The history of the Art Ross Trophy and whether it shapes our views of players

[Dennis Bonvie]

No, I didn't take it as VL4 was better. I don't think anyone would stake such a bizarre claim anyhow. But the notion that there's more of X may be reflected in game tactics and structure. Or simply better scorekeeping. Or................there's probably a small percentage of assists that shouldn't count. And really all of those are better served as "and/or".

To take it another direction: There's more saves now. 98% of unscreened/not deflected shots are stopped. The public has never valued save pct. more, I'd say (though, partially because it wasn't publicly available before 1982). No matter how you slice that statement or the ones about assists, it's not going to be as simple as most people want it to be.

For the purposes of this forum and this discussion, it's not a commodity that we're trading on.

I don't think it's that small.

If the 2nd assist were eliminated, I think we would have a much better idea of who the best offensive players really are. Especially in terms of offensive defensemen.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Probably. Every time we get new numbers, some people's opinions change. the longer the number is around, the more respect it gets.

That said, if numbers were counted differently in terms of players' legacies, it's likely some players would play differently, with Sid being a good example. The narrative prior to the 16-17 season was Sid thought he didn't score enough goals and wanted to focus more on that. The end result is his second Rocket. Do we see a different Sid if he needs to score a lot of goals to get silverware?

Or perhaps he just happened to score more goals in 16-17. He did lead the league in goals with 51 in 2009-10. Great players like Crosby just do what they need to do to win, not to get silverware.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I don't think it's that small.

If the 2nd assist were eliminated, I think we would have a much better idea of who the best offensive players really are. Especially in terms of offensive defensemen.

Or...you're introducing style of play bias further into it. For instance, that diesel Philadelphia defense of a handful of years back that Alain Vigneault didn't allow to cross their own hashmarks with the puck. They're doing the grunt work, they're taking the hit, they have to get up and out of the sewer and make a zone exit pass to a slow center.

They deserve nothing when the center just kicks it out for Konecny to spring down the wing and take to the hole? The center just chipping it ahead for overlap support, that's the moneymaker?

Erik Karlsson in San Jose, has to try to take passes with speed behind the puck and carry it across 2, 2.5, even 3 lines. Then try to go around the horn in the offensive zone until someone funnels through the mid slot. He deserves nothing AND it is indicative of his play that he gets nothing for being more or less the only multi-line carrier on the roster...?

I know it's easier to go "ah, that's rubbish, secondary assists are [blank]" but it's not right. Which again, doesn't mean they're all a Van Gogh...but neither are all primaries or goals and to my knowledge no one has actually done real research on the quality and caliber of these while taking into consideration team tactics and other factors. And for good reason, that'd be hard...

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Or...you're introducing style of play bias further into it. For instance, that diesel Philadelphia defense of a handful of years back that Alain Vigneault didn't allow to cross their own hashmarks with the puck. They're doing the grunt work, they're taking the hit, they have to get up and out of the sewer and make a zone exit pass to a slow center.

They deserve nothing when the center just kicks it out for Konecny to spring down the wing and take to the hole? The center just chipping it ahead for overlap support, that's the moneymaker?

Erik Karlsson in San Jose, has to try to take passes with speed behind the puck and carry it across 2, 2.5, even 3 lines. Then try to go around the horn in the offensive zone until someone funnels through the mid slot. He deserves nothing AND it is indicative of his play that he gets nothing for being more or less the only multi-line carrier on the roster...?

I know it's easier to go "ah, that's rubbish, secondary assists are [blank]" but it's not right. Which again, doesn't mean they're all a Van Gogh...but neither are all primaries or goals and to my knowledge no one has actually done real research on the quality and caliber of these while taking into consideration team tactics and other factors. And for good reason, that'd be hard...

And of course there is the example of the guy already sitting on the bench getting a 2nd assist.

It's not a question of getting credit. The guy taking the hit and getting the puck out of their own zone is making a very important hockey play. But I wouldn't consider it a measure of offensive ability.

