’m sure yours is different.

If it was just equipment and defensive coaching then it would make sense to just multiply or divide point totals to a normalized number

You have previously referred to the 92-93 season as a freak year in the NHL on a number of occasions because of the high scoring and huge point totals a number of players amassed. There were 21 players who scored at least 100 points and that was in an 84-game regular season. Had it been 82 games, there would have likely been 17 100-point scorers. I don’t believe there’s ever been a season where scoring has come anything close to that. Of course, I haven’t built up this season for nothing now, because based on your relative contribution to winning theory, there would have been forty (40) 100-point scorers from the 2003 season had they played in 1986. And many, many suspect names come up. Stillman, Sanderson, Gonchar, 39-year old Macinnis, Cassels, Lang, Kozlov, Koivu, Satan, Whitney, 38-year old Hull etc.

1992-93 was a whole other ball of wax. Scoring did spike compared to 91 and 92, but it was still lower across the board compared to any other season in the 1980s. The number of 100-point scorers was just out of whack. The number of 100-point scorers hints to it being a ridiculously high-scoring season, but it wasn't. The top forwards just collected an inordinately high percentage of the points that year. That's why it's a freak season. No one can really say why.

I wouldn’t believe it until I saw it myself but it wouldn’t completely shock me if a prime-Bertuzzi would have scored 146 points in 1986 but I cannot in good faith believe there would have been forty 100-point scorers in a single season. The GPG was not much different in 86 than any other 80s season and we saw some great firepower at the forward position in the 80s. Not any season in that decade or any other decade came close to what your adjusted 2003 tells you.

I don't think there would ever be 40 100-point scorers either. But then, the system we are referring to adjusts all seasons to a crazy high baseline year.

 

[poise]

I think the "more good players -> less scoring" theory is oversimplified, because if the good players were good offensive players, they would definitely have a positive impact on scoring levels. The lower tier players of today and a decade past are probably better in terms of fundamental skills like shooting and skating and playing a system then ever before, but the tools of skating and shooting only get you so far offensively when you don't know how to use them well and are discouraged to use them in lieu of playing the system. As Brian Burke said: "The turnover rate among coaches has caused them to coach to save their jobs. The easiest way to reduce skill differential is by playing a passive, forechecking, defensive-oriented system. This coach is not concerned about aesthetics of the game." (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette - January 18, 1998)

I believe the expansion of the 1990's had different results and was a big factor in the lower scoring NHL, both directly, in that the newcoming players wouldn't be able to score as much, but also indirectly, as this time around, they were told to play a system that would allow them to compete. It seems that expansion teams in the 1970's and early 1980's just were plain bad, both offensively and defensively, while these new expansion teams were able to at least bring a good team defense system, at the expense of offense.

In prior expansions it seems like the philosophy of the NHL at the time was different. During the 1970's and 1980's we were seeing the game become offensive, with defensemen being more offensively involved as ever. The human factor of how Orr and Gretzky changed the game in an offensive direction is big here.

In the 1990's, things changed. Video became big in coaching and definitely helped team defense. The expansion teams like Florida pretty much realized they simply could not go head to head offensively with the more established NHL teams with the personnel they had, but I think video played a big part in coaching and the defensive systems became bigger than ever before. It's much easier to teach defense then offense. Expansion teams probably realized that their players had no chance offensively anyway, but if you have them forget offense and play a defensive system, you can at least get a strong team defense - even if the personnel aren't anything special on defense by themselves:

"When I broke in (with Los Angeles in 1981-82), I played in the old Smythe Division," Sharks center Bernie Nicholls said. "It was always considered just run and gun. We'd play the Oilers and we didn't have much of a chance to win because they had more talent. Now teams understand that you might not have the talent, but if you commit yourself to hard work and strong defense, you have a legitimate chance to win no matter how talented the other team is." (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette - January 18, 1998)

So although Ron Caron predicted that further expansion might allow for players to score 100 goals in the early 1990's, it wasn't like that because as John Leclair said: "Most of the expansion teams take a defensive stance now," said Philadelphia Flyers left wing John LeClair, a three-time 50-goal scorer. "I don't know if you can take that for granted." (Houston Chronicle - November 4, 1998)

It wasn't only that the talent was less offensively: "Expansion has something to do with this, too," said Tampa Bay assistant coach Rick Paterson, the Lightning's resident video analyst. "Teams used to have five or six snipers you had to shut down to win. It's easier to prepare for teams now." but also as Keith Jones said: "With expansion spreading out talent, you are going to have a lot of plumbers -- a lot of guys who stay in the league because they are smarter defensive players." (USA TODAY - November 10, 1998)

Make no mistake, the talent of the dead puck era was pretty diluted and poor, but the new coaching philosophy hid that by having the teams play a conservative system instead of trying hopelessly to outscore the better teams.

Considering that the top 10 scorers (sans Gretzky and Lemieux) don't see as big as a decline when going from the 1980's to the dead puck era as the leaguewide goals per game averages do, I think the fact that lesser players didn't bother trying to score as much anyway with the new defense first philosophy (and with talent dilution, many probably couldn't anyway), and that in itself had a big, unstated impact in the drop in offense, not only the fruits of their defensive work. Of course, I guess one could explain it also if one thinks the top offensive talent was better in the dead puck era, but I have to vehemently disagree for reasons stated much before in the thread.

 

[Dark Shadows]

1992-93 was a whole other ball of wax. Scoring did spike compared to 91 and 92, but it was still lower across the board compared to any other season in the 1980s. The number of 100-point scorers was just out of whack. The number of 100-point scorers hints to it being a ridiculously high-scoring season, but it wasn't. The top forwards just collected an inordinately high percentage of the points that year. That's why it's a freak season. No one can really say why.
.

1992-93 had a few oddities. Players really ran up the score against the two expansion teams.
I posted this last time around, but ill post it again.

#1 Ottawa and San Jose giving out free points was a big factor.

Checking the Data, I broke it down into 2 groups. The Non-Exp teams and the Exp Teams

If expansion had a large impact on scoring then it would obviously be higher in the Exp team games than in non-exp team match-ups.

Goals per Game
Non-Exp: 7.25
Exp: 7.16

There was a difference of only 1% in Goals per Game between the groups so, it didn't seem like expansion had a big effect on scoring.

Then I Isolated San Jose and Ottawa solely because Tampa was bad, but no worse than the usual bad teams.

Goals Per game
Ottawa/San Jose: 8.92

The Sharks and Sens added roughly 23% more scoring to the league. That is a large amount of goals for 84 games against each team(168).

#2 The crackdown that year on specific infractions lead to many more penalties than usual and finesse players having a little more room to work with.

The league average power play opportunities between 1979-80 and 1989-90 was 348 a year. In 1992-93, the league average PPO was 443. That is almost an extra 100 Power play opportunities per team against the average of the 80's. The players most likely to benefit from this are the top players who see the most PP time.

#3 The fact that the season was 84 games long instead of 80 games. Those extra 4 games turn a 95 point pace into a 100 point pace

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

I see your point now, especially in regards to the WHA. Original expansion increased scoring while the 90s expansion decreased it. I don’t think either one of us can prove exactly what happened each time. Other than goaltender equipment, I think it was the defensive emphasis in the game during the 90s as opposed to a less-defensive oriented approach in the 70s that caused the major skews in scoring. But that’s just my opinion and I’m sure yours is different.

