Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 16

Status
Not open for further replies.

danincanada

Registered User
Feb 11, 2008
2,809
353
And why are Fedorov's numbers better Henri based on those sheets? Can you break it down for me?

I’ve already stated the breakdown a few times. Fedorov scored more points per game whether it’s regular season, playoffs, or adjusted points for the regular season. He also had a higher offensive peak and higher average season.
 

danincanada

Registered User
Feb 11, 2008
2,809
353
Really using top 10 finishes in a 6 team league compared to 21 to 30 for Fedorov?

Unfortunately many here don’t want to acknowledge the difference. They want to act like playing in a small Canadian only league should be compared equally with a much larger international league even when it makes no sense.
 

Kyle McMahon

Registered User
May 10, 2006
13,301
4,352
I’ve already stated the breakdown a few times. Fedorov scored more points per game whether it’s regular season, playoffs, or adjusted points for the regular season. He also had a higher offensive peak and higher average season.

Do you not find it logically inconsistent to use adjusted points as a key metric in your argument, but then ignore any further adjustments (ex. a player's usage)? Evidently you have acknowledged that the raw numbers cannot be taken at face value. So why should one refinement of those numbers be acceptable, but not any others?
 

danincanada

Registered User
Feb 11, 2008
2,809
353
Do you not find it logically inconsistent to use adjusted points as a key metric in your argument, but then ignore any further adjustments (ex. a player's usage)? Evidently you have acknowledged that the raw numbers cannot be taken at face value. So why should one refinement of those numbers be acceptable, but not any others?

Fedorov produced more offense and contributed more offense for his team over his career. It doesn't matter if it's raw or adjusted stats, or raw playoffs, and from the numbers it looks like his adjusted playoff stats would be better as well. Put whatever adjustments you want but I'll stick with this fact. In the end a PP goal and an ES goal each count as a goal. Richard's numbers would have looked better if he was the 1st line centre instead of playing behind Beliveau but he also wouldn't have so much team success so it's give and take. If Fedorov played in a more wide open system with less depth and therefore more ice-time he could have had better numbers as well, probably along with less team success, but it's speculation in both cases.

What's interesting to me is that Henri Richard only had one SH point, which was an assist in '62-63. Didn't he kill penalties? Or was he primarily used as an ES second line centre?
 

Michael Farkas

Grace Personified
Jun 28, 2006
13,352
7,834
NYC
www.HockeyProspect.com
Side-swipe, half-response, I admit...but shorthanded goals were not very common in those days...I'm sure someone has better data than this, but...

From 1950-51 thru 1966-67 only 10 guys had more than 10 shorthanded goals in that time frame (led by Bob Pulford's 24...the only other guy above 20 was Jerry Toppazzini).

In a smaller timeframe, 1979 to 1993...81 guys had more than 10 shorthanded goals. 14 had 24 or more. Led by Gretzky's 68.
 

danincanada

Registered User
Feb 11, 2008
2,809
353
Side-swipe, half-response, I admit...but shorthanded goals were not very common in those days...I'm sure someone has better data than this, but...

From 1950-51 thru 1966-67 only 10 guys had more than 10 shorthanded goals in that time frame (led by Bob Pulford's 24...the only other guy above 20 was Jerry Toppazzini).

In a smaller timeframe, 1979 to 1993...81 guys had more than 10 shorthanded goals. 14 had 24 or more. Led by Gretzky's 68.

I'd like to know because I honestly thought Henri Richard would be the type of PK centre who could strike while killing penalties. Just seemed like that type of player. Teammate Don Marshall had 15 SH goals over 9 seasons and that's without knowing SH assists.
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,773
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
Fedorov produced more offense and contributed more offense for his team over his career. It doesn't matter if it's raw or adjusted stats, or raw playoffs, and from the numbers it looks like his adjusted playoff stats would be better as well. Put whatever adjustments you want but I'll stick with this fact. In the end a PP goal and an ES goal each count as a goal. Richard's numbers would have looked better if he was the 1st line centre instead of playing behind Beliveau but he also wouldn't have so much team success so it's give and take. If Fedorov played in a more wide open system with less depth and therefore more ice-time he could have had better numbers as well, probably along with less team success, but it's speculation in both cases.

