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

Michael Farkas

Grace Personified
Jun 28, 2006
13,352
7,833
NYC
www.HockeyProspect.com
Yeah, but the key is pouting about that fact in half of your posts in the discussion thread...that will definitely change Round 1 lists...


Hmm, that's about as passive aggressive as I get...


This top 10 doesn't match mine...I don't think Maurice Richard belongs (Habs homer :siren: ). But it doesn't mean I don't find it reasonable for him to be here...and I'm not gonna have a pity party about it...
 
  • Like
Reactions: MXD

blogofmike

Registered User
Dec 16, 2010
2,178
926
One thing that rarely gets said about Doug Harvey, though I'm not quite sure how relevant it is, is that he was quite dirty as a player.

It sent him to the box a lot. And based on playoff data, if you try to see how Montreal killed penalties in general, vs. how they killed penalties to Harvey, I their PK was just as good without Harvey on the ice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MXD

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,773
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
Last thread, from Canadiens1958



Very interesting take which flips conventional thinking on its head. Better defense --> more ice time --> more scoring. It's a compelling theory, and I'll be interested to see which if any players this holds true for as this project wears on.

Having said that, I cannot imagine this would have held true for either Gretzky or Lemieux. Both had large amounts of ice time (for forwards, at least) as it was. If anything, I'd expect their ice time to decrease if they improved defensively, if for no other reason than the extra work in the defensive zone would have required either shorter or more infrequent shifts.

Still, I really like this sort of re-examining of traditional thinking, and hope you run with it when appropriate in later rounds. Or this round, if you think it's appropriate.

I explained this very traditional thinking especially on teams with depth. The issue is the quality and circumstances of the ice time. Then one of the seriously suspect ES comments was thrown out about Jean Beliveau. Will illustrate with Jean Beliveau as the focus.

Depth. Canadiens coached by Toe Blake had extremely diversified rosters. About 1/2 the skaters could play two positions. 1959-60 season alone you had Backstrom, Beliveau, Goyette, Marshall, Moore, Henri Richard, who entered the league as centers. None scored fewer than 13 goals or 28 points:

1959-60 Montreal Canadiens Roster and Statistics | Hockey-Reference.com

Also had depth on the wings.

Usage. How to optimize the usage of assets.

PK. Required two forwards. Marshall for faceoffs and speed. 5th defenceman Bob Turner, to blockshots. No need to risk injury to top 9 forwards blocking shots onthe PK.PK forwards were always rested. Rested top 9 allowed Blake to dictate post PK match-ups. Combined career Beliveau and Henri Richard never scored a PK goal but the team usually lead the league in fewest PP goals allowed.

ES. Four line potential but game conditions usually precluded equal or patterned ice time. So ice time was determained by game conditions.

Comfortably ahead 3rd period,rest Beliveau at ES. Contrary to Pittsburgh and Edmonton who never had 6 worthwhile centers and had to extra shift Lemieux and Gretzky.

Shifts would run about two minutes.Last 30 seconds change on the fly,run an energy center to tire Beliveau's check and get a read on the upcoming line change. Or allow a depth center to take neutral zone faceoffs. Rest was cumulative.

This reduced Beliveau's meaningless ES ice time but optimized his meaningful ES ice time.
 

MXD

Original #4
Oct 27, 2005
50,672
16,395
It sent him to the box a lot. And based on playoff data, if you try to see how Montreal killed penalties in general, vs. how they killed penalties to Harvey, I their PK was just as good without Harvey on the ice.

Le numéro 1, Number 1... Jacques Plante.

Still, my point about his Harvey's dirtyness was mostly how it could affect how he was perceived.
 
  • Like
Reactions: blogofmike

blogofmike

Registered User
Dec 16, 2010
2,178
926
I explained this very traditional thinking especially on teams with depth. The issue is the quality and circumstances of the ice time. Then one of the seriously suspect ES comments was thrown out about Jean Beliveau. Will illustrate with Jean Beliveau as the focus.