I wonder if anyone else here has previously done a study to address that particular issue.

A huge difference between Original 6/WHA expansion and 90's expansion was the quality of players coming into the league. Original 6 expansion players were basically all coming from lesser North American leagues. All of these guys were trying to play in the NHL, but were not good enough until expansion opened up more roster spots. For the most part the expansion players filled in the bottom half of the league's skill level.

This concept does not hold true for 90's expansion. Many of the Europeans that came into the league were good enough to play in the NHL before, but were not in the league because the chose to play in Europe or the were stuck behind the Iron Curtain. Here the expansion players were not just the bottom portion of league skill level, they were spread out. Some were at the highest level of league skill, some were average, and some were at the bottom. This is another factor that contributes to the differences of these two expansions.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

A huge difference between Original 6/WHA expansion and 90's expansion was the quality of players coming into the league. Original 6 expansion players were basically all coming from lesser North American leagues. All of these guys were trying to play in the NHL, but were not good enough until expansion opened up more roster spots. For the most part the expansion players filled in the bottom half of the league's skill level.

This concept does not hold true for 90's expansion. Many of the Europeans that came into the league were good enough to play in the NHL before, but were not in the league because the chose to play in Europe or the were stuck behind the Iron Curtain. Here the expansion players were not just the bottom portion of league skill level, they were spread out. Some were at the highest level of league skill, some were average, and some were at the bottom. This is another factor that contributes to the differences of these two expansions.

Original 6 Expansion also created an entirely new division made up of *all* expansion teams, which seems crazy to me... It took 5 years for any of those teams to really be that competitive with the Original 6 teams, even though an expansion team was guaranteed to play in the Stanley Cup Finals each and every year.

What a terrible way to organize it.

 

[rallymaster19]

I can see what you're saying now, but I don't agree with the logic, mainly because what was happening in the 80s was not a natural progression. There should have been more europeans in the NHL than there were.

A huge difference between Original 6/WHA expansion and 90's expansion was the quality of players coming into the league. Original 6 expansion players were basically all coming from lesser North American leagues. All of these guys were trying to play in the NHL, but were not good enough until expansion opened up more roster spots. For the most part the expansion players filled in the bottom half of the league's skill level.

This concept does not hold true for 90's expansion. Many of the Europeans that came into the league were good enough to play in the NHL before, but were not in the league because the chose to play in Europe or the were stuck behind the Iron Curtain. Here the expansion players were not just the bottom portion of league skill level, they were spread out. Some were at the highest level of league skill, some were average, and some were at the bottom. This is another factor that contributes to the differences of these two expansions.

I can understand what I guess you both are alluding to, that there should have been more Europeans in the NHL in the 80s than there were for whatever reason (political, social, financial, just didn’t want to go to NA etc.). However, the calculations for the 90s/2000s are based on the same level of Europeans in the 80s, and how many Europeans there should have been in the 90s to match the same talent level as the 80s. If what you’re saying is correct that the number of Europeans that could have played in the 80s was such an enormous figure, then subsequent to expansion by 2001, because the percentage of North American roster spots was already decreasing throughout the 80s, the new European players should have captured all 180 new roster spots, and in addition should have taken away many of the existing roster spots from North American players. This didn’t happen, as we saw North Americans claiming many of the new roster spots. And though the European players coming into the league may have been spread out in talent levels, the North Americans were not. And that is why taking the North American roster spots in isolation clearly shows the dilution in talent from 91-2001 compared to 81-89.

What is giving you that "40 100 point scorers" figure?
The average scoring year in the 80's was 7.60 goals per game vs dead puck era's 5.32(You just happened to choose the 2nd highest individual scoring year from the 80's, but a year which was almost exactly the average in the DPE, so it is better to use the averages of both era's).

Between spot 26-40, each player had 71 points or less. That puts them below 100 points once adjusted and deducted to play 2 less games(80 game season instead of 82 game season)

That gives you 25 prospective 100 point scorers, which is generous given how imperfect adjusted stats are(The 80's averaged 12 100+ point scorers a year, with their best year having 16 100 point scorers. 18 if you factor in the extra 2 games played). Factor in league size difference of 21 teams vs 30 teams(Almost a third larger than it was), and also factor in that there is more parity in the league compared to the mid 80's.

I miscounted using 82 games for the 86 season instead of 80. It works out to 30 100-point scorers and 40 97-or-so-point scorers. Either way, 100 is just an arbitrary number.

Also, if your relative scoring adjustment theory is what you’re going by, what is the logic behind adjusting the 86 season down to the 80s average while keeping the 2003 season even? That is completely misleading and misusing the stats and coming up with numbers where you can present a more “reasonable†argument. “Reasonable†in quotes because 25 adjusted 100-point scorers in 2003 vs. 13 actual 100-point scorers in 1986 is still not reasonable.

However you want to rationalize or continually tweak those numbers so that it makes sense to you is fine. But you cannot tell a reasonable person who is either a hockey fan or who knows even the slightest thing about statistics and probability that 40 97-point seasons in the NHL is not absurd. So far absurd, that the probability of something like that happening based on history makes it almost impossible.


Enough with the adjusted stats once and for all.

Here are the number of 100-point scorers adjusted based on 1986 regular season play (therefore assumes an 80-game schedule and goals per game per year of 7.94.

Season |# of adjusted 100 Pts Scorers
2008-2009 |24
2007-2008 |32
2006-2007 |36
2005-2006 |26
2003-2004 |26
2002-2003 |30
2001-2002 |29
2000-2001 |42
1999-2000 |25
1998-1999 |24
1997-1998 |23
1996-1997 |27
1995-1996 |31
1994-1995 |24
1993-1994 |25
1992-1993 |26
1991-1992 |18
1990-1991 |20
1989-1990 |19
1988-1989 |11
1987-1988 |14
1986-1987 |11
1985-1986 |13
1984-1985 |18
1983-1984 |12
1982-1983 |12
1981-1982 |13
1980-1981 |14

If the numbers don’t look absurd enough to you as is, here are the averages per era:

|# adjusted 100-point scorers
Avg 80s |13.7
Avg 90s |24.3
Avg 2000s |30.6
StdDev 80s |2.8
StdDev 90s |3.6
StdDev 00s |6.0
Avg 86-94 |18.0
Avg 94-02 |28.1

It is ridiculous to think the number of 100-point scorers would increase by 77% from the 80s to the 90s, and 124% from the 80s to the 2000s. The standard deviation shows the increased volatility of the numbers from the 90s and 2000s, questioning the accuracy of those alleged 20s/30s number of 100-point scorers.

However, if the preceding data and the common sense I assumed people possess is not enough to debunk this myth of adjusted stats, I will prove to you mathematically how numbers from adjusted stats must be inflated.

Below is a chart showing the probability of “x†or more number of 100-point scorers in a single season in the 1980s using adjusted figures that normalize to a 1986 base season including 80 games on the year and a league-wide goals per game average of 7.94.

