tombombadil
Registered User
Just slipped that in there eh... assuming Bernie Nicholls?
haha, i forgot about that! Way to notice, ya - that's Bernie. He can thank 99 for making the list.
Just slipped that in there eh... assuming Bernie Nicholls?
Tom,
I don't think there is an exact point where a pace becomes a season. A season is a season and a pace is a pace. A pace becomes more reliable as the sample size increases, but it never exactly equates to a season. Also, I believe the reliability increases if the pace is similar to other seasons the player had. The more full seasons which are close to the pace for that season, the more reliable the pace would seem to be.
I voted for 55 based on this logic: At that point, the games missed become 1/2 or less of the games played, so the reliability has improved significantly. That's an intuitive "inflection point", if you will, but may be wrong. Still, I stand by the points made in the first paragraph, the two are never really the same.
Before I start working on this, any suggestions for a total game threshold over multiple seasons? Maybe a couple numbers between 200 and 400? If not, I'll pick at least one number that doesn't appear to affect either Wayne or Mario unfairly.
I don't know if 'sliding scale' is a term that applies to this, but I crunched the top 10 guys from the original list into a 5 year list with a minimum of 70 games played. However, based on extraordinary performances, some guys had better years in total adjusted points in less than 70 games than they did in 'full' seasons. Add to that that Crosby and Malkin actually don't have 5 'full' seasons. So, gave zero credit for games missed up to 70, then took the ratio 82/70 (or 80/70, 84/70 depending on year) and used that to pro rate the season. so, if a player had 98 points in 63 games, it would count as 98/70, thus 82/70 x 98 = whatever.
I feel this doubly penalizes for injury, but allows everyone to participate, and gives credit to great seasons. After crunching all these, I feel strongly that a more balanced method would be to take their point per game based on what they acheived, yet only apply it to 12 phantom games (ten in the 80's, 14 in those two annoying years) Anyways, Iam not going to re-crunch, as my wife is looking at me like I am a complete waste of time!
1. Gretzky - 828
2. Lemieux - 795
3. Jagr - 671
4. Forsberg - 583
5. Selanne - 577
6. Ovechkin - 574
7. Sakic - 570
8. Thornton - 560
9. Malkin - 553
10. Crosby - 549
Notes - Lemieux, Crosby, and Malkin get dinged the hardest here. Without turning this into a war, I'm guessing that Mario might actually be with or ahead of Wayne, had the bar been set at 60 games, or if the second method of crunching this was applied. Either way, in the context of history, I wouldn't use any of these numbers to split hairs about which one was more dominant offensively in a game of hockey in their primes. They are CLEARLY in their own ballpark, and even in this instance, that favors 99, 6 is beat by 6 points a year. They are clearly A++ players, and to further rate them one should look past the numbers, at this point. Jagr is clearly third, offensively - there really is no case to argue him into the top 2, or into the next group. I'm speaking strict production here, not intangibles, although, even then, and I am a HUGE Selke/physical edge promoter, it is very difficult to make a statement for Foppa or Joe (the two more 'intangible guys in this group).
Foppa ahead of Joe! Strange for me, as strange as Joe being ahead on the 3 season/60 game version. The guy with the gloriously long career actually has less super solid seasons, and the guy notorious for a huge peak and too many injuries, actually has less outstanding seasons. hmmm, glad i did the list, just to learn this. Again, they are so close in either list, intangibles should be what seperates them, not numbers.
Malkin, Crosby, Ovechkin all get shafted strictly on lack of seasons to choose from. Impressive that they have done so much in so little time. Ditto Stamkos on the 3 year list.
Selanne and Thornton - you know, I always sort of overlooked these guys as very high end compilers. That Selanne was elite has been beaten into my head on this site, so I have accepted it recently, and confirmed it, now. Jumbo Joe... geez, i know his playoffs stink a bit, but maybe we all overlook him a bit?
Pat Lafontaine would thank you.
I am very interested in a total game threshold, and also even a consecutive game prime (maybe even including playoff games...)
A total game threshold would eliminate arguments over what a season is, and would, in effect, simply be a gigantic 'pace' measurement. I like it, a lot, actually.
I like somewhere around 300 games, but ya, 200 - 400 area seems right, for sure. Maybe 250 as it is basically 3 full seasons.... i dunno, do a poll!!
Now go do something with your wife, and expect some results late tonight or early next week.
Wow - what sort of results are we hoping for?
haha, i forgot about that! Way to notice, ya - that's Bernie. He can thank 99 for making the list.