Depth. Canadiens coached by Toe Blake had extremely diversified rosters. About 1/2 the skaters could play two positions. 1959-60 season alone you had Backstrom, Beliveau, Goyette, Marshall, Moore, Henri Richard, who entered the league as centers. None scored fewer than 13 goals or 28 points:

1959-60 Montreal Canadiens Roster and Statistics | Hockey-Reference.com

Also had depth on the wings.

Usage. How to optimize the usage of assets.

PK. Required two forwards. Marshall for faceoffs and speed. 5th defenceman Bob Turner, to blockshots. No need to risk injury to top 9 forwards blocking shots onthe PK.PK forwards were always rested. Rested top 9 allowed Blake to dictate post PK match-ups. Combined career Beliveau and Henri Richard never scored a PK goal but the team usually lead the league in fewest PP goals allowed.

ES. Four line potential but game conditions usually precluded equal or patterned ice time. So ice time was determained by game conditions.

Comfortably ahead 3rd period,rest Beliveau at ES. Contrary to Pittsburgh and Edmonton who never had 6 worthwhile centers and had to extra shift Lemieux and Gretzky.

Shifts would run about two minutes.Last 30 seconds change on the fly,run an energy center to tire Beliveau's check and get a read on the upcoming line change. Or allow a depth center to take neutral zone faceoffs. Rest was cumulative.

This reduced Beliveau's meaningless ES ice time but optimized his meaningful ES ice time.

You're saying he had easier ice time than his peers, was better rested, and played less in the third period - which was the Habs best period under Toe Blake?
 

MXD

Original #4
Oct 27, 2005
50,672
16,395
For me only Ray Bourque stands out as being out of place.

Same here. And to be honest, "out of place" is kinda harsh. I wouldn't bat an eye if Bourque finished as high as in the Top-10th. I just think I'd prefer a few players to him. It's not like, I don't know... We had the 9 other guys, and Andy Bathgate.
 

ContrarianGoaltender

Registered User
Feb 28, 2007
868
788
tcghockey.com
Are you able to give a breakdown of the different abbreviations, so I can better understand the data presented?

Sure. All this information is taken from the NHL's individual plus/minus data (which for each player has the total goals with them on the ice, the total power play goals for with them on the ice, as well as the total goals against and the total power play goals against with them on the ice). That is combined with team totals for each season (total goals, total power play goals, and so on).

That's where the usage metric comes from, because we can look at the total team goals at each game situation and figure out how many of them came with the individual player on the ice. For example, in 1982-83 Wayne Gretzky was on the ice for 77 power play goals for and 35 power plays against. The 1983-84 Edmonton Oilers scored 86 power play goals and allowed 89 power play goals against, so we can calculate that Gretzky was on the ice for 90% of his team's power play goals and 39% of his team's shorthanded goals.

It should be noted that this doesn't necessarily correspond exactly to ice time, since Edmonton probably scored at a higher rate with Gretzky on the ice than without, so it is very possible that he only played, say, 80-85% of the ice time or whatever, but this is the best estimate we can come up with from the available data, and as long as we are comparing elite players to other elite players then that error should largely wash out and we will therefore have pretty good estimates.

TmPP+ and TmSH+ are team metrics that rate a team's success on special teams, including shorthanded goals. Again, looking at the 1982-83 Oilers, they scored 86 power play goals while allowing 6 shorthanded goals against, for a net goals for of 80 in 294 power play opportunities. The average team that year had 71 power play goals and 9 shorthanded goals against, for a net of 62 on 310 chances. Adjusting the Oilers to a league average number of opportunities bumps them up to 84 per 310 opportunities, and then 84/62 gives a TmPP+ of 1.35, which indicates an outstanding power play unit (35% more effective than average).

On the flip side, the Oilers allowed 89 goals while shorthanded, compared to the league average of 71. However, the Oilers also scored 22 times (average was 9), and the Oilers had to kill off 396 power plays, while the average team had only 310. That means Edmonton was a net 67 goals against in 396 chances, which pro-rates to just 52 in 310 chances. The average team was net 62, which gives the Oilers a TmSH+ rating of 0.84. Less than 1 is better for the shorthanded numbers, meaning they were 16% better than an average team.