# of 100-point scorers |Cumulative Probability
5 |0.999218542539168000
10 |0.910700892385200000
15 |0.318250335226929000
20 |0.011002564978641200
25 |0.000019969468707526
30 |0.000000001560702900
35 |0.000000000000004885
40 |0.000000000000000000

This shows it is mathematically 99.92% probable of having at least 5 100-point scorers in a year in the 1980s based on 1986 regular season characteristics. Further, it is 91.07% probable of having 10 or more scorers, 31.83% probable of 15 or more scorers and 1.10% probable of 20 or more scorers. Going back to Bertuzzi and the other 29 adjusted 100-point scorers, it is mathematically 0.00000015607% probable that 30 scorers in 2003 could have scored 100 points in 1986. This is not opinion, this is not based on “what I saw or believe.†This is mathematics proving these adjusted stats are simply absurd. The fact that every season from 93 forward has at most a 0.009043% chance of being correct according to relative contribution to winning should tell you the reliability of those adjusted stats- which is nothing.

 

[mrzeigler]

Just casually glancing through the previous 10 or so posts, I can say I'm looking forward to having time to sit down and consider the points being made here. Looks like a good discussion ...

 

[seventieslord]

the new European players should have captured all 180 new roster spots, and in addition should have taken away many of the existing roster spots from North American players. This didn’t happen, as we saw North Americans claiming many of the new roster spots.

As has already been discussed, though, many europeans only came over if they could be stars. Some came over and became role players, but many clearly did not. The discrepancy is clear from looking at point totals.

As for the rest of your post... Lay off. Dark Shadows was only explaining why that was such a freak year. And your picking on the straw man 1986-based adjusted numbers is getting tiresome.

 

[Dark Shadows]

I can understand what I guess you both are alluding to, that there should have been more Europeans in the NHL in the 80s than there were for whatever reason (political, social, financial, just didn’t want to go to NA etc.). However, the calculations for the 90s/2000s are based on the same level of Europeans in the 80s, and how many Europeans there should have been in the 90s to match the same talent level as the 80s. If what you’re saying is correct that the number of Europeans that could have played in the 80s was such an enormous figure, then subsequent to expansion by 2001, because the percentage of North American roster spots was already decreasing throughout the 80s, the new European players should have captured all 180 new roster spots, and in addition should have taken away many of the existing roster spots from North American players. This didn’t happen, as we saw North Americans claiming many of the new roster spots. And though the European players coming into the league may have been spread out in talent levels, the North Americans were not. And that is why taking the North American roster spots in isolation clearly shows the dilution in talent from 91-2001 compared to 81-89.



I miscounted using 82 games for the 86 season instead of 80. It works out to 30 100-point scorers and 40 97-or-so-point scorers. Either way, 100 is just an arbitrary number.

Also, if your relative scoring adjustment theory is what you’re going by, what is the logic behind adjusting the 86 season down to the 80s average while keeping the 2003 season even? That is completely misleading and misusing the stats and coming up with numbers where you can present a more “reasonable” argument. “Reasonable” in quotes because 25 adjusted 100-point scorers in 2003 vs. 13 actual 100-point scorers in 1986 is still not reasonable.

However you want to rationalize or continually tweak those numbers so that it makes sense to you is fine. But you cannot tell a reasonable person who is either a hockey fan or who knows even the slightest thing about statistics and probability that 40 97-point seasons in the NHL is not absurd. So far absurd, that the probability of something like that happening based on history makes it almost impossible.


Enough with the adjusted stats once and for all.

Here are the number of 100-point scorers adjusted based on 1986 regular season play (therefore assumes an 80-game schedule and goals per game per year of 7.94.

Season |# of adjusted 100 Pts Scorers
2008-2009 |24
2007-2008 |32
2006-2007 |36
2005-2006 |26
2003-2004 |26
2002-2003 |30
2001-2002 |29
2000-2001 |42
1999-2000 |25
1998-1999 |24
1997-1998 |23
1996-1997 |27
1995-1996 |31
1994-1995 |24
1993-1994 |25
1992-1993 |26
1991-1992 |18
1990-1991 |20
1989-1990 |19
1988-1989 |11
1987-1988 |14
1986-1987 |11
1985-1986 |13
1984-1985 |18
1983-1984 |12
1982-1983 |12
1981-1982 |13
1980-1981 |14

If the numbers don’t look absurd enough to you as is, here are the averages per era:

|# adjusted 100-point scorers
Avg 80s |13.7
Avg 90s |24.3
Avg 2000s |30.6
StdDev 80s |2.8
StdDev 90s |3.6
StdDev 00s |6.0
Avg 86-94 |18.0
Avg 94-02 |28.1

It is ridiculous to think the number of 100-point scorers would increase by 77% from the 80s to the 90s, and 124% from the 80s to the 2000s. The standard deviation shows the increased volatility of the numbers from the 90s and 2000s, questioning the accuracy of those alleged 20s/30s number of 100-point scorers.

However, if the preceding data and the common sense I assumed people possess is not enough to debunk this myth of adjusted stats, I will prove to you mathematically how numbers from adjusted stats must be inflated.

Below is a chart showing the probability of “x” or more number of 100-point scorers in a single season in the 1980s using adjusted figures that normalize to a 1986 base season including 80 games on the year and a league-wide goals per game average of 7.94.

# of 100-point scorers |Cumulative Probability
5 |0.999218542539168000
10 |0.910700892385200000
15 |0.318250335226929000
20 |0.011002564978641200
25 |0.000019969468707526
30 |0.000000001560702900
35 |0.000000000000004885
40 |0.000000000000000000

This shows it is mathematically 99.92% probable of having at least 5 100-point scorers in a year in the 1980s based on 1986 regular season characteristics. Further, it is 91.07% probable of having 10 or more scorers, 31.83% probable of 15 or more scorers and 1.10% probable of 20 or more scorers. Going back to Bertuzzi and the other 29 adjusted 100-point scorers, it is mathematically 0.00000015607% probable that 30 scorers in 2003 could have scored 100 points in 1986. This is not opinion, this is not based on “what I saw or believe.” This is mathematics proving these adjusted stats are simply absurd. The fact that every season from 93 forward has at most a 0.009043% chance of being correct according to relative contribution to winning should tell you the reliability of those adjusted stats- which is nothing.

YOU are the one misreading and misusing the stats.

Its been said, over and over and over, that Adjusted stats are not meant to be taken as bible, nor do any of the realists here think they are perfect. You are trying to go extreme polar opposite in order to discredit them, when in reality, all you are doing is discrediting yourself.

Adjusted stats are meant to help bridge the gap between era's and understand why scoring was lower in some era's than others.

If you think only 3 people were capable of hitting 100 points in 2003 because the league was overall less talented, then you have not a clue what you are talking about. It was because of the larger goalie pads, increased clutching and grabbing and the fact that almost all of the teams were playing a defense first style, not allowing their forwards the freedom to play offensive games. If you think Yzerman would have hit over 130 points in 2003 in his prime, then you are deluding yourself.

You are intentionally taking one of the highest goals per game years from the 80's instead of the average to try to skew the argument.

The end.

 

[rallymaster19]

And your picking on the straw man 1986-based adjusted numbers is getting tiresome.

