Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 18

[MXD]

....On a more relevant (hopefully) note :

Anyone has something on... whatever Nels Stewart could possibly bring other than goals and some offence (and size for the sake of size; also, tobacco) ?

 

[danincanada]

Nothing quite defines uselessness like an multi-line post about Doug Harvey at this juncture.

Especially one that's difficult to argue with no matter where it is posted.

The only way I can imagine Orr being in on only 10% of his teams offense is if he wasn't allowed to cross his own blue line all season.

And don't forget, this project is really about learning so nothing is useless if you can learn something. You're welcome.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

I happen to think MSL was better than all his centers - but they were all elite centers, better than most comparable wingers got to play with long-term in the last 20 years. It definitely merits consideration when comparing him to players like Iginla and Kane, for example.

As for the southeast division, you may find that other elite players had the same kind of split - they could very well have been 15% better against the Southeast, because the southeast was, on average, 15% worse defensively than the league average. That's not the problem, that's just logic. The problem is when a few teams get 32 games against those teams, and the others get 20 or 5 depending on where they play. Not only that, but if there's an easier division to score in, there's probably a harder division, too. Which one(s) was/were the harder ones? Who had to face the stingy teams a disproportionate number of times?

If we ignore that last part, and just assume there are two classes of division: Southeast and Other, then all it would take is some simple math to determine what to do about MSL's point totals. We are likely talking about small numbers of points - 3, 5, perhaps - but it could make an impact on things like VsX and points finishes.

By the way, even if MSL's numbers weren't significantly better against the southeast, if it can be demonstrated that it was the worst defensive division year after year, you would still want to make a mental adjustment to any player who starred there.

It gets me thinking about all the QoC work we could be doing, going all the way back to expansion at least. Any season in which there is an imbalanced schedule (which is all of them, minus a few (70-72?) creates a situation in which some teams get to play worse teams more often than others and better teams less often. It can't be that difficult to get it all in a spreadsheet and see what it spits out, right?

example: In 197X, there were four divisions. Two were essentially average, one in one conference was 20% stingier than average, one in the other conference was 20% looser. Teams played 80 games, including 40 in divison, 20 in conference and 20 out of conference. The QoC for a team in the stingy division would be (40 x 1.20) + (20 x 1.00) + (10 x 1.00) + (10 x 0.80) / 80 = 1.075. You could conclude that for a player on a team in that division, points are worth roughly 7.5% more than average.

but then you would have to account for how many pts that player put up against each conference right and multiply 1.2, 1, and .8 to his actual production against each respective division right?

like, if kevin dineen (totally arbitrary example) scored 75% of his pts against non-adams opponents does he really “deserve” the whole 7.5% bump?

 

[Michael Farkas]

At the same time there are posters here who probably haven’t watched a lot of Harvey or whoever and they mostly go by what others have said, whether it’s old quotes or things other posters have said. I agree with you that’s it’s better to actually watch players, but statistics should somewhat follow the description and narrative that’s used for players and it often doesn’t when it comes to Harvey.

Example:

Many people claim Harvey is second among all-time defenseman in terms of controlling the pace of the game and, to me, that means he controlled the puck and game a ton. Yet… Orr was having 120 point seasons, lead his team’s offense, and was simply Mr. Everything for his team and everyone knew it. Even though it was a different era, Harvey only topped out at 50 points in 70 games and with adjusted points he was never even a PPG player in any season he played. On completely stacked teams with powerful offenses he had seasons like ‘59-60 with 27 points? He had points on 10.6% of his teams’ goals that season. Compare that to any season Orr played and it’s clear something is terribly wrong with this narrative but it’s one of those standard clichés that get dragged out all the time. Name me another player in history that “controlled the game” but only took part in 10% of his teams’ offense. It seems like being elite defensively, in transition, and on the PP is being conflated with what Orr did.

This is not relevant. Nor is it based in the fundamental knowledge of the game. You know this. To answer the bolded: I'd start by looking at the guy who finished 25th on our list, but should have finished a lot closer to 15th probably.

