That is absolutely a fair assessment and you may very well be correct. That said, playing more games also provides equal opportunity for one to be on the ice for more goals against, in addition to those pluses earned. In Lemieux's case, and with his constant nagging health issues, I'd wager that he'd be an increasing liability in the +/- department with more games played, instead of less.
Voting Record - quoipourquoi, Canadiens1958, steve141
- Thread starter quoipourquoi
- Start date
That is absolutely a fair assessment and you may very well be correct. That said, playing more games also provides equal opportunity for one to be on the ice for more goals against, in addition to those pluses earned. In Lemieux's case, and with his constant nagging health issues, I'd wager that he'd be an increasing liability in the +/- department with more games played, instead of less.
Kyle McMahon
Registered User
- May 10, 2006
- 13,301
- 4,353
Would I be correct in assuming that your thought process was: Gretzky 1818 ESP + 149 SHP = 1967 pluses, therefore 1967 - 520 (total +/-) = 1447 total minuses?
Definitely a good starting point, and quite indicative of overall career offensive/defensive contribution.
But as I mentioned in my last post, Gretzky's career numbers are influenced by playing a huge number of games outside his prime. Lemieux only played 170 games after his 32nd birthday.
I ran the numbers for 1981-82 to 1987-88 for Gretzky and 1987-88 to 1995-96 for Lemieux. Using the same process as above (and adding an extra 10% to their "pluses" total, as an estimate of the number of times they were on the ice for an ESGF but didn't record a point on it), I came up with both players at virtually identical 1.15 ESGA/per game numbers.
This can be interpreted in a number of ways. If we account for Kurri's defensive help, it makes Wayne look worse than Mario. But we also have to consider overall league scoring levels were higher in Wayne's sample. It's also likely that Gretzky had more ice time based on anecdotal accounts of Glen Sather marveling at his endurance and the ability to play him half the game. (I haven't heard much about Lemieux's estimated ice time, other than that Scotty Bowman quote about being able to get him more ice time after the introduction of TV timeouts). Based on his self-acknowledged poor off-season conditioning, I doubt he could handle a similar workload as Gretzky, but this is just speculation.
Anyways, interesting data and things to ponder. Leaves me with the impression that Edmonton-Gretzky might have been worse defensively than I thought compared to prime-Lemieux, but at the same time, better offensively than I suspected.
Does your method of calculation employ something similar to what I did above? I assume the raw ESGA data doesn't actually exist in any official form before fairly recent times.
Canadiens1958
Registered User
You have the starting inquiries right. Impetus was the realization that both were on the ice for well over 1 ES goal a game. Compared to elite defensive or two way centers this was way too high.
Then I looked at team rosters, teammates and RS team GA. This was very telling. 1980s Oilers never came close to cracking the top 5 in Team GAs. Pittsburgh was 3rd in 1992-93.
Post 87-88 Gretzky, only 1990-91 LA, finishing 4th was top 5 in team GA.
So good team defence did not follow either.
ETOI, rather skeptical about extreme estimates.
The Panther
Registered User
[MOD]
What matters is goal differential and its accordant results in wins and losses. That is, goals against is not a bad thing as long as the player/team is producing more goals than it allows.
What matters is goal differential and its accordant results in wins and losses. That is, goals against is not a bad thing as long as the player/team is producing more goals than it allows.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Panther
Registered User
I forgot to add: The implication that Mario Lemieux's team in 1992-93 played strong defence because of Lemieux, and not, say, Scotty Bowman, is perhaps the single most desperately hilarious hot take I've seen in four years for ranking Lemieux above Gretzky.
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
- Jan 16, 2005
- 9,133
- 14,380
There's goals for/against going back to 1959-60. So in Gretzky's case, we know he was on the ice for 2,285 goals against in 1,487 games. Of those, 447 were goals against when his team was shorthanded.
The issue is we don't know how many goals were scored against Gretzky's team when they were on the powerplay (ie the team allows a shorthanded goal against). So any SH goals against are grouped in with ES goals against. I don't think this causes a big distortion if you're comparing two players with similar PP time (which would be the case in Gretzky vs Lemieux).
The Panther
Registered User
I don't think Gretzky and Lemieux had similar power-play time. For one, in Lemieux's prime the Pens consistently had way more PP-opportunities than the Oilers in Gretzky's prime. And two, Lemieux was on the ice for more of the Pens' PP's than Gretzky for the Oilers' PP's. (As an example, in 1995-96, Lemieux was on the ice for 95% or 96% of the Pens' PP goals. He basically never left the ice when they had a power-play.)