I’m not sure if you’re referring to adjusted stats as the straw man here or specifically 1986 numbers. But you brought up the adjusted stats, not me. They make a difference on a comparison of players in those two eras, so you better be able to defend their accuracy when questioned. And 1986 is just a year. The numbers work out similarly for any year.

YOU are the one misreading and misusing the stats.

Its been said, over and over and over, that Adjusted stats are not meant to be taken as bible, nor do any of the realists here think they are perfect. You are trying to go extreme polar opposite in order to discredit them, when in reality, all you are doing is discrediting yourself.

Adjusted stats are meant to help bridge the gap between era's and understand why scoring was lower in some era's than others.

If you think only 3 people were capable of hitting 100 points in 2003 because the league was overall less talented, then you have not a clue what you are talking about. It was because of the larger goalie pads, increased clutching and grabbing and the fact that almost all of the teams were playing a defense first style, not allowing their forwards the freedom to play offensive games. If you think Yzerman would have hit over 130 points in 2003 in his prime, then you are deluding yourself.

You are intentionally taking one of the highest goals per game years from the 80's instead of the average to try to skew the argument.

The end.

Whether it’s 1986 or not doesn’t matter because the numbers are normalized to your contribution to winning theory. 1986 is just the base year in this example, a year I took from Ola’s post, where he made the bizarre choice of normalizing seasons to 1986. Taking 2009 as the base year tells you the same thing though. In fact, when scoring is normalized to an 82-game schedule using 5.83 GPG and the 2000s seasons as reference, there are 3 seasons in the 80s that pop up with only Gretzky as a 100-point scorer. The probability of having just a single 100-point scorer per season for 3 or more seasons in a decade using 2000s numbers is about 0.03%. Just like the 1986 numbers over-adjusted for players in the 90s/2000s, the 2009 numbers under-adjust for players in the 80s. 1986 is just a year. Pick any year and your relative contribution to theory will give you the same results every time.

Not once did I say take raw stats at absolute value either, so don’t insinuate I did. In fact, I suggested a discount or premium be put onto stats from the different eras. For 86-94 vs. 94-2002, I suggested that figure be 9-10%; while the relative contribution to winning a.k.a. adjusted stats suggested 22%. 22% is clearly too high, in fact almost mathematically impossible. Even in your own words, you subliminally touched upon it. You could have said “if you think Yzerman would have hit over 115 points in 2003 in his prime, then you are deluding yourself.†But instead you chose 130 points, a safer number to relay because you know Yzerman probably could have hit 115 points yourself. Yzerman’s 89 season of 155 points would translate to 113 points using adjusted stats for a 2003 season with 82 games. 113 points being not far from Malkin’s adjusted points total from last year should tell you all about its authenticity.

When adjusted stats come to question, you sit right on the fence leaning one way when it supports your position in an argument, and then lean the other way when you realize somebody can take 10 minutes and prove their mathematical accuracy is about equivalent to the chance I have in dating Elisha Cuthbert. We already know 100 points by a player in 1989 does not equal 100 points by a player in 1999. We know (or should know) goals per game per year is not an accurate equalizing mechanism. Do you care to attempt to find a reasonable measure for comparison or are you content on sitting in the centre of that fence, swaying from side to side when it fits your needs.


Besides the point: Based on my calculations, Yzerman’s 155 points actually comes out to about 135 points in 2003 using my “adjustmentâ€, so yes, I do think Yzerman could have hit 130 points in his prime in 2003 anyway.

 

[Dark Shadows]

I’m not sure if you’re referring to adjusted stats as the straw man here or specifically 1986 numbers. But you brought up the adjusted stats, not me. They make a difference on a comparison of players in those two eras, so you better be able to defend their accuracy when questioned. And 1986 is just a year. The numbers work out similarly for any year.



Whether it’s 1986 or not doesn’t matter because the numbers are normalized to your contribution to winning theory. 1986 is just the base year in this example, a year I took from Ola’s post, where he made the bizarre choice of normalizing seasons to 1986. Taking 2009 as the base year tells you the same thing though. In fact, when scoring is normalized to an 82-game schedule using 5.83 GPG and the 2000s seasons as reference, there are 3 seasons in the 80s that pop up with only Gretzky as a 100-point scorer. The probability of having just a single 100-point scorer per season for 3 or more seasons in a decade using 2000s numbers is about 0.03%. Just like the 1986 numbers over-adjusted for players in the 90s/2000s, the 2009 numbers under-adjust for players in the 80s. 1986 is just a year. Pick any year and your relative contribution to theory will give you the same results every time.

Not once did I say take raw stats at absolute value either, so don’t insinuate I did. In fact, I suggested a discount or premium be put onto stats from the different eras. For 86-94 vs. 94-2002, I suggested that figure be 9-10%; while the relative contribution to winning a.k.a. adjusted stats suggested 22%. 22% is clearly too high, in fact almost mathematically impossible. Even in your own words, you subliminally touched upon it. You could have said “if you think Yzerman would have hit over 115 points in 2003 in his prime, then you are deluding yourself.” But instead you chose 130 points, a safer number to relay because you know Yzerman probably could have hit 115 points yourself. Yzerman’s 89 season of 155 points would translate to 113 points using adjusted stats for a 2003 season with 82 games. 113 points being not far from Malkin’s adjusted points total from last year should tell you all about its authenticity.

When adjusted stats come to question, you sit right on the fence leaning one way when it supports your position in an argument, and then lean the other way when you realize somebody can take 10 minutes and prove their mathematical accuracy is about equivalent to the chance I have in dating Elisha Cuthbert. We already know 100 points by a player in 1989 does not equal 100 points by a player in 1999. We know (or should know) goals per game per year is not an accurate equalizing mechanism. Do you care to attempt to find a reasonable measure for comparison or are you content on sitting in the centre of that fence, swaying from side to side when it fits your needs.

Trying to discount adjusted statistics completely and browbeat others into doing the same has been one of your agenda's from day 1, as has pushing Yzerman as your boy. And it is not going to work. Not on this forum.

They are meant for one thing. To bridge the gap between era's. Not to be used to try to garner specific numbers and say "OMG look, it doesn't make sense. Adj stats are stupid"

A 6 year old could see that Sakic's 87-90 point seasons would have been much higher in the 80's, just like they could see Yzerman's totals would have been far lower had he played his prime in the clutch and grab trap dead puck era.

But the fact that you are trying to discredit the adjusted stats completely by cherrypicking the worst possible comparisons of statistics is beyond transparent.

You can try to delude the argument into how many players would have hit 100 points, but it has already been debunked. Using the 80's average vs the dead puck era average, 25 players would have hit over 100 points. Is it likely? No, but we have already discussed that the stats are not perfect. The league is a 3rd larger now than it was in the 80's. An average of 12 players a year hit 100+ points in the 80's. Adding the 3rd extra for league size, that number averages to 18. 18 and 25 are certainly not so far apart as to say it is impossible, especially given the parity in the league today as opposed to the league in the 80's.

Besides the point: Based on my calculations, Yzerman’s 155 points actually comes out to about 135 points in 2003 using my “adjustment”, so yes, I do think Yzerman could have hit 130 points in his prime in 2003 anyway.