Note that these are team ratings, for the entire team not just when a specific player is on the ice. An individual player can absolutely impact them, especially if their usage rate is very high, but at the same time they can only do so much as a member of a 4 or 5-man unit.

$PPP and $SHP are a player's points in each game situation, adjusted for scoring environment, games played and level of league power plays. This is pretty much just like any other adjusted points stat, except for the additional factor of a team's individual power play chances for/against. For example, Gretzky scored 54 power play points in 1983, which adjusts to 48 $PPP. In 1989, he had 53 power play points, but that adjusts to just 38 $PPP, mainly because we'd expect him to score more given that the average team scored 85 power play goals in 1989 compared to 71 in 1983, and because the 1989 Kings had slightly more opportunities compared to league average than the 1983 Oilers. $SHP works the same way, except for shorthanded points.

I've also done a bunch of posts about adjusted even-strength plus/minus, that calculation is done by taking a player's individual plusses and minuses, adjusting for shorthanded goals for and against based on their usage stats, and then subtracting them from the team's overall even strength goals for and against. That gives us a "on-ice" number of even strength goals for and against for each player, and an "off-ice" number of even strength goals for and against with the player either on the bench or in the press box. Comparing those ratios gives us the sense of whether a player was better at outscoring relative to the rest of his teammates. Obviously this stat is influenced by a player's linemates, how the coach used them, how good the rest of their team was, and so on, but it is at least one way to look at a player's overall impact beyond just counting points.
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,773
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
Harvey was much smarter, more composed, better positioned, less physical (which was a high bar set by Shore)...he also babysat a ton of loser partners over his career...and I don't take that from anecdotes, I watch these players like Al Langlois and Dollard St. Laurent and they're fringe NHLers...and he was dragging them around for the ride. Having a capable skating and/or puck handling partner probably would have aided Harvey a little more statistically, but alas, he was paired with the #5 d-man because he was such a strong #1.

*MOD EDIT: Excised the Shore specific information. The content has been sent via PM*

Harvey was not a high-transaction player...thinking man's player, he could support far weaker players without exposing himself or his goalie in the process...

Harvey was much more physical than the referenced.

An elite football player and champion Golden Gloves boxer, he did not require raw overt physicality. He understood body positioning and leverage, how to initiate sharp telling hits that would wear down opposition players. Better memory than Gordie Howe.

I am amused by references to dirty for Doug Harvey. Contemporary standards - Brad Marchand, Tom Wilson, even Chris Pronger do not apply. Harvey like the former amateur boxer that he was would work the opponents upper body and arms inclose.
 
Last edited:

Michael Farkas

Grace Personified
Jun 28, 2006
13,352
7,833
NYC
www.HockeyProspect.com
[Unnamed comparison player] was a barbarian though...that's why I put that parenthetical statement there...[Boston guy] was one of the most physical - to a fault, in my opinion - relevant defensemen in the history of the game...maybe the most...

Harvey was tough when he had to be and was physical for purpose (plus a little extra...beer muscles and all) - [Coastline] was physical because he knew no other way to play...
 

blogofmike

Registered User
Dec 16, 2010
2,178
926
Note that these are team ratings, for the entire team not just when a specific player is on the ice. An individual player can absolutely impact them, especially if their usage rate is very high, but at the same time they can only do so much as a member of a 4 or 5-man unit.

I think that part gets overlooked.

Comparing those ratios gives us the sense of whether a player was better at outscoring relative to the rest of his teammates. Obviously this stat is influenced by a player's linemates, how the coach used them, how good the rest of their team was, and so on, but it is at least one way to look at a player's overall impact beyond just counting points.

That part too.
 

MXD

Original #4
Oct 27, 2005
50,672
16,395
... I always had the impression that the comparator was.... you know... romantically tough and dirty, while Harvey's violence wasn't romantic at all.
 

bobholly39

Registered User
Mar 10, 2013
22,078
14,589
Sure. All this information is taken from the NHL's individual plus/minus data (which for each player has the total goals with them on the ice, the total power play goals for with them on the ice, as well as the total goals against and the total power play goals against with them on the ice). That is combined with team totals for each season (total goals, total power play goals, and so on).

