(Son of) Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 1

Captain Bowie

Registered User
Jan 18, 2012
27,139
4,414
Jagr, Hasek, Crosby and one of Lidstrom or Shore are my guesses for the next 4 names added to the list.
 

The Macho King

Back* to Back** World Champion
Jun 22, 2011
48,607
28,846
Lidstrom and Kelly were the only two in my top 10 that weren't available this go-round...

Two fringe top 20 guys were in their place...
Yeah Kelly is a guy that I hope is in the next round. I kind of want to know where to place him generally among Dmen. I generally have it Orr-Harvey-Bourque-Shore-Potvin-Lidstrom, but could Kelly crack that? I know it's technically off topic but since we're in a lull.
 

bobholly39

Registered User
Mar 10, 2013
22,078
14,587
Yeah Kelly is a guy that I hope is in the next round. I kind of want to know where to place him generally among Dmen. I generally have it Orr-Harvey-Bourque-Shore-Potvin-Lidstrom, but could Kelly crack that? I know it's technically off topic but since we're in a lull.

Lol considering you have 3 players ahead of Kelly who aren't here yet - are you sure you want Kelly next round? Seems a bit much
 
  • Like
Reactions: DannyGallivan

DannyGallivan

Your world frightens and confuses me
Aug 25, 2017
7,561
10,107
Melonville
I had a controversial top 10 pick who didn't make the cut (not surprised, really). I also have my doubts that he holds the same place in the hearts and minds of voters to be in the next 10, but I hope his is (I won't reveal who he is until I have to make a case for him... it's an "time and energy" thing).

Shore and Morenz also didn't make the top 10 from my original list, but I find myself most flexible in pre-O6 players since certain forum members have such a knowledge and passion for them.
 

bobholly39

Registered User
Mar 10, 2013
22,078
14,587
I think Hasek and Jagr have 2 of the most intriguing cases for #5 overall. I think they're absolute musts in the next round or it will be very disappointing.

The idea of ranking Roy next round without ever weighing him against Hasek for example seems silly.

I'm a bit less worried about active players because I fully expect there to be an anti-active player bias, for lack of longevity.
 

The Macho King

Back* to Back** World Champion
Jun 22, 2011
48,607
28,846
I think Hasek and Jagr have 2 of the most intriguing cases for #5 overall. I think they're absolute musts in the next round or it will be very disappointing.

The idea of ranking Roy next round without ever weighing him against Hasek for example seems silly.

I'm a bit less worried about active players because I fully expect there to be an anti-active player bias, for lack of longevity.
I don't have Jagr anywhere close to the next vote. So overrated to me. Mediocre playoff production, no defense, and while he has that peak in the late 90s, he did it against an era that was just completely devoid of top-end talent, and has the distinction of having the two lowest Ross wins post-expansion until the end of the DPE. I recognize I'm probably underrating him too much, but at the same time I think his point totals/Ross' are given too much credit and the context of them isn't examined nearly enough.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ResilientBeast

bobholly39

Registered User
Mar 10, 2013
22,078
14,587
I don't have Jagr anywhere close to the next vote. So overrated to me. Mediocre playoff production, no defense, and while he has that peak in the late 90s, he did it against an era that was just completely devoid of top-end talent, and has the distinction of having the two lowest Ross wins post-expansion until the end of the DPE. I recognize I'm probably underrating him too much, but at the same time I think his point totals/Ross' are given too much credit and the context of them isn't examined nearly enough.

What do you mean by that?

Wouldn't the fact that the DPE is likely the lowest scoring era post expansion be a big reason why? And weren't those 2 seasons - a shortened one (1995) and one where he only played 63 out of 82 games? I'm not sure how those are knocks against him.

Unless i'm misunderstanding you.
 

The Macho King

Back* to Back** World Champion
Jun 22, 2011
48,607
28,846
What do you mean by that?

Wouldn't the fact that the DPE is likely the lowest scoring era post expansion be a big reason why? And weren't those 2 seasons - a shortened one (1995) and one where he only played 63 out of 82 games? I'm not sure how those are knocks against him.

Unless i'm misunderstanding you.
I'm keeping out the lockout season - 70 in 48 is what like a 130 pace? That's fine. Was referring to the 102 finish and the 96 point finish. Obviously the (I think 00?) season he would have had a more impressive total if he had played a full season, but I'm strictly talking about the trophy-counting aspect rather than how impressive his offense was in a vacuum. That season is why we have the second-worst Hart-trophy season in NHL history.
 

bobholly39

Registered User
Mar 10, 2013
22,078
14,587
I'm keeping out the lockout season - 70 in 48 is what like a 130 pace? That's fine. Was referring to the 102 finish and the 96 point finish. Obviously the (I think 00?) season he would have had a more impressive total if he had played a full season, but I'm strictly talking about the trophy-counting aspect rather than how impressive his offense was in a vacuum. That season is why we have the second-worst Hart-trophy season in NHL history.