And I disagree. He would never have been allowed to play his run and gun all out offense style which allowed him to hit those numbers.(And yes, he was playing a little defense run and gun style that year, as very publically addressed by Jimmy Devellano, senior vice-president of the Detroit Red Wings, himself at an SIHR meeting)

Not only would goaltending equipment and opposing team clutch and grab trapping be against him, but his own coaches would have leashed his run and gun 89 style from the start. He would need to be playing a style more conservative like he did in 1996 to get icetime. Icetime would also be a large hamper on Yzerman, because Teams by this point no longer let their superstar forwards play 30+ minutes a game like the wings did when they allowed him to just do whatever he wanted offensively and double shift on other lines in an offensive manner. Superstar Forwards average 22 minutes a game. That would be 8 or so less minutes a game Yzerman would get to play.

And your calculations are far off and it is not just because of your math.

A quick 30 second look at your posting history shows that of your 100 posts on this forum, 19 of them were from this thread. 4 of them were from your "Stop using adjusted stats" thread, which you made to discredit the first Yzerman vs Sakic debate, but were firmly rebuffed. 37 of them came from your Yzerman defense in the Yzerman vs Messier thread, and 16 of them came from your other thread "Yzerman's 89 season is the best other than 99, 66 or 04"

Almost all of your posts in one fashion or another has been unrelenting defense of and props to your favorite player. Yzerman. Even your name has #19 in it. Its hard even have this discussion with you knowing that you are allowing favoritism to strongly influence what you will and will not listen to. You have rarely even gotten into another discussion on this forum if Yzerman were not a part of it. Its an obsession.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Below is a chart showing the probability of “x†or more number of 100-point scorers in a single season in the 1980s using adjusted figures that normalize to a 1986 base season including 80 games on the year and a league-wide goals per game average of 7.94.

# of 100-point scorers |Cumulative Probability
5 |0.999218542539168000
10 |0.910700892385200000
15 |0.318250335226929000
20 |0.011002564978641200
25 |0.000019969468707526
30 |0.000000001560702900
35 |0.000000000000004885
40 |0.000000000000000000

This shows it is mathematically 99.92% probable of having at least 5 100-point scorers in a year in the 1980s based on 1986 regular season characteristics. Further, it is 91.07% probable of having 10 or more scorers, 31.83% probable of 15 or more scorers and 1.10% probable of 20 or more scorers. Going back to Bertuzzi and the other 29 adjusted 100-point scorers, it is mathematically 0.00000015607% probable that 30 scorers in 2003 could have scored 100 points in 1986. This is not opinion, this is not based on “what I saw or believe.†This is mathematics proving these adjusted stats are simply absurd. The fact that every season from 93 forward has at most a 0.009043% chance of being correct according to relative contribution to winning should tell you the reliability of those adjusted stats- which is nothing.

Can you walk me through your calculation for one or two of the lines in your table? If you did what I think you're doing, this is a very convincing argument.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Can you walk me through your calculation for one or two of the lines in your table? If you did what I think you're doing, this is a very convincing argument.

I'm more than a little disappointed at the harsh reaction to this... this is good stuff, and reinforces a lot of what is implied in this forum, but not ever really quantified.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

And I disagree. He would never have been allowed to play his run and gun all out offense style which allowed him to hit those numbers.(And yes, he was playing a little defense run and gun style that year, as very publically addressed by Jimmy Devellano, senior vice-president of the Detroit Red Wings, himself at an SIHR meeting)

Not only would goaltending equipment and opposing team clutch and grab trapping be against him, but his own coaches would have leashed his run and gun 89 style from the start. He would need to be playing a style more conservative like he did in 1996 to get icetime. Icetime would also be a large hamper on Yzerman, because Teams by this point no longer let their superstar forwards play 30+ minutes a game like the wings did when they allowed him to just do whatever he wanted offensively and double shift on other lines in an offensive manner. Superstar Forwards average 22 minutes a game. That would be 8 or so less minutes a game Yzerman would get to play.

I really do not like going down this path, because for every single player in every single era you can go ahead and list a dozen reasons why he wouldn't be as good in another era... many of them maybe true, but ultimately pure conjecture with very little to back it up.

Yzerman scoring 130+ in the dead puck era is not out of reason by any means.

First of all - you can't assume anything. Maybe Yzerman would not play close to 30 minutes a game, but he also might have been surrounded by better linemates. He probably would not be double-shifted on a checking line against other top lines, and maybe he could have concentrated even more on offense now than he had to back then... there are certainly coaches which allow that with that kind of talent, even today.

Joe Sakic at 31 had 118 pts in 2001 while still playing a strong two-way game - Yzerman, in his prime, offensively unleashed, could have very easily topped that by 10-25 pts. Let's also not forget Yzerman was 10th in the league in scoring at the age of 34 in 2000, while winning a Selke... or scored a P/PG in the 2002 (and '06) playoffs while being a top PKer.

 

[rallymaster19]

They are meant for one thing. To bridge the gap between era's. Not to be used to try to garner specific numbers and say "OMG look, it doesn't make sense. Adj stats are stupid"

Then why bring up adjusted stats at all in this close comparison? I didn’t bring them up. When someone else brought them up, I questioned their accuracy; the same way I was questioned when claiming Yzerman and Sakic’s contributions to Hockey Canada on the ice were about the same.

But the fact that you are trying to discredit the adjusted stats completely by cherrypicking the worst possible comparisons of statistics is beyond transparent.

I took using top-end players for the last 30 years, a group both Yzerman and Sakic fit into. It’s a legitimate way to measure the precision of adjusted stats. If they were the worst possible comparisons of statistics, I’d like to know what you think are the best possible comparisons of statistics?

And I disagree. He would never have been allowed to play his run and gun all out offense style which allowed him to hit those numbers.(And yes, he was playing a little defense run and gun style that year, as very publically addressed by Jimmy Devellano, senior vice-president of the Detroit Red Wings, himself at an SIHR meeting)

And we will continue to disagree on his “all-out offenseâ€, as there have been numerous claims suggesting the opposite. Your top line penalty killing forward rarely plays the all-out offensive system you’re talking about.

A quick 30 second look at your posting history shows that of your 100 posts on this forum, 19 of them were from this thread. 4 of them were from your "Stop using adjusted stats" thread, which you made to discredit the first Yzerman vs Sakic debate, but were firmly rebuffed. 37 of them came from your Yzerman defense in the Yzerman vs Messier thread, and 16 of them came from your other thread "Yzerman's 89 season is the best other than 99, 66 or 04"

Almost all of your posts in one fashion or another has been unrelenting defense of and props to your favorite player. Yzerman. Even your name has #19 in it. Its hard even have this discussion with you knowing that you are allowing favoritism to strongly influence what you will and will not listen to. You have rarely even gotten into another discussion on this forum if Yzerman were not a part of it. Its an obsession.

What do you care what I post on? I watch about 60 games/season with Jason Blake. Does that mean I have to talk about that guy to stay on this forum? Because if so, I wouldn’t stay around here anymore. I talk about Yzerman and to a lesser extent Bobby Orr because I find it interesting to talk about them. Jason Blake scoring his 10th goal of the season while making $4M/year only angers me, and I don’t care enough about Stan Mikita to comment on how valuable he was to the Blackhawks in the 60s.