That's where the usage metric comes from, because we can look at the total team goals at each game situation and figure out how many of them came with the individual player on the ice. For example, in 1982-83 Wayne Gretzky was on the ice for 77 power play goals for and 35 power plays against. The 1983-84 Edmonton Oilers scored 86 power play goals and allowed 89 power play goals against, so we can calculate that Gretzky was on the ice for 90% of his team's power play goals and 39% of his team's shorthanded goals.

It should be noted that this doesn't necessarily correspond exactly to ice time, since Edmonton probably scored at a higher rate with Gretzky on the ice than without, so it is very possible that he only played, say, 80-85% of the ice time or whatever, but this is the best estimate we can come up with from the available data, and as long as we are comparing elite players to other elite players then that error should largely wash out and we will therefore have pretty good estimates.

TmPP+ and TmSH+ are team metrics that rate a team's success on special teams, including shorthanded goals. Again, looking at the 1982-83 Oilers, they scored 86 power play goals while allowing 6 shorthanded goals against, for a net goals for of 80 in 294 power play opportunities. The average team that year had 71 power play goals and 9 shorthanded goals against, for a net of 62 on 310 chances. Adjusting the Oilers to a league average number of opportunities bumps them up to 84 per 310 opportunities, and then 84/62 gives a TmPP+ of 1.35, which indicates an outstanding power play unit (35% more effective than average).

On the flip side, the Oilers allowed 89 goals while shorthanded, compared to the league average of 71. However, the Oilers also scored 22 times (average was 9), and the Oilers had to kill off 396 power plays, while the average team had only 310. That means Edmonton was a net 67 goals against in 396 chances, which pro-rates to just 52 in 310 chances. The average team was net 62, which gives the Oilers a TmSH+ rating of 0.84. Less than 1 is better for the shorthanded numbers, meaning they were 16% better than an average team.

Note that these are team ratings, for the entire team not just when a specific player is on the ice. An individual player can absolutely impact them, especially if their usage rate is very high, but at the same time they can only do so much as a member of a 4 or 5-man unit.

$PPP and $SHP are a player's points in each game situation, adjusted for scoring environment, games played and level of league power plays. This is pretty much just like any other adjusted points stat, except for the additional factor of a team's individual power play chances for/against. For example, Gretzky scored 54 power play points in 1983, which adjusts to 48 $PPP. In 1989, he had 53 power play points, but that adjusts to just 38 $PPP, mainly because we'd expect him to score more given that the average team scored 85 power play goals in 1989 compared to 71 in 1983, and because the 1989 Kings had slightly more opportunities compared to league average than the 1983 Oilers. $SHP works the same way, except for shorthanded points.

I've also done a bunch of posts about adjusted even-strength plus/minus, that calculation is done by taking a player's individual plusses and minuses, adjusting for shorthanded goals for and against based on their usage stats, and then subtracting them from the team's overall even strength goals for and against. That gives us a "on-ice" number of even strength goals for and against for each player, and an "off-ice" number of even strength goals for and against with the player either on the bench or in the press box. Comparing those ratios gives us the sense of whether a player was better at outscoring relative to the rest of his teammates. Obviously this stat is influenced by a player's linemates, how the coach used them, how good the rest of their team was, and so on, but it is at least one way to look at a player's overall impact beyond just counting points.

Thank you very much for the explanation.

Now that I understand this better i will go back and review the data posted so I can better assess.
 

ImporterExporter

"You're a boring old man"
Jun 18, 2013
18,780
7,807
Oblivion Express
Quotes about Orr from peers.


Gordie Howe on Bobby Orr:


“I’ve never seen a player dominate both ends of the ice like that young man did”. There will never be another that could do as much – only his knees prevented him from doing it longer.”

"Sure, Orr leads the rush, but he’s so quick that he’s the first one back on defense. He’s got the legs."


Harry Sinden:

"He's the perfect hockey player."

Those are the words of Boston coach/GM Harry Sinden, who had the best look at Orr on a nightly basis and insists Orr is the best player ever because he blended extraordinary talent and a brand of toughness that no one else has ever possessed.