More to the point: Who cares how many raw goals against there were? It's a meaningless stat in itself.
The salient matter is how many goals were scored minus goals against while the players were on the ice. The goal of hockey is not to be perfect defensively, but to score more goals than your opponent. 0-0 ties are not wins, and 2-1 wins do not earn more points in the standings or wins towards Cups than 7-4 wins.
Just in terms of even-strength, it's beyond dispute that Gretzky completely blows away Lemieux in terms of plus/minus. Indeed, in his prime he blows away every player in history with the possible exception of Orr (and if we did it by plus/minus per ice-time, I don't think Orr would beat Gretzky's [longer] prime either). There is just no comparison here:
Gretzky's plus/minus 1979-80 through 1991-92 (first thirteen years, which includes one year past his prime):
Overall = +594
Per 82 games = +49
NHL ranking over this period = 1st
Lemieux's plus/minus 1984-85 through 1996-97 (first thirteen years, and up to first "retirement"):
Overall = +142
Per 82 games = +16
NHL ranking over this period (min. 400 GP) = 27th
Per 70-games played or more, Gretzky in fact has the best seasonal plus/minus in NHL history for a player on a losing team (in 1980-81 he was +41).
As for isolating non-PP point production, we all knows Gretzky destroys Lemieux in every way:
Top ES + SH goals in a season:
Gretzky: 74, 67, 65, 53, 49, 43
Lemieux: 54, 53, 48, 38, 35, 32
Top ES + SH assists in a season:
Gretzky: 121, 100, 93, 89, 88, 81
Lemieux: 66, 52, 52, 50, 45, 44
Therefore, to cling to some notion that Lemieux was better defensively because of one season under Scotty Bowman is ridiculous.
But to humor this idea that raw goals-against have inherent meaning (they don't), there's also this:
Gretzky's total non-PP goals against 1979-80 through 1991-92 (first thirteen years, which includes one year past his prime):
Overall = 1229
Per 82 games = 101
Lemieux's total non-PP goals against 1984-85 through 1996-97 (first thirteen years, and up to first "retirement"):
Overall = 932
Per 82 games = 110
Given that Lemieux's 13 years include the slightly lower-scoring mid-90s, you'd think this comparison would favor him, yet he still comes out behind.
In conclusion: To suggest that Lemieux should rank above Gretzky because of defensive ability is absurd.
The totality of goals for or goals against in isolation essentially constitutes meaningless data. The goal differential is what matters and era context needs to be applied to the raw for and against numbers.
If we were to play a subtraction game and someone gave you the differential between two dollars for every minus one dollar, would you prefer that to someone providing me the differential between seven dollars for every minus five dollars? Considering your intractable logic, it appears that you do. If you want to play that game, I'm willing to participate for as long as you are willing and whomever has the most money at the end takes home the winnings.
Last edited by a moderator:
Canadiens1958
Registered User
Available via the link provided.
BTW humouring the effort. It should be mentioned that Lemieux played two seasons under Bowman. 1991-92 and 1992-93, not one as claimed/alleged by The Panther.Truth and accuracy take holidays.
The Panther
Registered User
Wow, major find there. You really invalidated my whole post.
Except for Ron Francis during the 1995-96 season, who happened to finish second in Selke voting after that year.
Yes, on occasion, it certainly does.
Canadiens1958
Registered User
Lest I also be called out, I should also note that Lemieux played parts of two seasons with Francis (not one), combining the Francis-Lemieux-Jagr line over a multi-year span. Also note after clicking on the following link, the discussion on offensive/defensive responsibilities for this specific group and Jagr's comment on the importance of the possession aspect of the game.
Penguins Trying Lemieux-Jagr-Francis Line
Kyle McMahon
Registered User
- May 10, 2006
- 13,301
- 4,353
Yeah I did find the actual numbers in there now. You have to specifically run a plus/minus report. Glad to see this exists in sortable form.
Canadiens1958
Registered User
Excellent first look at the previously unaccessible NHL data archives. Available under a year.
Shifts many perspectives. Sadly under used or ignored by project participants.
It certainly is an excellent first look, especially after running the plus/minus report for career playoff performances. I noticed Gretzky ranks number four all-time in that regard. I had to click through to the second page to find Beliveau listed at number fifty-two. By the way, what occurred during the 1964-65 season, allowing Beliveau to finish dead last for the Canadiens during the regular season in the plus/minus category (-15)? He also finished in the minus (-1) during their Stanley Cup run. Considering your emphasis on plus/minus throughout this discussion, Beliveau was obviously a negative contributor that season, at best.