This favouritism you talk about stems largely from my suggesting Yzerman was better than two players: Messier and Sakic. Think about that. Guys like Burke, Rutherford and Neal put Yzerman 14 spots ahead of Sakic on a post-expansion list. But you already knew that, since you referenced that very same publication when you argued Messier must have been better than Yzerman because he was placed 2 spots ahead of him on that very list. You skip around in circles and are ambiguous just enough so that you aren’t called for it enough. I have always stated I am opposed to adjusted stats, and have provided evidence why. I have always stated Yzerman was better than Sakic and Messier and provided evidence why I believed so. You reference a list to say Messier was better than Yzerman but dismiss the same list that says Yzerman was better than Sakic, saying further, the two should not be placed more than a spot apart on any list but Sakic must be better.

But I will take your searching of my posting history and a public breakdown with it again (yes, you’ve done this before) as a compliment to your interest in my opinions. Thank you.

Can you walk me through your calculation for one or two of the lines in your table? If you did what I think you're doing, this is a very convincing argument.

I'm more than a little disappointed at the harsh reaction to this... this is good stuff, and reinforces a lot of what is implied in this forum, but not ever really quantified.

When you state an opinion, you called out on it (perhaps rightfully so). But when you take the time to put work together to show the evidence, it’s really uninviting to just have it dismissed one-by-one for no solid reason.



In regards to the chart:

I first took 1986 as the base season and extrapolating the main characteristics of that season (the GPG average of 7.94 and 80 game schedule) onto all the other seasons from 80-81 to 2008-09. That part is all simple Math. I came up with an adjustment factor that eventually came up with the point total each player from every year (81-09) individually would have to come up with to match 100 points in 1986. I looked up how many players matched those totals on hockeyreference.com year by year, which the final numbers I presented above. I’ll include the full table below, but I’d rather not put it in HTML because of the dreaded “|†required between each row and column. If you would like, I can attach it as a JPG image if you want but the Math is solid I am sure.

Regular Season GPG PTS CUTOFF Games ADJ Factor 100 Pts Adj Cutoff # 100 Pts Scorers
2008-2009 5.83 73.4 0.975609756 75.3 24
2007-2008 5.57 70.2 0.975609756 71.9 32
2006-2007 5.89 74.2 0.975609756 76.0 36
2005-2006 6.17 77.7 0.975609756 79.7 26
2003-2004 5.14 64.7 0.975609756 66.4 26
2002-2003 5.31 66.9 0.975609756 68.5 30
2001-2002 5.24 66 0.975609756 67.6 29
2000-2001 5.51 69.4 0.975609756 71.1 42
1999-2000 5.49 69.1 0.975609756 70.9 25
1998-1999 5.27 66.4 0.975609756 68.0 24
1997-1998 5.28 66.5 0.975609756 68.2 23
1996-1997 5.83 73.4 0.975609756 75.3 27
1995-1996 6.29 79.2 0.975609756 81.2 31
1994-1995 5.97 75.2 1.666666667 45.1 24
1993-1994 6.48 81.6 0.952380952 85.7 25
1992-1993 7.25 91.3 0.952380952 95.9 26
1991-1992 6.96 87.7 1 87.7 18
1990-1991 6.91 87 1 87.0 20
1989-1990 7.37 92.8 1 92.8 19
1988-1989 7.48 94.2 1 94.2 11
1987-1988 7.43 93.6 1 93.6 14
1986-1987 7.34 92.4 1 92.4 11
1985-1986 7.94 100 1 100.0 13
1984-1985 7.77 97.9 1 97.9 18
1983-1984 7.89 99.4 1 99.4 12
1982-1983 7.73 97.4 1 97.4 12
1981-1982 8.03 101 1 101.1 13
1980-1981 7.69 96.9 1 96.9 14


From there, I found the average and standard deviation of the number of 100-point scorers from the 1980s, since it was 1986 that was used as the benchmark season. This I let Excel do the work for me (which was previously presented as well), but either way, they’re not difficult calculations either. With that information I ran the probabilities of “x†number of 100-point scorers in a single season in the 1980s. Again, I used Excel for this calculation; I did not want to bring out the old textbook chart manually.

Again, this wasn’t based on my opinion, so claims of bias and lack of objectivity is unfounded.

 

[Dark Shadows]

I really do not like going down this path, because for every single player in every single era you can go ahead and list a dozen reasons why he wouldn't be as good in another era... many of them maybe true, but ultimately pure conjecture with very little to back it up.

Nobody said he would not be as good in another era. Merely that scoring as high as he did in the 80's would be impossible in this era. He would still likely lead the league in scoring, but he would not score 130+ points.

Yzerman scoring 130+ in the dead puck era is not out of reason by any means.

I can see him topping out at the high 120's. I picked 130 because I just do not see him topping 130. Jagr's 127 point mark in the same era was what I consider equal to Yzerman's 155 point year. Jagr's season of 127 points was among the greatest offensive seasons of all time, as was Yzerman's. Even better than his own 149 point season just a few years earlier when it was easy to score. I consider it even with Yzerman's 155 point year.

If I consider the two close to even, then it is the bar I put up. Adjusted stats are unreliable, but at least they are better than raw stats.

First of all - you can't assume anything. Maybe Yzerman would not play close to 30 minutes a game, but he also might have been surrounded by better linemates. He probably would not be double-shifted on a checking line against other top lines, and maybe he could have concentrated even more on offense now than he had to back then... there are certainly coaches which allow that with that kind of talent, even today.

Must we bring this part up again? I think I have made it clear on this forum over and over again that I consider superstars who need to carry their team with little help at an advantage. Superstars will put up great numbers no matter who they play with, and often, do more with less. Jagr's best year came after all help had fled, and numerous other examples that I always post.

Joe Sakic at 31 had 118 pts in 2001 while still playing a strong two-way game - Yzerman, in his prime, offensively unleashed, could have very easily topped that by 10-25 pts. Let's also not forget Yzerman was 10th in the league in scoring at the age of 34 in 2000, while winning a Selke... or scored a P/PG in the 2002 (and '06) playoffs while being a top PKer.

Sakic was a monster offensively that year too. The best we ever saw from him on both ends of the ice. He was shooting the puck far far more than he usually did, and had just found a comfortable niche.

But yes, I think a prime Yzerman playing all out offense like he did in 89 would have outscored him by 10 points or so. Just like I think Sakic, moved to the 80's would have scored in the realm of 140-145. he was that damn good that year.

Had Yzerman been playing the way he used to when he was younger at age 34 in 2000, he likely does not sniff the Selke, but would have placed top 1-3 for points, despite his speed being not what it used to be. He had rarely been able to do both at the same time(Keep his high end offense while being great defensively), but this was certainly one of those rare years.

Then why bring up adjusted stats at all in this close comparison? I didn’t bring them up. When someone else brought them up, I questioned their accuracy; the same way I was questioned when claiming Yzerman and Sakic’s contributions to Hockey Canada on the ice were about the same.

Simple.
Adjusted stats are not perfect, but they are better than unadjusted stats. It paints a clearer picture for the younger folks who just come in thinking all hockey players of today are not what they used to be because so few can top 100 points.

I took using top-end players for the last 30 years, a group both Yzerman and Sakic fit into. It’s a legitimate way to measure the precision of adjusted stats. If they were the worst possible comparisons of statistics, I’d like to know what you think are the best possible comparisons of statistics?

