Vs#2 Thread

[BM67]

Decade by decade data for NHL and PCHA Vs#1 through #4 in goals, assists and points. GP is length of schedule, and the totals are the 10 separate years finishers combined. The PCHA lines without years is 13 year total, or 12 in the case of assists.

Player | GP | G | A | Pts | Yrs | G1 | G2 | G3 | G4 | A1 | A2 | A3 | A4 | P1 | P2 | P3 | P4
Number 1 1918-1927 | 272 | 325 | 136 | 404 | 10 | 1000% | 1160% | 1286% | 1465% | 1000% | 1108% | 1346% | 1378% | 1000% | 1093% | 1177% | 1303%
Number 2 1918-1927 | 272 | 283 | 123 | 370 | 10 | 873% | 1000% | 1115% | 1269% | 907% | 1000% | 1213% | 1241% | 917% | 1000% | 1078% | 1194%
Number 3 1918-1927 | 272 | 253 | 104 | 343 | 10 | 787% | 906% | 1000% | 1139% | 762% | 839% | 1000% | 1028% | 853% | 930% | 1000% | 1108%
Number 4 1918-1927 | 272 | 222 | 101 | 311 | 10 | 696% | 801% | 885% | 1000% | 740% | 815% | 976% | 1000% | 777% | 847% | 911% | 1000%
Number 1 1928-1937 | 464 | 305 | 290 | 510 | 10 | 1000% | 1097% | 1224% | 1305% | 1000% | 1114% | 1259% | 1345% | 1000% | 1134% | 1186% | 1227%
Number 2 1928-1937 | 464 | 279 | 262 | 450 | 10 | 923% | 1000% | 1114% | 1191% | 901% | 1000% | 1131% | 1210% | 886% | 1000% | 1045% | 1082%
Number 3 1928-1937 | 464 | 252 | 233 | 432 | 10 | 832% | 901% | 1000% | 1070% | 801% | 889% | 1000% | 1068% | 849% | 958% | 1000% | 1035%
Number 4 1928-1937 | 464 | 236 | 221 | 417 | 10 | 777% | 843% | 937% | 1000% | 755% | 838% | 942% | 1000% | 821% | 926% | 967% | 1000%
Number 1 1938-1947 | 500 | 337 | 403 | 637 | 10 | 1000% | 1213% | 1251% | 1296% | 1000% | 1154% | 1223% | 1291% | 1000% | 1113% | 1168% | 1210%
Number 2 1938-1947 | 500 | 276 | 353 | 580 | 10 | 840% | 1000% | 1029% | 1069% | 884% | 1000% | 1060% | 1120% | 907% | 1000% | 1053% | 1092%
Number 3 1938-1947 | 500 | 268 | 333 | 550 | 10 | 819% | 973% | 1000% | 1039% | 837% | 935% | 1000% | 1057% | 862% | 952% | 1000% | 1037%
Number 4 1938-1947 | 500 | 259 | 315 | 530 | 10 | 788% | 938% | 964% | 1000% | 791% | 895% | 947% | 1000% | 831% | 919% | 965% | 1000%
Number 1 1948-1957 | 680 | 409 | 481 | 807 | 10 | 1000% | 1217% | 1298% | 1370% | 1000% | 1152% | 1256% | 1313% | 1000% | 1145% | 1238% | 1303%
Number 2 1948-1957 | 680 | 338 | 420 | 706 | 10 | 839% | 1000% | 1072% | 1133% | 881% | 1000% | 1095% | 1146% | 882% | 1000% | 1080% | 1137%
Number 3 1948-1957 | 680 | 316 | 387 | 657 | 10 | 786% | 940% | 1000% | 1057% | 810% | 922% | 1000% | 1047% | 821% | 929% | 1000% | 1054%
Number 4 1948-1957 | 680 | 299 | 370 | 623 | 10 | 744% | 892% | 948% | 1000% | 773% | 881% | 957% | 1000% | 779% | 882% | 951% | 1000%
Number 1 1958-1967 | 700 | 449 | 547 | 896 | 10 | 1000% | 1213% | 1337% | 1445% | 1000% | 1119% | 1149% | 1218% | 1000% | 1076% | 1153% | 1205%
Number 2 1958-1967 | 700 | 376 | 489 | 834 | 10 | 852% | 1000% | 1111% | 1207% | 900% | 1000% | 1026% | 1088% | 934% | 1000% | 1072% | 1120%
Number 3 1958-1967 | 700 | 340 | 477 | 779 | 10 | 772% | 912% | 1000% | 1088% | 878% | 975% | 1000% | 1061% | 872% | 934% | 1000% | 1045%
Number 4 1958-1967 | 700 | 313 | 450 | 746 | 10 | 712% | 844% | 927% | 1000% | 828% | 921% | 944% | 1000% | 836% | 896% | 959% | 1000%
Number 1 1968-1977 | 780 | 592 | 818 | 1,289 | 10 | 1000% | 1179% | 1235% | 1308% | 1000% | 1188% | 1300% | 1359% | 1000% | 1132% | 1240% | 1324%
Number 2 1968-1977 | 780 | 501 | 692 | 1,140 | 10 | 859% | 1000% | 1045% | 1109% | 855% | 1000% | 1092% | 1144% | 887% | 1000% | 1094% | 1168%
Number 3 1968-1977 | 780 | 480 | 633 | 1,041 | 10 | 824% | 958% | 1000% | 1061% | 787% | 919% | 1000% | 1047% | 813% | 917% | 1000% | 1065%
Number 4 1968-1977 | 780 | 453 | 604 | 981 | 10 | 776% | 904% | 944% | 1000% | 752% | 879% | 956% | 1000% | 768% | 865% | 941% | 1000%
Number 1 1978-1987 | 800 | 706 | 1,141 | 1,786 | 10 | 1000% | 1175% | 1267% | 1321% | 1000% | 1371% | 1462% | 1574% | 1000% | 1373% | 1422% | 1504%
