Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Preliminary Discussion Thread (With a Vengeance)

[BM67]

On giveaways, a play is either counted as a giveaway or a takeaway, not both (although in some arenas it does seem to be counted as both sometimes.)

About Clapper, He spent 10 years as a RW and probably rates as #3 behind Cook and Conacher over the time-period. He then spent 10 years as a D, and beat out Earl Seibert for 3 1st team nods after only getting a few votes in his 1st year after the switch.

 

[ted2019]

What does Karlsson need to do to make your list?

Play some sort of defense.

 

[Captain Bowie]

Play some sort of defense.

Ridiculous.

 

[ted2019]

Ridiculous.

I just don't see him as a top 100 player. Maybe he gets in on my #101-120 section.

 

[Captain Bowie]

I just don't see him as a top 100 player. Maybe he gets in on my #101-120 section.

That's perfectly fine. I'm a fan and he just barely made my list.

Saying he doesn't play any defense at all is ridiculous.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Worth exploring if Boston defensemen are not "credited" with giveaways...Boston, in the post-lockout era, has been notable for not having very skilled defensemen vs. the field and vs. their own success. So one would expect higher turnover rates than most teams.

From 2005 to just before the start of 08-09, Chara leads the way among all league d-men...possibly a product of many things, including a collapsing system where the top priority is moving unpredictable rebounds to safety and Chara not having the skating or puck skills to hold the puck around his own net...

Here are the road takeaway and road giveaway leaders since the lockout.

	Take			Give
Pavel Datsyuk	182		Jaromir Jagr	165
Martin St. Louis	127		Zdeno Chara	155
Evgeni Malkin	117		Alexander Ovechkin	144
John Madden	114		Joe Thornton	138
Marian Hossa	112		Marc Savard	135
Sidney Crosby	110		Hal Gill	130
Scott Gomez	109		Sidney Crosby	126
Derek Roy	106		Jason Spezza	125
Duncan n makes a differenceKeith	106		Jay Bouwmeester	125
Mikko Koivu	105		Alex Kovalev	124

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Whether a team plays man-to-man or zone with its defencemen impacts takeaways and giveaways.

Also the quickness getting to the puck impacts the same stats.

 

[steve141]

Giveaways are a strange stat. I think it is more an indication of puck possession than anything else. The leaders in giveaways seem to always be the leaders in time on ice, and the people who have the puck the most. You can't give away the puck if you never have it. Notice how the leaders in giveaways are never 3rd line wingers, it's always an all-star player.

To be useful giveaways should be counted as "giveaways per possession". As it is I really don't know how to use the stat.

 

[MXD]

On giveaways, a play is either counted as a giveaway or a takeaway, not both (although in some arenas it does seem to be counted as both sometimes.)

About Clapper, He spent 10 years as a RW and probably rates as #3 behind Cook and Conacher over the time-period. He then spent 10 years as a D, and beat out Earl Seibert for 3 1st team nods after only getting a few votes in his 1st year after the switch.

During that period, he's also way, way closer to Cecil Dillon (who had a very tough road to icetime) than to Cook and Conacher.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Giveaways are a strange stat. I think it is more an indication of puck possession than anything else. The leaders in giveaways seem to always be the leaders in time on ice, and the people who have the puck the most. You can't give away the puck if you never have it. Notice how the leaders in giveaways are never 3rd line wingers, it's always an all-star player.

To be useful giveaways should be counted as "giveaways per possession". As it is I really don't know how to use the stat.

Only one giveaway per possession is possible.

 

[Theokritos]

Only one giveaway per possession is possible.

Sure, but you can also have no giveaway. The worst case would be one giveaway per possession = 100%, the best case zero giveaways per possession = 0%. In reality the average number would be somewhere in between and that would be worded as (e.g.) 0.3 giveaways per possession, no?

 

[Theokritos]

Some quotes from Dominik Hasek’s goaltending coach in Buffalo:


“He was so smart he knew exactly what was going to happen next, but he was too early,” Korn said. “So he showed his hand like a bad poker player, and that gave players a chance to adjust to Dom, and so he just didn’t have enough patience to make greatness of his ability to process what was going on.”

“I believe Dominik Hasek’s one of the few guys that had all thousand pieces,” he said. “I can tell you when I met Dom, almost all of the thousand pieces were spread out all over the table, and they weren’t put together yet.”

So they worked on an array of goaltending skills – skating, handling the puck and even catching it. “Literally, Dom had to learn how to close his glove and catch pucks,” Korn said. “He didn’t really close his glove to catch pucks.”

Thanks for these enlightening quotes.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Sure, but you can also have no giveaway. The worst case would be one giveaway per possession = 100%, the best case zero giveaways per possession = 0%. In reality the average number would be somewhere in between and that would be worded as (e.g.) 0.3 giveaways per possession, no?

Why the fascination with averaging?

Issue comes down to Time of Possession/Possessions and positive results.