What's interesting to me is that Henri Richard only had one SH point, which was an assist in '62-63. Didn't he kill penalties? Or was he primarily used as an ES second line centre?

This was explained many times before. Toe Blake, unless necessary, did not use top 9 forwards on the PK, preferring PK specialists like Don Marshall or converted defencemen adept at blocking shots. This provided advantages post PK in terms of match-ups.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Farkas

danincanada

Registered User
Feb 11, 2008
2,809
353
This was explained many times before. Toe Blake, unless necessary, did not use top 9 forwards on the PK, preferring PK specialists like Don Marshall or converted defencemen adept at blocking shots. This provided advantages post PK in terms of match-ups.

Thanks, I do recall you mentioning something like this before. Interesting, so Henri Richard didn't have to waste energy killing penalties. Wasn't really a special teams guy then.
 

Kyle McMahon

Registered User
May 10, 2006
13,301
4,352
Fedorov produced more offense and contributed more offense for his team over his career. It doesn't matter if it's raw or adjusted stats, or raw playoffs, and from the numbers it looks like his adjusted playoff stats would be better as well. Put whatever adjustments you want but I'll stick with this fact. In the end a PP goal and an ES goal each count as a goal. Richard's numbers would have looked better if he was the 1st line centre instead of playing behind Beliveau but he also wouldn't have so much team success so it's give and take. If Fedorov played in a more wide open system with less depth and therefore more ice-time he could have had better numbers as well, probably along with less team success, but it's speculation in both cases.

What's interesting to me is that Henri Richard only had one SH point, which was an assist in '62-63. Didn't he kill penalties? Or was he primarily used as an ES second line centre?

I'll ask again, why is one form of adjustment to the raw stats (in this case, I will assume you are referring to hockey-reference's stats that are normalized based on the average number of goals per game across the entire league) deemed acceptable, but another form is not? It is fine to adjust numbers based on global factors (league averages), but not alright to adjust them based on local factors (amount of ice time received in situations where it is much easier/harder to produce offense)? That really doesn't make any sense to me.
 

danincanada

Registered User
Feb 11, 2008
2,809
353
I'll ask again, why is one form of adjustment to the raw stats (in this case, I will assume you are referring to hockey-reference's stats that are normalized based on the average number of goals per game across the entire league) deemed acceptable, but another form is not? It is fine to adjust numbers based on global factors (league averages), but not alright to adjust them based on local factors (amount of ice time received in situations where it is much easier/harder to produce offense)? That really doesn't make any sense to me.

Use what you wish. I think mine make more sense and "yours" are too convoluted. Fedorov killed penalties but Henri apparently did not. How do we factor that in as well? At the end of the day Fedorov simply produced a bit more offense. You have to accept it even if you don't like it.
 

Michael Farkas

Grace Personified
Jun 28, 2006
13,352
7,834
NYC
www.HockeyProspect.com
It took more energy than playing against the oppositions top line a man down? Doubtful.

As someone who has made his mark on teams that he didn't belong on by being a grinder, a defensive stalwart and a penalty killer...I typically have a much easier time managing a penalty kill shift than I do an ES shift against top competition...and I'm a start-and-stop penalty killer too...but I can kill a full two minute penalty if I had to...I can't play that long against top competition at ES...too much more ice to cover, too much variance to account for, if I'm on the wrong side of things on an ES shift - it's tougher for me to dictate the terms...

At the levels I've coached at, I've found the players most similar to me also experience it that way...

That's not gospel, but when it comes to managing minutes as a coach or managing my shift as a player, I would not agree with the quoted certainly...
 