Canadiens1958
Registered User
1964-65 NHL season, Beliveau played thru injuries.
Playoffs,healthy. Playoffs became a PP battle that the Canadiens lead by Beliveau, dominated, team scoring 21 of their 35 goals on the PP. Team gave up only 7 PPGA :
1964-65 Montreal Canadiens Roster and Statistics | Hockey-Reference.com
This skewed the +/- numbers. Something that is very common knowledge that certain posters do not seem to know.
Playoffs,healthy. Playoffs became a PP battle that the Canadiens lead by Beliveau, dominated, team scoring 21 of their 35 goals on the PP. Team gave up only 7 PPGA :
1964-65 Montreal Canadiens Roster and Statistics | Hockey-Reference.com
This skewed the +/- numbers. Something that is very common knowledge that certain posters do not seem to know.
Last edited:
Wayne Gretzky was also injured during the 1983-84 season, playing with a significant shoulder injury midway through the year and it most certainly contributed to the premature ending of his 51 game point streak while consequently slowing his pacing. He was potentially heading for a near 240 point season in 1984, prior to this injury. He subsequently sat out the following six games (about 16 days) immediately after the streak ended and he never attempted to make excuses for himself:
Edmonton Oilers history: Wayne Gretzky scores in NHL-record 51st consecutive game in tie with New Jersey Devils, Jan. 27, 1984
Remarkably, he still finished at +78 that season, while scoring 205 points in 74 games. Most notably, he also led the Oilers to their first Stanley Cup, scoring 35 points in 19 games and managed to compile a most respectable +18 in the plus/minus department.
All these details are also very common knowledge that certain posters do not seem to know, or perhaps even recognize.
I will be away for a while, but a few random thoughts:
1) I don't really care if someone submitted a Top 100 list. If they have criticism, it can be addressed.
2) Gretzky was a 100 ES point scorer with a variety of line/team situations. He hit 140+ with the great situations. He bottomed out around 100, which is near everybody else's peak. He hit 100+ as late as 1990-91, his last pre-Suter year. To suggest he declined because of short shifts seems off. By AS voting, he was one of the top centres in the league as late as 1998, when he got his 15th AS nod during one of the most competitive eras to contend for an AS nod at centre. Mario Lemieux has the 2nd most 100 point seasons with 10. Wayne Gretzky has 10 100 ES point seasons.
3) Given the huge amount of PPO (Pittsburgh had more PPO in Mario's TWO highest scoring years in 88 and 89, than Edmonton had in Gretzky THREE highest scoring years, 84-85-86), and Lemieux's slightly higher usage (share of PPGF/TmPPGF) it's not like Lemieux didn't have his own advantages.
4) Gretzky was a better PK player than Lemieux. In his best SHP season, Lemieux scored 18 SH points while being on-ice for 60 PPGA. In his best year, Gretzky scored 23 SH points against 31 PPGA.
5) If you're using Team GA to judge Gretzky's defense, you should note that upon his departure, Edmonton's ESGA levels were the same after he left. LA's were the same before he arrived. He seemed to have a clear impact on ESGF though, until 1992 when he stopped being a reliable 100 ES point man. If Gretzky was costing his team goals, you'd expect a significant defensive improvement along the lines of what the Canadiens had when they replaced Doug Harvey with Lou Fontinato
6) 18-year old Americans were able to play? Yes. Of course, they were never a major source of talent before, and afterwards, they would stream through the juniors. Alex Galchenyuk was a previously mentioned teenaged rookie from the US who led the Canadiens in +/-. Also previously mentioned in an earlier Top 100 thread was Tom Barrasso. MF interpreted his Vezina as sign of weakness, and asked something like "Barrasso's peak was centered almost entirely in his teenage years in a weaker league...very uncommon for a goalie to have his best seasons pre-22 years old." Based on what TCG has posted, he may as well have said "It is unusual that a goalie would have his best years behind the best defenses he played behind," as Buffalo goalies often had great years. (Also he ignored that Barrasso was high in Vezina voting with the Pens when Bowman was there, and again after Lemieux left and the Constantine team became less wide open.)