Take the rest of your blind, recycled nonsense on Harvey, jot it down and mail it to six months ago when we might have cared...

This is my first and only response to this, so that we don't go off track.

 

[seventieslord]

but then you would have to account for how many pts that player put up against each conference right and multiply 1.2, 1, and .8 to his actual production against each respective division right?

like, if kevin dineen (totally arbitrary example) scored 75% of his pts against non-adams opponents does he really “deserve” the whole 7.5% bump?

In this type of analysis (one that's based on the distribution of the games, not the distribution of the points), yes. the factor would reflect how much more difficult, in total, the road he traveled to score points was that season, regardless of the distribution of the points.

Basically it's about the distribution of the games, not the distribution of the points.

There probably are odd examples - a few per season - of players who strangely didn't cash in on easy opportunities, and/or looked like worldbeaters against the best teams. These aren't going to be that common or demonstrably repeatable. These teams ended up with the defensive records that they did, for those very reasons.

What I'm describing is meant to only be rough, but is probably the most efficient in terms of time cost/benefit (and realistic, in that someone may actually get around to doint it) way to get a QoC adjustment factor for players, by team, by season, to their scoring totals. If there was a way to somehow scrape every one of these: Nicklas Lidstrom 1997-98 Splits | Hockey-Reference.com for every player in every season, and drop it into a spreadsheet, we could go ahead and multiply every game against the 1992-93 senators by 0.63 and every game against the 1997 Devils by 1.29, but I don't see us getting around to that (and these only go back to 1988, presently).

 

[wetcoast]

It's almost like people are watching and interpreting the game instead of reading the newspaper...

The game happens...then later, statistics and story are compiled. The game on the ice takes precedence. When you watch Harvey, it's very, very, very abundantly, very, super, crystal clear that he's a dynamo. So you can sit there and count up that "Harvey had only had three more even strength assists on Tuesday nights, while Tom Johnson always produced a prime number of power play goals but..."

You're putting an inordinate amount of weight on H-R counting...

That would be great if it was consistent but then guys like Bure who invoke similar emotions of being special, ie just watch him play, then many here sweep him aside due to low top 10 point totals while ironically looking past his goal scoring eliteness.

Different people have different processes to be sure on how they rank and evaluate players it just seems to be inconsistent at times and can be player dependant.

 

[sr edler]

That would be great if it was consistent but then guys like Bure who invoke similar emotions of being special, ie just watch him play, then many here sweep him aside due to low top 10 point totals while ironically looking past his goal scoring eliteness.

I think Bure has 3 top 5 point totals finishes which is pretty good for a player who only played 5 full seasons in the league.

 

[wetcoast]

This is not relevant. Nor is it based in the fundamental knowledge of the game. You know this. To answer the bolded: I'd start by looking at the guy who finished 25th on our list, but should have finished a lot closer to 15th probably.

Take the rest of your blind, recycled nonsense on Harvey, jot it down and mail it to six months ago when we might have cared...

This is my first and only response to this, so that we don't go off track.

Fetisov is a horrible example of this as he didn't age well for a defenseman when talking about a player being 15th to 25th all time.

If only Leetch would get the same treatment last round or currently....

 

[wetcoast]

I think Bure has 3 top 5 point totals finishes which is pretty good for a player who only played 5 full seasons in the league.

He is extremely unlikely to come up.

That while young line of Bure, Fedorov and Mogliny most likely would have all been in by now if the Iron Curtain never fell.

 

[blogofmike]

No, it's Vladimir Petrov, isn't it? Sergei Makarov also has more points than Mikhailov? Mikhailov was 'only' the all-time leading goal-scorer. Might be impossible to solve, knowing the stat keeping in the 1960s.

I might have missed something, though. ('the undisputed' Soviet league statistics)

You're correct. I was looking at goals.