Consideration of tactics and other factors that vary from team to team would still be the same regardless of how many assists are granted for each goal.

 

[Michael Farkas]

And of course there is the example of the guy already sitting on the bench getting a 2nd assist.

It's not a question of getting credit. The guy taking the hit and getting the puck out of their own zone is making a very important hockey play. But I wouldn't consider it a measure of offensive ability.

Consideration of tactics and other factors that vary from team to team would still be the same regardless of how many assists are granted for each goal.

But make no mistake, you want less data to make your opinion, right?

Again, we'll never know, but I bet if we only had one assist this whole time and someone came along and said "behold! assist-assists!" we'd consider that to be the single greatest breakthrough in hockey stat history...but because twice a year someone gets an assist while they're on the bench (Maxime Talbot's first career goal, he's on the bench for it haha), we want to toss tens of thousands of data points away...that's fine with me because it doesn't drive my opinions, but it feels highly questionable...

 

[tabness]

I think the whole secondary assist thing just emphasizes how the points stat in general simply misses so much. Because I totally agree that team style/role has a lot to do in terms of what type of points a player would get, and then you could even call out the need for tertiary assists and so on to capture all the important parts of a play, and where does it really end? As someone who's been quite interested enough in stats before, even bothering to build stats scrapers and programs and all that, I can't help but be even more firm in my view that stats simply do not capture enough of a hockey game and take a very pessimistic view of their epistemic value. Can stats really capture what happened in a game and determine player contribution/who played well so you don't need to watch the game, and the corollary, when you watching a game, do you really need any stats at that point?

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

But make no mistake, you want less data to make your opinion, right?

Again, we'll never know, but I bet if we only had one assist this whole time and someone came along and said "behold! assist-assists!" we'd consider that to be the single greatest breakthrough in hockey stat history...but because twice a year someone gets an assist while they're on the bench (Maxime Talbot's first career goal, he's on the bench for it haha), we want to toss tens of thousands of data points away...that's fine with me because it doesn't drive my opinions, but it feels highly questionable...

This thread is supposed to be about the view of players if the Art Ross Trophy was based on different criteria (I think). It's not a matter of less data. Maybe the same players would still the win the scoring titles, hard to say. Just that I see so many secondary assists that are basically just innocuous touches that other offensively talented players turn into goals.

 

[tabness]

This thread is supposed to be about the view of players if the Art Ross Trophy was based on different criteria (I think). It's not a matter of less data. Maybe the same players would still the win the scoring titles, hard to say. Just that I see so many secondary assists that are basically just innocuous touches that other offensively talented players turn into goals.

There are definitely several scoring leaders that change if you take away the second assist. I checked for 100 primary point scorers, but even non 100 primary point scorers you have a different primary point leader (i.e. Naslund in 2003, Lecavalier in 2007, Crosby/Ovechkin in 2010). Defensemen primary points also show Orr and especially Coffey separating themselves from the rest even more.

100 Primary Points

I have been wanting to gather all the boxscore data throughout the history of the NHL for a long time now but the data has never been readily available until recently. It is now available through the NHL statsapi but I hate computers and suck at using them (despite being a product manager in...