"(Gordie) Howe could do everything, but not at top speed. (Bobby) Hull went at top speed but couldn't do everything. The physical aspect is absent from (Wayne) Gretzky's game. Orr would do everything, and do it at top speed."


Bobby Clarke and Darryl Sittler:

Despite his knee, Orr's performance in the Canada Cup led to him being named to the tournament All-Star team and he was named the overall MVP for the tournament.[85] According to teammate Bobby Clarke, Orr "would hardly be able to walk on the morning of the game. And he would hardly be able to walk in the afternoon. And then, at night, he would be the best player on one of the greatest teams ever assembled. He was the best player in every game; he was the best player in the tournament. He couldn't skate like he used to, but he could still go."[86] According to teammate Darryl Sittler, "Bobby Orr was better on one leg, than anybody else was on two."[33]


Bernie Parent:

Orr also had a deadly accurate shot, as goaltender Philadelphia Flyers Bernie Parent admitted "If his shot is on net, it's a goal".[65]


Brad Park:

Orr was frequently compared to Brad Park, who played a similar style to Orr and later succeeded Orr as Boston's top defenceman, and the two often fought each other on-ice, fueling the bitter rivalry between the Bruins and New York Rangers. Park said "I saw no reason to be upset because I was rated second to Bobby Orr. After all, Orr not only was the top defenceman in the game but he was considered the best player ever to put on a pair of skates. There was nothing insulting about being rated number two to such a super superstar"


Jean Beliveau:

"Nobody is a perfect hockey player," Montreal Canadiens center Jean Beliveau said. "The important thing is to correct your mistakes. Orr, he does that. He is always there. He blocks the shots. He can skate. He can shoot. Is there anything more?"

bobby-orr-quotes-i-believe-bobby-had-the-greatest-impact-of-any-player-to-come-along-in-my-bobby-orr-inspirational-quotes.jpg



Phil Esposito:

Once when we were killing a penalty against the Oakland Seals, Bobby took the puck behind our net, tussled with one of their guys, and lost one of his gloves. He went around by the blue line, came back, picked up his glove, still had the puck, killed well over a minute of that penalty—and then he scored. Greatest thing I ever saw.


Gerry Cheevers:

"Here’s a kid who’s only 21 years old and he’s keeping us all alive and well. He’s got to win the Hart Trophy as the most valuable player, the Norris Trophy as the best defenseman and the Vezina Trophy as the best goaltender—Bobby has stopped more shots this year than any goalie in the league."


Jack Falla:

“Orr had broken scoring records by such huge margins and played with such creativity and abandon as to alter a half century of tactical hockey orthodoxy about the proper role of a defenseman.”



upload_2018-11-2_12-53-25.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dr John Carlson

ted2019

History of Hockey
Oct 3, 2008
5,492
1,882
pittsgrove nj
I was indirectly convinced to put Howe over Orr by Sturminator, which I did.

TDMM almost convinced me to reconsider concerning Gretzky, but in the end I stuck to my guns.Still not sure I did the right thing.That's always the case when ranking the top trio.

So you used this project for the way it was meant to be, open up peoples minds to other ideas. Kudos!
 

ContrarianGoaltender

Registered User
Feb 28, 2007
868
788
tcghockey.com
Second, what does this mean for Orr, if the Bruins not only replicate the ratio 2 years after he's gone, but while he's there?

What I think it means for Orr is that his effectiveness probably dropped much more than the stats suggest from 1973-75 compared to at his absolute peak. I've noticed that your criticisms of Orr's ratio are focused on the mid-'70s, and I think there is a reason for that. I think the knee surgery that kept Orr out of the Summit Series might have been his version of the Suter hit, although perhaps not quite to the same extent.

After 1972, Orr's ESGA per game went up, his shorthanded scoring went down, and his adjusted plus/minuses started dropping in the regular season. In the playoffs, his scoring dropped and his adjusted plus/minuses really dropped. I think his decline was perhaps camouflaged somewhat by the fact that there was less parity and the talent was being diluted by the WHA. But yeah, I think you've made the case that there is some reason to be a bit skeptical of the magnitude of Orr's numbers from the mid-'70s. The problem is that the case that he surpassed Gretzky in peak value is based primarily on 1970-72. In 1971, Orr's R-off was 1.31, and he still put up the best adjusted plus/minus season of all-time.