The late 1960s are weak. We can tell because the old guard suddenly treats the new guys like punching bags, and mid 60s stars dominate. (Even if the #1 scorer didn't set an all-time record for a #1 scorer, the #5 and #10 scorers did.) New talent takes a while to make a difference. The early 80s were an improvement over the late 70s. We can tell because Dionne, Perreault, and Lafleur don't dominate like Howe, Hull, Esposito did, and new players are 5 of the Top 13 scorers. The talent entering in the early 80s was very, very good. Look at the 1980s drafts vs the 1970s drafts, and remember that the 1970s drafts lose out on WHA guys like Mike Liut and Mark Howe. The new guys of the early 80s were better than the new guys of the late 60s. It's part of why so many more of the 80s guys lasted into the 1990s, as opposed to 1968 guys who made it through the merger.
1) I don't really care if someone submitted a Top 100 list. If they have criticism, it can be addressed.
2) Gretzky was a 100 ES point scorer with a variety of line/team situations. He hit 140+ with the great situations. He bottomed out around 100, which is near everybody else's peak. He hit 100+ as late as 1990-91, his last pre-Suter year. To suggest he declined because of short shifts seems off. By AS voting, he was one of the top centres in the league as late as 1998, when he got his 15th AS nod during one of the most competitive eras to contend for an AS nod at centre. Mario Lemieux has the 2nd most 100 point seasons with 10. Wayne Gretzky has 10 100 ES point seasons.
3) Given the huge amount of PPO (Pittsburgh had more PPO in Mario's TWO highest scoring years in 88 and 89, than Edmonton had in Gretzky THREE highest scoring years, 84-85-86), and Lemieux's slightly higher usage (share of PPGF/TmPPGF) it's not like Lemieux didn't have his own advantages.
4) Gretzky was a better PK player than Lemieux. In his best SHP season, Lemieux scored 18 SH points while being on-ice for 60 PPGA. In his best year, Gretzky scored 23 SH points against 31 PPGA.
5) If you're using Team GA to judge Gretzky's defense, you should note that upon his departure, Edmonton's ESGA levels were the same after he left. LA's were the same before he arrived. He seemed to have a clear impact on ESGF though, until 1992 when he stopped being a reliable 100 ES point man. If Gretzky was costing his team goals, you'd expect a significant defensive improvement along the lines of what the Canadiens had when they replaced Doug Harvey with Lou Fontinato
6) 18-year old Americans were able to play? Yes. Of course, they were never a major source of talent before, and afterwards, they would stream through the juniors. Alex Galchenyuk was a previously mentioned teenaged rookie from the US who led the Canadiens in +/-. Also previously mentioned in an earlier Top 100 thread was Tom Barrasso. MF interpreted his Vezina as sign of weakness, and asked something like "Barrasso's peak was centered almost entirely in his teenage years in a weaker league...very uncommon for a goalie to have his best seasons pre-22 years old." Based on what TCG has posted, he may as well have said "It is unusual that a goalie would have his best years behind the best defenses he played behind," as Buffalo goalies often had great years. (Also he ignored that Barrasso was high in Vezina voting with the Pens when Bowman was there, and again after Lemieux left and the Constantine team became less wide open.)
The late 1960s are weak. We can tell because the old guard suddenly treats the new guys like punching bags, and mid 60s stars dominate. (Even if the #1 scorer didn't set an all-time record for a #1 scorer, the #5 and #10 scorers did.) New talent takes a while to make a difference. The early 80s were an improvement over the late 70s. We can tell because Dionne, Perreault, and Lafleur don't dominate like Howe, Hull, Esposito did, and new players are 5 of the Top 13 scorers. The talent entering in the early 80s was very, very good. Look at the 1980s drafts vs the 1970s drafts, and remember that the 1970s drafts lose out on WHA guys like Mike Liut and Mark Howe. The new guys of the early 80s were better than the new guys of the late 60s. It's part of why so many more of the 80s guys lasted into the 1990s, as opposed to 1968 guys who made it through the merger.
ChiTownPhilly
Not Too Soft
To focus on two of our long-standing contributors...
I think I can do this first part in my sleep, since I've been living with the names attached to our "100" for so long, I can pretty much navigate them by dead-reckoning:
A. Unrequited: On their top-100, but not on our final list-
@quoipourquoi
74. Parent
75. Luongo
90. Lundqvist
93. B. Smith
95. Francis
97. Niedermayer
99. Iginla
@Canadiens1958
45. S. Savard
55. Lemaire
56. Lapointe
63. Gerard
83. Št'astný
85. Bower
86. Hainsworth
87. Holmes
88. T. Esposito
89. Parent
91. Vasiliev
95. Schriner
97. Perrault
100. Toews
This next one is more of a challenge- and requires search functions that don't come naturally to me (since I'm a "digital immigrant"), but I made an effort anyway. If I've overlooked something, I'll be happy to edit the following...