You chose one of the highest GPG years in 80's history. not the highest, but the second highest. You should have been using the average, not cherry picking the highest scoring year to make it look worse. You also failed to adjust for league size. By rights, all arguments on how many 100 point scorers we would have need to be increased 30% based on the league being 30% larger(30 teams instead of 21). The average year in the 80's, we had 12 100+ point scorers. That number averages to 18 when bumped by a third as it should be for league size, and that is just the average. In some years, there were 16+ 100 point scorers(more if you adjust to 82 games, sometimes as high as 18), therefore, adjusting up 30% would make 24-26 100 point scorers.

We estimated 25 100 point scorers when it was done correctly for 2003. the number does not seem outrageous given the much larger league size, parity among teams, etc

And we will continue to disagree on his “all-out offenseâ€, as there have been numerous claims suggesting the opposite. Your top line penalty killing forward rarely plays the all-out offensive system you’re talking about.

Ill take the word of the senior vice-president of the Detroit Red Wings, who managed and oversaw everything about the team over a comment or two from his coach following a game and Yzerman's own biography which supports my opinion over revisionist history thanks. That and the fact that he was twice cut from the Canada cup squads because "We have enough offensive guys".

For what it's worth you're beliefs about Yzerman's game are not shared by Jim Devellano who was the general manager of the Red Wings at the time. Not to offend your credentials but there is no bigger supporter of Yzerman than Devellano who did watch every game Yzerman ever played with Detroit, in addition to a large number of his junior games in Peterborough.

At our SIHR meeting, Devellano admitted that Yzerman was not what you would call a 200 foot player. He admitted openly that Yzerman was lacking in defensive skills and effort. In part, this was due to the nature of the team and the situation. As I pointed out before the Red Wings were not the successful franchise of today. Yzerman, was encouraged to focus exclusively on his offense as scoring and not tight checking sells tickets.

When asked by the assembled crowd why Mike Keenan cut Yzerman from both the 1987 and 1991 Canada Cup team's Devellano openly said it was because he was not a 200 foot player. For Keenan to cut him from those rosters says a lot about how porous Yzerman's defensive game was at the time and not to the above-average defensive game you speak of.

Furthermore, Devellano spoke quite openly about the relationship between Yzerman and Scotty Bowman was in the beginning. Bowman was openly dismissive about Yzerman's defensive game and especially his committment to it. Such was the acrimony that the Red Wings did have trade talks with the Ottawa Senators about Yzerman's services, Devellano confirmed to the group. The only reason the deal didn't go through, according to Devellano was that the Senators never made an acceptable offer.

In this particular battle of wills Bowman eventually won out and Yzerman soon evolved into the better all-around player for it and Detroit became the better team.

For the record, Gretzky and Lemieux often played as the top PKing forward(In fact, Lemieux was doing it in 88-89). It was not exactly rare back then to try to generate offense from a shorthanded perspective when you were down a goal. Yzerman was very good at it.

What do you care what I post on? I watch about 60 games/season with Jason Blake. Does that mean I have to talk about that guy to stay on this forum? Because if so, I wouldn’t stay around here anymore. I talk about Yzerman and to a lesser extent Bobby Orr because I find it interesting to talk about them. Jason Blake scoring his 10th goal of the season while making $4M/year only angers me, and I don’t care enough about Stan Mikita to comment on how valuable he was to the Blackhawks in the 60s.

This favouritism you talk about stems largely from my suggesting Yzerman was better than two players: Messier and Sakic. Think about that. Guys like Burke, Rutherford and Neal put Yzerman 14 spots ahead of Sakic on a post-expansion list. But you already knew that, since you referenced that very same publication when you argued Messier must have been better than Yzerman because he was placed 2 spots ahead of him on that very list. You skip around in circles and are ambiguous just enough so that you aren’t called for it enough. I have always stated I am opposed to adjusted stats, and have provided evidence why. I have always stated Yzerman was better than Sakic and Messier and provided evidence why I believed so. You reference a list to say Messier was better than Yzerman but dismiss the same list that says Yzerman was better than Sakic, saying further, the two should not be placed more than a spot apart on any list but Sakic must be better.

The favoritism I talk of stems from the fact that you have begun numerous threads about Yzerman, and that almost all of your posts deal exclusively with Yzerman. You have not shown interest in talking about almost anyone but Yzerman. The likelyhood that you are obviously a very fanatical Yzerman fan is almost overwhelming.

You will see no wrong where he is concerned and it affects your objectivity.

P.S I think you have me mixed up with someone else. The only time I referenced the Hockey news in the Messier/Yzerman thread was their 1997 list which was a collection of much brighter minds than those who did the 2007 list. if you see a point when I raised the 2007 list, then link it. I need to see the argument in context to the discussion it was being used in.

In the end. It comes down to this. The vast Majority of surveys from great Hockey minds and top player lists, ranging from this site's great minds, to the Hockey news(Where they conducted lists based on votes from guys like Al Arbour, Scotty Bowman, Emile Francis, Howie Meeker, Scotty Morrison, Roger Neilson, Bud Poile, Sam Pollock, Marcel Pronovost, Billy Reay, Glen Sather, Harry Sinden, Red Storey, etc etc), to conversations you hear on TSN will say Messier has a slight advantage.

People are acting like it is the end of the world that people consider Messier slightly ahead. And yes, a 6-10 spot gap on this list is "Slight". The differences between players in the first few voting rounds is very small, and covers 100+ years of Hockey.

But I will take your searching of my posting history and a public breakdown with it again (yes, you’ve done this before) as a compliment to your interest in my opinions. Thank you.

I glance at everyone's posting history when I get into a long debate to see if they have external influences and bias that sway their opinions and make them unreachable. Your posting History being so small, and almost every post exclusively about Yzerman, sometimes with a borderline fanatical tone, along with your name suggests serious bias. If I remember correctly, you even made an account on this forum specifically because you were annoyed with the Messier vs Yzerman thread.

When you state an opinion, you called out on it (perhaps rightfully so). But when you take the time to put work together to show the evidence, it’s really uninviting to just have it dismissed one-by-one for no solid reason.

Most people gave solid reasons and long replies as to why.

 

[Dark Shadows]

I know I've made mention of how I thought Yzerman was a good two way player during his offensive years, and also made claims that stated he was considered as such at the time as well, but never really backed up these claims, so I might as well do it now, since the discussion is turning in that direction again. The following quotes come from when Yzerman was actually playing in his offensive prime, as well as retrospective looks later on (bolded the relevant parts, kept the entire article for context).

I find it funny that you mentioned the Keenan link again. Especially since Keenan's reasons for leaving Yzerman off the Canada cup teams were his lack of defensive play.

But, I guess we are throwing these links out again.

Yzerman was not good defensively early in his career. He was average.There was a night and day difference between the Yzerman you saw post 95, and the Yzerman you saw putting up 100+ points. A million quotes which were contrast against the few quotes you brought up were brought up. The Keenen quote is particularly funny given how Keenan cut him from the 87 Canada cup team stating "We have enough offensive guys", and chose Sutter over him for the last center spot.