Number 2 1978-1987 | 800 | 602 | 829 | 1,306 | 10 | 867% | 1000% | 1081% | 1127% | 753% | 1000% | 1068% | 1149% | 756% | 1000% | 1038% | 1107%
Number 3 1978-1987 | 800 | 557 | 776 | 1,258 | 10 | 803% | 928% | 1000% | 1043% | 705% | 937% | 1000% | 1075% | 728% | 964% | 1000% | 1066%
Number 4 1978-1987 | 800 | 534 | 723 | 1,185 | 10 | 770% | 891% | 960% | 1000% | 658% | 874% | 932% | 1000% | 680% | 909% | 942% | 1000%
Number 1 1988-1997 | 780 | 674 | 938 | 1,446 | 10 | 1000% | 1186% | 1250% | 1305% | 1000% | 1092% | 1205% | 1255% | 1000% | 1109% | 1212% | 1259%
Number 2 1988-1997 | 780 | 571 | 860 | 1,296 | 10 | 862% | 1000% | 1057% | 1106% | 924% | 1000% | 1102% | 1148% | 905% | 1000% | 1093% | 1135%
Number 3 1988-1997 | 780 | 539 | 779 | 1,187 | 10 | 815% | 947% | 1000% | 1045% | 843% | 912% | 1000% | 1041% | 832% | 918% | 1000% | 1040%
Number 4 1988-1997 | 780 | 514 | 748 | 1,042 | 10 | 782% | 910% | 960% | 1000% | 811% | 878% | 962% | 1000% | 800% | 883% | 962% | 1000%
Number 1 1998-2008 | 820 | 532 | 734 | 1,099 | 10 | 1000% | 1112% | 1139% | 1183% | 1000% | 1117% | 1168% | 1217% | 1000% | 1065% | 1140% | 1174%
Number 2 1998-2008 | 820 | 480 | 656 | 1,034 | 10 | 908% | 1000% | 1024% | 1064% | 904% | 1000% | 1045% | 1089% | 941% | 1000% | 1072% | 1104%
Number 3 1998-2008 | 820 | 468 | 627 | 963 | 10 | 887% | 976% | 1000% | 1039% | 867% | 958% | 1000% | 1042% | 881% | 936% | 1000% | 1031%
Number 4 1998-2008 | 820 | 451 | 602 | 935 | 10 | 856% | 942% | 965% | 1000% | 832% | 920% | 960% | 1000% | 854% | 909% | 971% | 1000%
Number 1 2001-2011 | 820 | 532 | 757 | 1,103 | 10 | 1000% | 1106% | 1138% | 1204% | 1000% | 1123% | 1175% | 1225% | 1000% | 1042% | 1114% | 1157%
Number 2 2001-2011 | 820 | 482 | 673 | 1,060 | 10 | 911% | 1000% | 1029% | 1090% | 898% | 1000% | 1047% | 1092% | 960% | 1000% | 1069% | 1110%
Number 3 2001-2011 | 820 | 468 | 642 | 991 | 10 | 885% | 972% | 1000% | 1060% | 858% | 956% | 1000% | 1043% | 901% | 939% | 1000% | 1039%
Number 4 2001-2011 | 820 | 442 | 617 | 954 | 10 | 836% | 919% | 946% | 1000% | 824% | 919% | 960% | 1000% | 867% | 903% | 963% | 1000%
PCHA #1 | 275 | 367 | 168 | 488 | 13 | 1300% | 1613% | 1800% | 1965% | 1200% | 1512% | 1713% | 1978% | 1300% | 1521% | 1777% | 1899%
PCHA #1 1912-1921 | 191 | 281 | 130 | 373 | 10 | 1000% | 1211% | 1339% | 1489% | 900% | 1147% | 1322% | 1500% | 1000% | 1160% | 1352% | 1447%
PCHA #1 1915-1924 | 228 | 292 | 145 | 393 | 10 | 1000% | 1238% | 1407% | 1562% | 1000% | 1276% | 1432% | 1630% | 1000% | 1146% | 1380% | 1492%
PCHA #2 | 275 | 303 | 134 | 422 | 13 | 1089% | 1300% | 1467% | 1599% | 983% | 1200% | 1356% | 1565% | 1128% | 1300% | 1515% | 1618%
PCHA #2 1912-1921 | 191 | 238 | 103 | 328 | 10 | 856% | 1000% | 1123% | 1242% | 734% | 900% | 1036% | 1171% | 875% | 1000% | 1166% | 1245%
PCHA #2 1915-1924 | 228 | 239 | 115 | 345 | 10 | 834% | 1000% | 1150% | 1272% | 809% | 1000% | 1119% | 1275% | 883% | 1000% | 1196% | 1290%
PCHA #3 | 275 | 271 | 119 | 362 | 13 | 972% | 1170% | 1300% | 1420% | 877% | 1069% | 1200% | 1390% | 983% | 1131% | 1300% | 1389%
PCHA #3 1912-1921 | 191 | 215 | 90 | 282 | 10 | 767% | 907% | 1000% | 1109% | 641% | 786% | 900% | 1018% | 761% | 870% | 1000% | 1068%
PCHA #3 1915-1924 | 228 | 211 | 103 | 290 | 10 | 733% | 886% | 1000% | 1111% | 730% | 900% | 1000% | 1145% | 754% | 849% | 1000% | 1081%
PCHA #4 | 275 | 251 | 105 | 341 | 13 | 898% | 1081% | 1203% | 1300% | 764% | 910% | 1048% | 1200% | 925% | 1064% | 1223% | 1300%
PCHA #4 1912-1921 | 191 | 197 | 81 | 266 | 10 | 701% | 827% | 913% | 1000% | 573% | 699% | 801% | 900% | 718% | 819% | 942% | 1000%
PCHA #4 1915-1924 | 228 | 193 | 92 | 271 | 10 | 667% | 805% | 911% | 1000% | 642% | 792% | 884% | 1000% | 702% | 788% | 931% | 1000%