Gotcha. I won't get too much into it here - we can save it for the new thread when he comes up.

I just think Jagr has the peak and the longevity (and prime?) to rival most players - and as such I think his case warrants to be presented at #5 - even if he ultimately ends up ranked quite a bit lower.
 

MXD

Original #4
Oct 27, 2005
50,668
16,394
I'm refining : Four of Morenz, Shore, Crosby, Jagr and Hasek ... And I'm pretty sure it's the first three + Hasek OR Jagr. Just leaving the door half-opened.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ResilientBeast

seventieslord

Student Of The Game
Mar 16, 2006
36,080
7,132
Regina, SK
Except you are conflating team TOI with individual TOI.

No, I'm not. That was basically the whole point.

I get the theory, really I do. (I think...) How about we add 100 or so goals to my last search and look at these guys? Team Game Finder | Hockey-Reference.com

The tiers look random by GF/GA, and well-ordered by GD. The .706 win % guys all have similar GDs, and the ratios are between 1.48 and 1.62. By eyeballing it, there seems to be a clearer correlation in real world results between the GD than the GF/GA ratios. But that's just eyeballing, which is tricky given I don't know how to filter to get teams with the same GP count.

I am getting the same thing:

[TBODY]
RkTeamSeasonGPts.TPAW-L%RkGGADIFFGF%exp win%RkGD/80Rk
1Montreal Canadiens1944-4550801000.812281211070.6530.78011711
2Edmonton Oilers1985-86801191600.7424263101160.5790.654171163
3Philadelphia Flyers1973-74781121560.7232731641090.6250.73521128
7Philadelphia Flyers1974-75801131600.7142931811120.6180.72451127
6Boston Bruins1977-78801131600.7153332181150.6040.70081154
4Buffalo Sabres1974-75801131600.7163542401140.5960.685131146
5Philadelphia Flyers1984-85801131600.7173482411070.5910.6761410712
8Philadelphia Flyers1976-77801121600.783232131100.6030.697911010
9Montreal Canadiens1971-72781081560.6993072051020.60.6921110514
10Buffalo Sabres1979-80801101600.69103182011170.6130.71561172
11Edmonton Oilers1984-85801091600.68114012981030.5740.6441910315
12Chicago Black Hawks1973-74781051560.67122721641080.6240.73331119
13Edmonton Oilers1982-83801061600.66134243151090.5740.6441810911
14Montreal Canadiens1958-5970911400.65142581581000.620.72741145
15New Jersey Devils2000-01821111720.65152951951000.6020.696109819
16Montreal Canadiens1980-81801031600.64163322321000.5890.6721510017
17Ottawa Senators2005-06821131770.64173142111030.5980.6891210016
18New York Islanders1975-76801011600.63182971901070.610.710710713
19Boston Bruins1974-7580941600.5919345245100.5850.6651610018
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
[/TBODY]

I am seeing a correlation of 0.427 between the actual win% and the GF%, 0.411 between expected win% and win%, and 0.763 between raw GD (adjusted to 80 GP) and win%.

In this extremely cherry-picked sample of teams (I don't mean that in a bad way, but it is), their raw goal differential seems to matter more than their GF%. I don't know why that is and I'd like someone with better statistical knowledge to address this (@ContrarianGoaltender perhaps?)

If we took a huge sample of all teams in all seasons, instead of just the highly dominant ones, these correlations would look much better, but as far as super high GD teams are concerned, the pythagorean theorem isn't very predictive.

Is this indicative of something, or is it just really small sample noise? 19 teams is really not very many.

Given that the discussion stems from the manually timed Orr TOI from two games, the first step would be looking at the manually timed TOI for the remaining Bruins in each game to check the degree of overall ETOI validation.

If the TOI estimates were making the claim that Bobby Orr always played exactly 30.1 minutes every single game and Gary Doak always played 17.5, then yes, watching and manually tracking the players' icetime would be a simply perfect way to prove or disprove that, wouldn't it?

The actual volume of data we would need in order to lose confidence in the estimates in a major way would be a massive undertaking that no one will be willing to begin.

Now, the one wise-guy who publicly admitted that he was leaving Lemieux outside his top-4... that's another matter.:sarcasm: [And, he didn't even name a "best-ever-at-his-position" player in his stead!:rolleyes:]

Who was this? I hope you're not referring to me. I said I was willing to entertain it but I didn't end up doing it.

Tkachuk, Bure, Roenick, Yashin, ... these guys aren't even in this project, due less to lack of talent than to character issues concerning effort, work ethic and commitment.

Who are you talking about?

There are several EXCEPTIONALLY hard-working consistent performers who deserve extra credit.

But I can't think of a top 100 slacker. Gump Worsley's refusal to practice? He's a marginal candidate.