 

[Canadiens1958]

At the same time there are posters here who probably haven’t watched a lot of Harvey or whoever and they mostly go by what others have said, whether it’s old quotes or things other posters have said. I agree with you that’s it’s better to actually watch players, but statistics should somewhat follow the description and narrative that’s used for players and it often doesn’t when it comes to Harvey.

Example:

Many people claim Harvey is second among all-time defenseman in terms of controlling the pace of the game and, to me, that means he controlled the puck and game a ton. Yet… Orr was having 120 point seasons, lead his team’s offense, and was simply Mr. Everything for his team and everyone knew it. Even though it was a different era, Harvey only topped out at 50 points in 70 games and with adjusted points he was never even a PPG player in any season he played. On completely stacked teams with powerful offenses he had seasons like ‘59-60 with 27 points? He had points on 10.6% of his teams’ goals that season. Compare that to any season Orr played and it’s clear something is terribly wrong with this narrative but it’s one of those standard clichés that get dragged out all the time. Name me another player in history that “controlled the game” but only took part in 10% of his teams’ offense. It seems like being elite defensively, in transition, and on the PP is being conflated with what Orr did.

Always amazed by what you imagine or conjure.

The Toe Blake Canadiens popularized changing on the fly. Basically a defensive tactic made possible by Harvey's ability to control the pace, that allowed fresher skaters on the ice before the opposition.

How this quality should translate into scoring is something only you can conjure but it brought great value to a team that always played Sunday night away games that required neutralizing fatigue and the home team's last change advantage.

 

[MXD]

Always amazed by what you imagine or conjure.

The Toe Blake Canadiens popularized changing on the fly. Basically a defensive tactic made possible by Harvey's ability to control the pace, that allowed fresher skaters on the ice before the opposition.

How this quality should translate into scoring is something only you can conjure but it brought great value to a team that always played Sunday night away games that required neutralizing fatigue and the home team's last change advantage.

...eh, wasn't that the Oide Cleghorne's Pittsburgh Pirates?

 

[Canadiens1958]

...eh, wasn't that the Oide Cleghorne's Pittsburg Penguins?

Originated with Odie Cleghorn and Pittsburgh in the late 1920s, then rarely used until the 1950s.

 

[sr edler]

He is extremely unlikely to come up.

Yeah, I know he won't show up but we must be allowed to compare players to semi-contemporaries. I like M. St. Louis chances here, but we must remember he was once held behind Bure on the depth chart when they played together on the same club.

Valeri Bure that is.

 

[MXD]

Yeah, I know he won't show up but we must be allowed to compare players to semi-contemporaries. I like M. St. Louis chances here, but we must remember he was once held behind Bure on the depth chart when they played together on the same club.

Valeri Bure that is.

That arguably cost the Flames a Stanley Cup, too

 

[sr edler]

How?



Edit: okay, I see...

Double edit: Flames already have a Cup, they don't need another one.

Triple edit: Was it really Flames fault only though? I mean, St. Louis can't really play the size card here because V. Bure is also a midget.

 

[Michael Farkas]

That would be great if it was consistent but then guys like Bure who invoke similar emotions of being special, ie just watch him play, then many here sweep him aside due to low top 10 point totals while ironically looking past his goal scoring eliteness.

Different people have different processes to be sure on how they rank and evaluate players it just seems to be inconsistent at times and can be player dependant.

Ok...so where does Bure go? He barely made pension in the NHL...so doesn't that factor in? Why are you ascribing the lack of Bure (who made my list, for the record) to lack of top-10 finishes instead of the elephant in the room...? Which is him not playing games.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Fetisov is a horrible example of this as he didn't age well for a defenseman when talking about a player being 15th to 25th all time.

If only Leetch would get the same treatment last round or currently....

He asked a loaded question, didn't expect a response and got a damn good one. It has nothing to do with Leetch. Leetch played the game and the game played him...that's why he's down here and not up there...

 

[Canadiens1958]

Ok...so where does Bure go? He barely made pension in the NHL...so doesn't that factor in? Why are you ascribing the lack of Bure (who made my list, for the record) to lack of top-10 finishes instead of the elephant in the room...? Which is him not playing games.