forums.hfboards.com

name	season	primary points	games played	goals	points
Wayne Gretzky	1981-1982	181	80	92	212
Wayne Gretzky	1983-1984	177	74	87	205
Wayne Gretzky	1984-1985	171	80	73	208
Wayne Gretzky	1985-1986	164	80	52	215
Wayne Gretzky	1982-1983	164	80	71	196
Mario Lemieux	1988-1989	155	76	85	199
Wayne Gretzky	1986-1987	154	79	62	183
Wayne Gretzky	1980-1981	129	80	55	164
Mario Lemieux	1987-1988	127	77	70	168
Mario Lemieux	1995-1996	125	70	69	161
Mario Lemieux	1992-1993	124	60	69	160
Steve Yzerman	1988-1989	124	80	65	155
Connor McDavid	2022-2023	123	80	64	151
Wayne Gretzky	1990-1991	122	78	41	163
Phil Esposito	1970-1971	122	78	76	152
Bernie Nicholls	1988-1989	121	79	70	150
Pat LaFontaine	1992-1993	121	84	53	148
Wayne Gretzky	1988-1989	120	78	54	168
Mike Bossy	1981-1982	117	80	64	147
Phil Esposito	1973-1974	117	78	68	145
Dennis Maruk	1981-1982	116	80	60	136
Wayne Gretzky	1987-1988	114	64	40	149
Marcel Dionne	1979-1980	113	80	53	137
Pierre Turgeon	1992-1993	113	83	58	132
Brett Hull	1990-1991	113	78	86	131
Mario Lemieux	1985-1986	112	79	48	141
Jaromir Jagr	1995-1996	111	82	62	149
Guy Lafleur	1976-1977	111	80	56	136
Peter Stastny	1981-1982	110	80	46	139
Steve Yzerman	1992-1993	110	84	58	137
Jari Kurri	1984-1985	110	73	71	135
Guy Lafleur	1977-1978	110	78	60	132
Kent Nilsson	1980-1981	110	80	49	131
Dale Hawerchuk	1984-1985	109	80	53	130
Leon Draisaitl	2022-2023	109	78	51	124

(this last year McDavid ended with 124, Draisaitl with 112)

Primary points among 100 point seasons by defensemen:

• Paul Coffey 1985-1986 104
• Bobby Orr 1970-1971 86
• Paul Coffey 1988-1989 86
• Bobby Orr 1974-1975 85
• Paul Coffey 1983-1984 85
• Bobby Orr 1969-1970 84
• Bobby Orr 1973-1974 78
• Paul Coffey 1984-1985 76
• Bobby Orr 1971-1972 74
• Paul Coffey 1989-1990 71
• Bobby Orr 1972-1973 68
• Erik Karlsson 2022-2023 67
• Al MacInnis 1990-1991 64
• Denis Potvin 1978-1979 63
• Brian Leetch 1991-1992 62

Primary point scoring leader different than scoring leader:

• 1974-1975: Phil Esposito (Bobby Orr)
• 1989-1990: Steve Yzerman (Wayne Gretzky)
• 1993-1994: Sergei Fedorov (Wayne Gretzky)
• 2005-2006: Jaromir Jagr (Joe Thornton)

 

[Victorias]

I think the whole secondary assist thing just emphasizes how the points stat in general simply misses so much. Because I totally agree that team style/role has a lot to do in terms of what type of points a player would get, and then you could even call out the need for tertiary assists and so on to capture all the important parts of a play, and where does it really end? As someone who's been quite interested enough in stats before, even bothering to build stats scrapers and programs and all that, I can't help but be even more firm in my view that stats simply do not capture enough of a hockey game and take a very pessimistic view of their epistemic value. Can stats really capture what happened in a game and determine player contribution/who played well so you don't need to watch the game, and the corollary, when you watching a game, do you really need any stats at that point?

Can stats really capture what happened in a game and determine player contribution/who played well so you don't need to watch the game?
No, but it’s obviously not possible for everyone to watch every game. Let alone 100+ years of hockey…

when you watching a game, do you really need any stats at that point?
I would still say yes because we are all susceptible to biases. Look at the Crosby vs McDavid comments in the main board - people sometimes see what they want to see.

So, I do think stats are essential, as a starting point if nothing else. As one example, seeing that Fedorov led the league in primary points in 93-94 helps me understand why he won the Hart. I know it was primarily because of elite two-way play, but maybe the people voting for him saw him as the top offensive contributor too.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Scouts don't watch 70 junior games of one player to make a determination. Extremely inefficient.

 

[Victorias]

Scouts don't watch 70 junior games of one player to make a determination. Extremely inefficient.