B. Cherry Popping Daddies: Not on their 120, but on our final list-
@quoipourquoi
87. Cowley
93. Kane
95. M. Howe
97. Leetch
99. Keon
100. Abel
@Canadiens1958
67. MacInnis*
85. Belfour
89. Chara
91. Thornton
93. Kane
96. Lindros
100. Abel
So... (virtually*) everybody that the group advanced, up to 80+, was on the lists of both of these veteran users. I'm impressed.
* late edit- I overlooked the Al MacInnis singularity, as C1958's list was the only one to omit this player.
I think I can do this first part in my sleep, since I've been living with the names attached to our "100" for so long, I can pretty much navigate them by dead-reckoning:
A. Unrequited: On their top-100, but not on our final list-
@quoipourquoi
74. Parent
75. Luongo
90. Lundqvist
93. B. Smith
95. Francis
97. Niedermayer
99. Iginla
@Canadiens1958
45. S. Savard
55. Lemaire
56. Lapointe
63. Gerard
83. Št'astný
85. Bower
86. Hainsworth
87. Holmes
88. T. Esposito
89. Parent
91. Vasiliev
95. Schriner
97. Perrault
100. Toews
This next one is more of a challenge- and requires search functions that don't come naturally to me (since I'm a "digital immigrant"), but I made an effort anyway. If I've overlooked something, I'll be happy to edit the following...
B. Cherry Popping Daddies: Not on their 120, but on our final list-
@quoipourquoi
87. Cowley
93. Kane
95. M. Howe
97. Leetch
99. Keon
100. Abel
@Canadiens1958
67. MacInnis*
85. Belfour
89. Chara
91. Thornton
93. Kane
96. Lindros
100. Abel
So... (virtually*) everybody that the group advanced, up to 80+, was on the lists of both of these veteran users. I'm impressed.
* late edit- I overlooked the Al MacInnis singularity, as C1958's list was the only one to omit this player.
Last edited:
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
Question for quoipourquoi:
Do you really think Paul Coffey should be ranked ahead of Larry Robinson? Or even Chelios and Park?
Do you really think Paul Coffey should be ranked ahead of Larry Robinson? Or even Chelios and Park?
The Panther
Registered User
I'm jumping in here. Coffey is such a damn hard player to 'rank' (if such things are important). I struggle with him myself.
There's no denying three Norris trophies over an 11-season span. There's no denying that on a per-game basis he was the 2nd -- and a case could be made for 1st -- best offensive Dman of all-time. He's probably the greatest hockey skater of all-time. And more importantly, all the teams he played for -- Edmonton, Pittsburgh, Detroit, Philly -- made the Cup Finals and were highly competitive teams. His international record is also impressive.
So, yeah, I can't argue with anyone ranking Coffey ahead of Chelios and Park. (To confess my biases, I always thought Chelios was slightly over-rated and I never saw Park play.)
Larry Robinson is another question.
I dunno. As Coffey is basically the only 'rover' since the 1920s, it's hard to evaluate him!
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
I've also felt Chelios has been overrated. I added him in the comparison knowing many posters here would concur he should rank over Coffey.
And what you say is true, Coffey is certainly one of the most difficult players to rank.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Dingo
Registered User
- Jul 13, 2018
- 1,762
- 1,781
Yes,I believe it is a forum. Not everyone can get in on every project, and providing a list, however biased, is not a secret knock into an elite society. Especially when this The Eye guy is doing a thorough and intelligent job while maintaining polite discourse in the face of personal slights and offhand, childish comments.
Exactly the type of guy who should be read on here. This project is finished, but the discourse on hockey history continues.
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
2024 SoFi NBA Play-In Tournament Chicago Bulls @ Miami HeatWagers: 6Staked: $883.00Event closes- Updated:
-
2024 SoFi NBA Play-In Tournament Sacramento Kings @ New Orleans PelicansWagers: 4Staked: $195.00Event closes
- Updated:
-
Stanley Cup 2024 Stanley Cup Champion - ONLY BET ONE TEAMWagers: 9Staked: $9,175.00Event closes- Updated:
-