Old adage about truth being inconvenient at times.

 

[sr edler]

Ok...so where does Bure go? He barely made pension in the NHL...so doesn't that factor in? Why are you ascribing the lack of Bure (who made my list, for the record) to lack of top-10 finishes instead of the elephant in the room...? Which is him not playing games.

Yeah. I think Bure's big issue is his two and a ½ – three year 95–97 span where he was injured and didn't do anything.

Ok...so where does Bure go?

High. He goes high. I had him in my top 10.




(just kidding)

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

It's almost like people are watching and interpreting the game instead of reading the newspaper...

The game happens...then later, statistics and story are compiled. The game on the ice takes precedence. When you watch Harvey, it's very, very, very abundantly, very, super, crystal clear that he's a dynamo. So you can sit there and count up that "Harvey had only had three more even strength assists on Tuesday nights, while Tom Johnson always produced a prime number of power play goals but..."

You're putting an inordinate amount of weight on H-R counting...

Kind of like watching Lindros.

 

[danincanada]

This is not relevant. Nor is it based in the fundamental knowledge of the game. You know this. To answer the bolded: I'd start by looking at the guy who finished 25th on our list, but should have finished a lot closer to 15th probably.

Take the rest of your blind, recycled nonsense on Harvey, jot it down and mail it to six months ago when we might have cared...

This is my first and only response to this, so that we don't go off track.

The first part is just a vague non-argument. If it’s all just none sense then it would be easy to dispute this valid point but instead of any kind of rebuttal it’s just hot air and personal shots.

It’s a nice comparison but you’re actually feeding into my point with the Fetisov example. Another great all-around defender but clearly on the tier below Orr in terms of controlling things from the backend. Harvey’s in there somewhere too but it isn’t Orr, Harvey, then the rest. The offense would have been so much more if he was the missing link between Orr and the rest of the all-time field. And at a quick glance Fetisov was usually above 10% on his Soviet teams.

 

[danincanada]

Always amazed by what you imagine or conjure.

The Toe Blake Canadiens popularized changing on the fly. Basically a defensive tactic made possible by Harvey's ability to control the pace, that allowed fresher skaters on the ice before the opposition.

How this quality should translate into scoring is something only you can conjure but it brought great value to a team that always played Sunday night away games that required neutralizing fatigue and the home team's last change advantage.

Is that what everyone is referring to when they said he controlled the game? Line changes? You’d better let them know because I don’t think they realized this was what made him second to Orr.

If he was so great at controlling it then why didn’t he turn it into more offense? If he touched the puck the most on the team, which is what this implies, then how could he even avoid not finishing higher in team scoring? I have no doubt he was great for his era, I just question how he could possibly be viewed as the next tier after Orr when we know other defenders came and did their own version of “controlled the game” and were clearly larger contributors to their teams offense. This group is saddled in between Orr and Harvey in this regard in most, if not all cases. Not adding up guys.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Is that what everyone is referring to when they said he controlled the game? Line changes? You’d better let them know because I don’t think they realized this was what made him second to Orr.

If he was so great at controlling it then why didn’t he turn it into more offense? If he touched the puck the most on the team, which is what this implies, then how could he even avoid not finishing higher in team scoring? I have no doubt he was great for his era, I just question how he could possibly be viewed as the next tier after Orr when we know other defenders came and did their own version of “controlled the game” and were clearly larger contributors to their teams offense. This group is saddled in between Orr and Harvey in this regard in most, if not all cases. Not adding up guys.

Nobody who watched Harvey play can question that he was controlling the game.It's like questioning that Lemieux was a good one-on-one player, or that Chara is tall.This betrays either that you never bothered to watch him (despite arguing against him for over a decade on this board) or that you're brain-damaged when it comes to evaluating talent.Pick one.

 

[MXD]

.... Okay, do we need to put Doug Harvey on our ballots for this round?