We’re not talking about scouting a player. We’re talking about deciding who had the better season (generally among NHL superstars). e.g. who deserved the Hart in 93-94

 

[Michael Farkas]

They're not as different as some folks want them to be...

 

[tabness]

Can stats really capture what happened in a game and determine player contribution/who played well so you don't need to watch the game?
No, but it’s obviously not possible for everyone to watch every game. Let alone 100+ years of hockey…

when you watching a game, do you really need any stats at that point?
I would still say yes because we are all susceptible to biases. Look at the Crosby vs McDavid comments in the main board - people sometimes see what they want to see.

So, I do think stats are essential, as a starting point if nothing else. As one example, seeing that Fedorov led the league in primary points in 93-94 helps me understand why he won the Hart. I know it was primarily because of elite two-way play, but maybe the people voting for him saw him as the top offensive contributor too.

I mean people see what they want from with respect to stats and awards too.

Now as an example, look at Brett Hull's stats with the primary/secondary split. To me, Brett Hull at his zenith is far removed from the caricature of the triggerman that he often gets labelled as, one of his most underrated assets was his passing, and it isn't as if the vision he had to get lost and get open for the shot wasn't useful in his playmaking. His skating and his physical game also massively improved at the turn of the nineties, he was a play carrier in a way he rarely gets respect for. But look at his paltry assist and also primary assist totals. It doesn't reflect that Brett Hull himself would finish a play that he himself started, because you can't get a goal and an assist on the same play.

 

[Victorias]

They're not as different as some folks want them to be...

So, you watch a handful of games of the key players, make a scouting report, and that allows you to determine who played better over 82 games. Between guys with similar ability too. Amazing.

I get that you’re a scout, but not you’re omnisciently aware of everything that’s happening when you’re not watching. Let alone your own biases (which I’ve already noticed when you’ve discussed “long shot goals” on goalies).

I mean people see what they want from with respect to stats and awards too.

Now as an example, look at Brett Hull's stats with the primary/secondary split. To me, Brett Hull at his zenith is far removed from the caricature of the triggerman that he often gets labelled as, one of his most underrated assets was his passing, and it isn't as if the vision he had to get lost and get open for the shot wasn't useful in his playmaking. His skating and his physical game also massively improved at the turn of the nineties, he was a play carrier in a way he rarely gets respect for. But look at his paltry assist and also primary assist totals. It doesn't reflect that Brett Hull himself would finish a play that he himself started, because you can't get a goal and an assist on the same play.

Yeah, of course. Both are subject to biases.

 

[Michael Farkas]

So, you watch a handful of games of the key players, make a scouting report, and that allows you to determine who played better over 82 games. Between guys with similar ability too. Amazing.

Well, it's not about that really. But yeah, I can make an informed opinion about players in terms of, say, MVP candidacy and the like by rotating through the schedule (I go division by division, effectively). I mean, it's not like I have to sit there adjudge the Art Ross. Someone else counts that for me.

And I've freely admitted that the Selke is exceedingly tricky. So would any "defensive defenseman" award if someone wanted to concoct that.

But yeah, there are scalable and consistent traits that would give indicators to the "judgment" awards, certainly. I'm not claiming omniscience. I'm confident in my eyes because they've led me the right way so far. But I'm also not sitting here rubbing two sticks together by going, "ah, this player had more secondary assists...I award the award to..............that guy, over there."

And I'm not suggesting that you're doing that, but the idea that it requires 82 games * X amount of players to find out what's going on and what the trends are and/or that watching a handful of games is either not helpful or detrimental to the process of adjudging these things is a real stomach knot for me...

It's not like I'm going all Birdbox as soon as I come across a stat. Contrary to popular belief, I don't want less data to inform my decisions...I just don't automatically assume that all data is good and objective.

 

[Kranix]

Maybe IPP, on-ice shooting %, and iSCF/60, Shots/60 are useful for this.