Third (perhaps this is for later) what does this mean about ratios?

I don't know. If ratios are meaningless, what's your explanation for Orr's consistent outscoring? That Boston tried to get Bobby Orr points so much that nobody was trying to score while he was off the ice? That Orr, despite being an elite penalty killer and acknowledged by many observers as one of if not the best defensive defenceman in hockey, was used only in offensive scenarios to pad his stats? That the Bruins had the worst second-pairing of all-time for like seven seasons in a row?

There's a huge difference between a three year sample size and a 15 game sample size, especially when you are looking at on-ice stats for an individual player. I do think that on-ice goals analysis simply doesn't work over tiny sample sizes. It isn't necessarily meaningless, but at the same it is very possible for a shooter or goalie to run hot or cold and really skew the numbers. For example, we've seen with recent analytical studies that players can have a high variance of on-ice shooting percentage and save percentage numbers from season to season, and that's over 82 games. Erik Karlsson has a 4.23% on-ice shooting percentage and an .849 on-ice save percentage in 13 games at 5-on-5 this season, something like that is going to kill his relative stats but it's definitely not going to last.

If the results from things like adjusted plus/minus were consistently screwy, then there would be good reason to discount them. But honestly, for the most part they seem to make sense, which is why I think they offer more a lot more signal than noise, especially when we look at samples of three seasons or more. That said, of course they should be viewed in context, like every stat in hockey, and anything that can interpret them in a better light should be noted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: seventieslord

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,773
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
Love how some of the data gets twisted by the usual suspects. Case in point Jean Beliveau's ES play and usage in the 3rd period.

NHL.com - Stats

While it is true that the 1956-60 RS dynasty Canadiens scored more goals in the third period than either the first or second, the poster conveniently left out that:

- the team gave up more goals in the third period than in the first or second.

- the goal differential steadily increased as the.game progressed from period to period, Canadiens outscored the opposition by 116 first period goals, 139 second period goals and 160 third goals.

So the team was able to optimize the deployment of their star players at ES in the third period,not wasting efforts in slush time that produced chippy play or unnecessary activity. Chance to reward depth players with time and experience in non-risk situations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BenchBrawl

ImporterExporter

"You're a boring old man"
Jun 18, 2013
18,780
7,807
Oblivion Express
Scotty Bowman on Orr:

“We were always strategizing [against Orr],” Bowman said. “Our game plan would revolve around him and trying to keep the puck away from him. When we had the puck, we would only bring it up the other side of the ice he was on. If you brought it up his side, his anticipation was so good. He'd jump you and steal the puck. There was no retreat in his game. None.”


-This is so telling. First off, everyone had to plan their game around Orr. But it wasn't just defensively as teams would have had to do with Gretzky. Orr literally altered other teams attacking schemes. He literally took away an entire side of the ice defensively.


https://www.tsn.ca/bowman-on-the-unstoppable-greatness-of-orr-1.586976
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,773
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
What I think it means for Orr is that his effectiveness probably dropped much more than the stats suggest from 1973-75 compared to at his absolute peak. I've noticed that your criticisms of Orr's ratio are focused on the mid-'70s, and I think there is a reason for that. I think the knee surgery that kept Orr out of the Summit Series might have been his version of the Suter hit, although perhaps not quite to the same extent.

After 1972, Orr's ESGA per game went up, his shorthanded scoring went down, and his adjusted plus/minuses started dropping in the regular season. In the playoffs, his scoring dropped and his adjusted plus/minuses really dropped. I think his decline was perhaps camouflaged somewhat by the fact that there was less parity and the talent was being diluted by the WHA. But yeah, I think you've made the case that there is some reason to be a bit skeptical of the magnitude of Orr's numbers from the mid-'70s. The problem is that the case that he surpassed Gretzky in peak value is based primarily on 1970-72. In 1971, Orr's R-off was 1.31, and he still put up the best adjusted plus/minus season of all-time.