*shrug*

Looking at my top-120 submission, if I had to provide a top-5 list based on their "slacker factor", I'd probably go with Lemieux, Esposito, Nels Stewart, Brett Hull, and I don't even know who my #5 would be... Denneny? Coffey?

Not saying any of these guys are literally slackers, but if we absolutely had to name the worst 5 in terms of their reputation for effort/commitment/work ethic, that kind of thing, these would be the standouts from my top-120.

We simply don't know.

When someone put in the time to manually check a couple of games he was at 34 minutes.

I am sure the estimates all make sense with the limited and somewhat unrelated data points we have to figure out ice time, but apart from that being an issue in itself, we both know that those original calculations had a factor entered to make player ice time jive with what made sense based on late 90s usage.

For several reasons it is possible that they are not that precisely accurate for players of other eras

What are these several reasons?

How confident are you on a difference between 31 minutes and 34? Woud you think the margin for error on these is less than say, 10%, for an outlier player like Orr?

Between 31 and 34? 80% confident. It might be possible to manipulate the numbers to find a way that gets Orr there without giving weird results, but I doubt it.

But you've always said 35-40. I'm 100% confident it was not that high.

Yes I would say that the margin for error is less than 10% over 560 games. There could potentially be errors as large as 10% from season to season - but they're not all going to be high and they're not all going to be in the same direction. Over 8 seasons I would be very confident in a small margin of error.

Doing a recount. #2 and #3 are razor thin. 31/32 voters participated in Vote #1.

That's awesome. I was hoping that there would be a tight race (or two) within the top-3.
 
  • Like
Reactions: overg

Nathaniel

Registered User
Oct 18, 2013
13,603
4,969
Crosby. The perfect blend of regular and playoff resumes. Three 27+ point playoff runs. Another 21 in 12 and 19 in 13 for good measure. The best reg and playoff player of his generation. Solid #5 pick
 

ChiTownPhilly

Not Too Soft
Feb 23, 2010
2,095
1,381
AnyWorld/I'mWelcomeTo
Who was this? I hope you're not referring to me. I said I was willing to entertain it but I didn't end up doing it.
Naw, it was 'ted1971' who declared the same in an open and notorious manner. He was joined by one other- who is (AFAIK) closeted.

Maybe the two votes for Lemieux-5 were 'ted,' and the guy who put Gretzky 7th...
 

blogofmike

Registered User
Dec 16, 2010
2,178
926
I am getting the same thing:

I am seeing a correlation of 0.427 between the actual win% and the GF%, 0.411 between expected win% and win%, and 0.763 between raw GD (adjusted to 80 GP) and win%.

In this extremely cherry-picked sample of teams (I don't mean that in a bad way, but it is), their raw goal differential seems to matter more than their GF%. I don't know why that is and I'd like someone with better statistical knowledge to address this (@ContrarianGoaltender perhaps?)

If we took a huge sample of all teams in all seasons, instead of just the highly dominant ones, these correlations would look much better, but as far as super high GD teams are concerned, the pythagorean theorem isn't very predictive.

Is this indicative of something, or is it just really small sample noise? 19 teams is really not very many.

Agree with all of these questions (and yes it is cherry picked but blindly cherry picked if that makes sense?) . Comparing all teams would be interesting.
 

Michael Farkas

Grace Personified
Jun 28, 2006
13,350
7,832
NYC
www.HockeyProspect.com
The actual volume of data we would need in order to lose confidence in the estimates in a major way would be a massive undertaking that no one will be willing to begin.

Truth be told, I looked for a home Boston game against a poor opponent where Boston is leading for most of the game to give us one more data point on Orr (as the first two were almost scarily similar)...couldn't find it. Orr's time has now passed in this project...maybe I should do Bourque next...

@Fenway you seem to know all things Boston and broadcasting...you got any complete Orr games lying around that aren't available on YT by any chance?
 

Captain Bowie

Registered User
Jan 18, 2012
27,139
4,414
Crosby. The perfect blend of regular and playoff resumes. Three 27+ point playoff runs. Another 21 in 12 and 19 in 13 for good measure. The best reg and playoff player of his generation. Solid #5 pick
What you need to do is not simply state the case for one player. You need to state the metrics being used, and apply them to all other players being considered, or at very least, another player being considered.

Show us why Crosby's blend of regular season and playoffs is better than say, Jean Beliveau's for example. Compare Crosby's 5 best playoff runs (as you mentioned above) in contrast to Beliveau's. Let the data state the case for you.
 

GreatGordie9

Registered User
May 11, 2019
2,081
1,006
Victoria, BC
... It begins.
With a small surprise as I expected Hasek but not Bourque. Other nine are no surprises.

To be honest, the biggest issue for me here is... probably 2nd and 3rd. I'm not saying the reminder is open and shut... but it realistically is.
Lidstrom should be behind Bobby Orr for top defenseman. Should be ahead of Harvey, Shore, Bourque.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->