 

[Johnny Engine]

Personally, I'd like to see the existing data paired with passes (sent and received) as well as instances where the puck is surrendered and received to/from nobody in particular. Always had a problem with the idea that you can gauge puck management by counting up a very selective portion of the things that can happen when one has the puck. Of courses, there would be all kinds of counting problems and it wouldn't take coaching effects into account, but ultimately, everyone's responsible for applying the soft information they already know to any conclusion they might make.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Personally, I'd like to see the existing data paired with passes (sent and received) as well as instances where the puck is surrendered and received to/from nobody in particular. Always had a problem with the idea that you can gauge puck management by counting up a very selective portion of the things that can happen when one has the puck. Of courses, there would be all kinds of counting problems and it wouldn't take coaching effects into account, but ultimately, everyone's responsible for applying the soft information they already know to any conclusion they might make.

You only get vanilla base stats from the NHL. As an example NHL teams grade passes, the extent is a question of the willingness to invest time and money.

Also giveaways are graded. Not all are viewed as negatives. Icing the puck, creating a defensive zone faceoff without the benefit of player changes is a negative. Chipping the puck into the defensive starting the player change process while a giveaway is a positive.

 

[Johnny Engine]

You only get vanilla base stats from the NHL. As an example NHL teams grade passes, the extent is a question of the willingness to invest time and money.

Also giveaways are graded. Not all are viewed as negatives. Icing the puck, creating a defensive zone faceoff without the benefit of player changes is a negative. Chipping the puck into the defensive starting the player change process while a giveaway is a positive.

That's exactly what I mean by "applying soft information". Everyone from a casual fan on up does it, to varying degrees of sophistication.

 

[ted2019]

Boston and a few other teams have been known and to give and not count their teams and opposing teams hits and other stats. The same thing when turnovers and giveaways. Interesting.

 

[MXD]

I don't care about giveaways.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Interested in seeing where various participants have Scott Niedermayer and Keith ranked. How many are including any Karlsson? Chara? Doughty?

At this time (because up until deadline the order may change) they are ranked: Keith 69, Karrlson 79, Neidermayer 82, Doughty 111, Chara 114.

 

[BM67]

During that period, he's also way, way closer to Cecil Dillon (who had a very tough road to icetime) than to Cook and Conacher.

A player with a 10 year career as a RW comparable to Dillon and then a 10 year career as a D comparable to Seibert. Clapper's first 4 years as a D are a pretty nice peak too, with 3 1st team AS spots, a 2nd and a 3rd in Hart voting and 2 Stanley Cups.

 

[MXD]

A player with a 10 year career as a RW comparable to Dillon and then a 10 year career as a D comparable to Seibert. Clapper's first 4 years as a D are a pretty nice peak too, with 3 1st team AS spots, a 2nd and a 3rd in Hart voting and 2 Stanley Cups.

"10 year career comparable to Seibert" is definitely generous, considering he wasn't necessarily standing out during the War years. Granted, Clapper was quite old by then, and probably shouldn't have been expected to stand out the way just prior to the war, and shouldn't be penalized for playing longer than any other player did before that.

But there are legit and valid reasons to believe his longevity was WWII-fueled.

And his peak is a copy-paste of Babe Siebert's.

And again, I'll reiterate my point : Dit Clapper shouldn't make or break a list.

 

[Sentinel]

What does Karlsson need to do to make your list?

I dunno, play defense?

 

[Sentinel]

I don't know what that means.

It's a gun reference. "38 Special." There was also a rock band in the 70s-80s.

Neidermeyer is ultra special. Winner on all levels, elite for many years. He is the reason Canada is blamed for the pathetic 2006 OG showing (which is, of course, incorrect, but it shows how high were his stakes). Makes my list without breaking sweat.

 

[K Fleur]

Niedermayer is a special in that he won all the time while being his team’s 2nd best defenseman most of the time.

Though coming in 2nd to Stevens and Pronger is not necessarily a slight.

 

[Captain Bowie]

It's a gun reference. "38 Special." There was also a rock band in the 70s-80s.

Neidermeyer is ultra special. Winner on all levels, elite for many years. He is the reason Canada is blamed for the pathetic 2006 OG showing (which is, of course, incorrect, but it shows how high were his stakes). Makes my list without breaking sweat.

That means relatively little to me in a team game. I knew it would be the first factor to be brought up in his favour, and it is telling to me that winning a team game with 20 other players having to play a factor is the biggest thing going for him.

He has a similar Norris record to others that also missed the list for me: Keith, Doughty, Rob Blake. No significant Hart consideration. Good, but not all that noteworthy longevity considering the scope of the project (compared to Bourque, Lidstrom, Chelios, even Chara to date).

Actually his numbers stack up pretty close to that of Rob Blake. Similar GP, similar scoring totals, 1 Norris win with a handful of top 5's. Blake also won his cup playing 2nd fiddle to a better defenceman, though that could be debated considering Bourque's age and how Blake performed in the playoffs.

 

[kruezer]

How many LWs do people have on their lists?