I don't know. If ratios are meaningless, what's your explanation for Orr's consistent outscoring? That Boston tried to get Bobby Orr points so much that nobody was trying to score while he was off the ice? That Orr, despite being an elite penalty killer and acknowledged by many observers as one of if not the best defensive defenceman in hockey, was used only in offensive scenarios to pad his stats? That the Bruins had the worst second-pairing of all-time for like seven seasons in a row?

There's a huge difference between a three year sample size and a 15 game sample size, especially when you are looking at on-ice stats for an individual player. I do think that on-ice goals analysis simply doesn't work over tiny sample sizes. It isn't necessarily meaningless, but at the same it is very possible for a shooter or goalie to run hot or cold and really skew the numbers. For example, we've seen with recent analytical studies that players can have a high variance of on-ice shooting percentage and save percentage numbers from season to season, and that's over 82 games. Erik Karlsson has a 4.23% on-ice shooting percentage and an .849 on-ice save percentage in 13 games at 5-on-5 this season, something like that is going to kill his relative stats but it's definitely not going to last.

If the results from things like adjusted plus/minus were consistently screwy, then there would be good reason to discount them. But honestly, for the most part they seem to make sense, which is why I think they offer more a lot more signal than noise, especially when we look at samples of three seasons or more. That said, of course they should be viewed in context, like every stat in hockey, and anything that can interpret them in a better light should be noted.

Interesting observation. Orr's knee vs Gretzky's back.

Orr:

NHL.com - Stats

Gretzky:

NHL.com - Stats

Gretzky reduced sample space:
NHL.com - Stats

Note the huge ratio difference +/- shown by Gretzky home and away. Contrary to Orr and another player who suffered two major broken legs.Both show normal deployment and performance.

Seems like Gretzky may have had a home and away back.
 

Captain Bowie

Registered User
Jan 18, 2012
27,139
4,414
Scotty Bowman on Orr:

“We were always strategizing [against Orr],” Bowman said. “Our game plan would revolve around him and trying to keep the puck away from him. When we had the puck, we would only bring it up the other side of the ice he was on. If you brought it up his side, his anticipation was so good. He'd jump you and steal the puck. There was no retreat in his game. None.”


-This is so telling. First off, everyone had to plan their game around Orr. But it wasn't just defensively as teams would have had to do with Gretzky. Orr literally altered other teams attacking schemes. He literally took away an entire side of the ice defensively.


https://www.tsn.ca/bowman-on-the-unstoppable-greatness-of-orr-1.586976
Do you think he was the only defenceman that had such an impact on opposing strategy? (Not meaning that in an accusatory way, but as an actual honest question).
 

Kyle McMahon

Registered User
May 10, 2006
13,301
4,352
To respond to a couple posts from the previous thread...

From @Ageless :
3 harts+ three second place finishes
6 art Ross
4 Lindsay’s
3 Richards
B2b smythes (78 points combined)
199 points
160 in 60
46 game point streak
I could go on. No other player comes close

So you concede Lemieux was the worst of the 10 candidates in terms of non-offensive contributions? A re-hashing of his trophy case offers no rebuttal to that suggestion.

From @danincanada :
There's kind of a third option as well. How about attempting to put into perspective what it actually meant to finish 5th in Hart voting in a 6 team league? A "most valuable to his team" award has far less competition with only 6 teams, again, especially when 2 or 3 of those teams are just fodder for the 3 or 4 strong teams.
Only once did Harvey finish ahead of all teammates in Hart voting while with the Habs and that year Beliveau missed 15 games and Henri Richard was right behind Harvey in voting.
This is all before even pointing out that it was practically a domestic league in terms of talent. It's simply not apples to apples when comparing it with a much larger league with far more streams of talent, no matter how many times people try to pretend it is.

Given how often we've seen two teammates both receive serious Hart consideration in the same season in leagues of 12-30 teams, league size would seemingly have little or no correlation at all on what a 5th place Hart finish is worth.

You seem to have had it in for Harvey for quite some time...well, this is the chance to expand your case and demonstrate why you feel he is inferior to any other particular candidate. You've laid some groundwork as to why Beliveau should perhaps be ranked ahead of Harvey in the project, so that's a start. The usual disparaging remarks about hockey from a certain time period are less helpful.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->