For what it's worth you're beliefs about Yzerman's game are not shared by Jim Devellano who was the general manager of the Red Wings at the time. Not to offend your credentials but there is no bigger supporter of Yzerman than Devellano who did watch every game Yzerman ever played with Detroit, in addition to a large number of his junior games in Peterborough.

At our SIHR meeting, Devellano admitted that Yzerman was not what you would call a 200 foot player. He admitted openly that Yzerman was lacking in defensive skills and effort. In part, this was due to the nature of the team and the situation. As I pointed out before the Red Wings were not the successful franchise of today. Yzerman, was encouraged to focus exclusively on his offense as scoring and not tight checking sells tickets.

When asked by the assembled crowd why Mike Keenan cut Yzerman from both the 1987 and 1991 Canada Cup team's Devellano openly said it was because he was not a 200 foot player. For Keenan to cut him from those rosters says a lot about how porous Yzerman's defensive game was at the time and not to the above-average defensive game you speak of.

Furthermore, Devellano spoke quite openly about the relationship between Yzerman and Scotty Bowman was in the beginning. Bowman was openly dismissive about Yzerman's defensive game and especially his committment to it. Such was the acrimony that the Red Wings did have trade talks with the Ottawa Senators about Yzerman's services, Devellano confirmed to the group. The only reason the deal didn't go through, according to Devellano was that the Senators never made an acceptable offer.

In this particular battle of wills Bowman eventually won out and Yzerman soon evolved into the better all-around player for it and Detroit became the better team.

http://www.allsports.com/players/steve-yzerman/

After initially butting heads with new coach Scottie Bowman over the coach's criticism of his defensive skills, Yzerman determinedly worked on his two-way game and eventually won the Selke Trophy as the league's best defensive forward

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=M1ARTM0012123

He was initially a scoring sensation - he had 65 goals and 90 assists in 1988-1989. But in the mid-1990s, after general manager Jim Devellano and later Ken Holland began to improve Detroit's supporting cast, and when Scotty Bowman joined as coach, Yzerman, the team's captain since he was 21, transformed himself into a player known as much for defence as for scoring. The combination worked: the Wings won back-to-back Stanley Cups in 1997 and 1998, and they appear ready to contend again this year

http://www.tru.ca/ae/php/phil/mclaughl/students/phil224/cm/home.htm

In the early 90's, Steve and the Red Wings experienced many disapointing playoff performances, and the ultimate goal lay far beyond his reach. So Yzerman took steps to become a more rounded player. He gained weight in the off-season and worked hard to become more defensively aware. No more fancy passes and dipsy-doodles in the offensive zone meant less points, but more marks in the win column. Steve has come to be regarded by many to be the best two-way player to ever play the game

http://www.skate2stick.com/?p=2058

Red Wings general manager Ken Holland wasn’t surprised. “He’s one of the two greatest Red Wings ever,†said Holland, who was there to watch Yzerman get inducted, of Yzerman and Gordie Howe. “Steve’s legacy is twofold: his offensive prowess and his commitment to winning. He went from a great offensive player to a great two-way player. He was about team and sacrifice.â€

http://www.nhl.com/cupcrazy/2004/seriese/yzerman041604.shtml

Steve was the first (player) to totally change his game and went from being the offensive guy to being the best two-way centerman in the NHL. Once your leader changes his game for the good of the team, then everybody else follows suit."

This was from a simple combination of "Yzerman two way" in google search.


http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story/?ID=170385&hubname=nhl

After scoring 62 goals in 1990, Yzerman gradually and unselfishly traded in gaudy statistics amassed with an all-out offensive style for a two-way role to help the team get ahead. The transformation would eventually lead to his selection as the NHL's best defensive forward in 2000.<

http://redwingslegends.blogspot.com/2006/07/steve-yzerman.html

This one man show of offensive fireworks would continue until the 1993-94 season when something happened in Yzerman's career. He sacrificed his own scoring exploits to become one of the best two way players in the history of the game.

 

[seventieslord]

Nice articles, poise. But one thing: The 1987 article says he was killing penalties a lot. The article was from the playoffs, so it's impossible to say for sure, but Yzerman was not a regular penalty killer in the 1986-87 and 1987-88 regular seasons, being on the ice for 14 and 15 PPGA, respectively. Relative to league scoring levels and per-game, those are two of six lowest marks of his career. It's possible that he killed more penalties in the playoffs, but it wouldn't make much sense.

 

[Dark Shadows]

Nice articles, poise. But one thing: The 1987 article says he was killing penalties a lot. The article was from the playoffs, so it's impossible to say for sure, but Yzerman was not a regular penalty killer in the 1986-87 and 1987-88 regular seasons, being on the ice for 14 and 15 PPGA, respectively. Relative to league scoring levels and per-game, those are two of six lowest marks of his career. It's possible that he killed more penalties in the playoffs, but it wouldn't make much sense.

A few of the articles are very ambiguous(We needs links as well). Several are from the late 90's and people talking after the fact in the "I always knew this" sort of manner. Even Keenan, who vehemently kept Yzerman off team Canada because "we have enough offensive guys".

 

[poise]

Edit: one of the site admins informed me that posting entire articles was assumed to fall under copyright. I can only post small parts and then summarize the rest. The first set of articles were various teammates and players (Pang in Juniors, Hanlon, Trottier) , coaches (Dick Todd in Juniors, Demers, Murray, MacLaen, Keenan), GM's (Murray, Keenan), and writers praising various aspects of Yzerman's defensive play in general, as well as specifics on faceoffs and shotblocking.

As for the Canada Cup 1991 cuts, it seems like Keenan and Yzerman were saying in 1991 while Yzerman was being part of the taxi cab squad and then later cut, that he had a bad camp, perhaps because he was under the impression that he was personally guaranteed a spot under Alan Eagleson. Yzerman would later say that Eagleson "lied" to him about his situation and that he would have went into camp differently if he had known. Keenan cited a lack of "productivity" during camp, which seems like Yzerman was cut because he underperformed offensively.

Yzerman himself stated that he "always considered" himself a "decent two-way player" but only got noticed when he "stopped scoring" later on when asked about his transformation.

Nice articles, poise. But one thing: The 1987 article says he was killing penalties a lot. The article was from the playoffs, so it's impossible to say for sure, but Yzerman was not a regular penalty killer in the 1986-87 and 1987-88 regular seasons, being on the ice for 14 and 15 PPGA, respectively. Relative to league scoring levels and per-game, those are two of six lowest marks of his career. It's possible that he killed more penalties in the playoffs, but it wouldn't make much sense.

Agreed, and defense is much harder to quantify in any reasonable way than offense either. I'm just putting some support for my belief that Yzerman was fairly good defensively even in his offensive years other than just my word. If you want a game by game look, I posted the series synopsis of the 1992-1993 Western Conference Quarterfinals. Yzerman here played poorly offensively, at least in 4 of the 7 games, Gilmour doing a great job on him, but his defense was praised several times.

This was the thread: http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=593988

I think the playoffs angle might make sense though. Coffey for example played a lot more consistently defensively in the playoffs than in the regular season, especially with Pittsburgh.

Actually, that article stated he was leading in shorthanded goals in 1988 (from January of that year). I think that would be hard to do unless he was a consistent penalty killer that season.