  • Like
Reactions: bobholly39

danincanada

Registered User
Feb 11, 2008
2,809
353
As someone who has made his mark on teams that he didn't belong on by being a grinder, a defensive stalwart and a penalty killer...I typically have a much easier time managing a penalty kill shift than I do an ES shift against top competition...and I'm a start-and-stop penalty killer too...but I can kill a full two minute penalty if I had to...I can't play that long against top competition at ES...too much more ice to cover, too much variance to account for, if I'm on the wrong side of things on an ES shift - it's tougher for me to dictate the terms...

At the levels I've coached at, I've found the players most similar to me also experience it that way...

That's not gospel, but when it comes to managing minutes as a coach or managing my shift as a player, I would not agree with the quoted certainly...

Fair enough and some of those points do resonate with me. However, the likelihood that a penalty killer is going to be chasing the puck more with more of a chance of being hemmed into his own zone and/or getting stuck on the ice too long are far greater. For a good skater like Henri R., ES play should be less taxing. Either way, it was a luxurious role to play because a lot of stars have to kill penalties and use their two-way game in every situation.
 

Kyle McMahon

Registered User
May 10, 2006
13,301
4,352
Use what you wish. I think mine make more sense and "yours" are too convoluted. Fedorov killed penalties but Henri apparently did not. How do we factor that in as well? At the end of the day Fedorov simply produced a bit more offense. You have to accept it even if you don't like it.

Given how rare an event a short-handed goal is, I don't think PK time needs to be factored in very heavily when determining the offensive value of two players in a comparison. In your case, it clearly should not matter in the slightest. You've already dismissed ES/PP player usage as a factor worth considering in the evaluation; PK usage should presumably be treated with the same disregard.
 

danincanada

Registered User
Feb 11, 2008
2,809
353
Given how rare an event a short-handed goal is, I don't think PK time needs to be factored in very heavily when determining the offensive value of two players in a comparison. In your case, it clearly should not matter in the slightest. You've already dismissed ES/PP player usage as a factor worth considering in the evaluation; PK usage should presumably be treated with the same disregard.

That's not the point I was making, although you are correct. My point was that Fedorov had to spend ice-time and energy killing penalties. If he got to focus solely on ES time instead like Richard did it would probably be good for his ES offensive numbers. Imagine being fresh to come on the ice after a penalty is killed instead of catching your breath from being one of the penalty killers.
 

Kyle McMahon

Registered User
May 10, 2006
13,301
4,352
That's not the point I was making, although you are correct. My point was that Fedorov had to spend ice-time and energy killing penalties. If he got to focus solely on ES time instead like Richard did it would probably be good for his ES offensive numbers. Imagine being fresh to come on the ice after a penalty is killed instead of catching your breath from being one of the penalty killers.

Interesting, it seems as though you're suggesting Fedorov's scoring numbers might have been affected by his usage. Strange that it is now a consideration for Fedorov, but apparently shouldn't be for Richard.
 

danincanada

Registered User
Feb 11, 2008
2,809
353
Interesting, it seems as though you're suggesting Fedorov's scoring numbers might have been affected by his usage. Strange that it is now a consideration for Fedorov, but apparently shouldn't be for Richard.

You can consider anything you want whether it's points scored on Sundays or how many goals each scored on odd days of the month. It still doesn't overcome the simple fact that overall Fedorov scored more points and was therefore more productive offensively. Usage should be considered but it slices both ways when we're talking about a guy who was a huge part of his teams special teams while the other guy wasn't.

I mentioned adjusted stats for the same reason they are usually referenced, to display that he didn't only outscore him due to era/league scoring rates. The regular season adjustments to their stats appear to be quite close actually. Both played a lot during low scoring seasons but both had long careers so it evened out somewhat.
 

quoipourquoi

Goaltender
Jan 26, 2009
10,123
4,126
Hockeytown, MI
0771E98EEDAA4AA69479.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->