Click to read more...

 

[Leafs Forever]

Thanks, and quite useful. Perhaps #2 doesnt vary as much as I thought, though it still does vary.

One think I'm worried about is if the large ranges and the average too mitigate single year oddities.

 

[BM67]

Year by year data for NHL and PCHA, #2 compared to the #1 through #4 in goals, assists and points. GP is length of schedule.

Player | Year | League | GP | G | A | Pts | G1 | G2 | G3 | G4 | A1 | A2 | A3 | A4 | P1 | P2 | P3 | P4
Number 2 | 1918 | NHL | 22 | 36 | 10 | 46 | 81.82% | 100.00% | 120.00% | 156.52% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 111.11% | 95.83% | 100.00% | 115.00% | 153.33%
Number 2 | 1919 | NHL | 18 | 22 | 9 | 28 | 100.00% | 100.00% | 115.79% | 122.22% | 90.00% | 100.00% | 150.00% | 150.00% | 87.50% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 127.27%
Number 2 | 1920 | NHL | 24 | 37 | 14 | 46 | 94.87% | 100.00% | 142.31% | 154.17% | 93.33% | 100.00% | 116.67% | 116.67% | 93.88% | 100.00% | 112.20% | 127.78%
Number 2 | 1921 | NHL | 24 | 34 | 14 | 40 | 97.14% | 100.00% | 103.03% | 121.43% | 93.33% | 100.00% | 140.00% | 140.00% | 93.02% | 100.00% | 102.56% | 108.11%
Number 2 | 1922 | NHL | 24 | 31 | 14 | 39 | 96.88% | 100.00% | 114.81% | 129.17% | 82.35% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 116.67% | 84.78% | 100.00% | 102.63% | 111.43%
Number 2 | 1923 | NHL | 26 | 24 | 12 | 34 | 92.31% | 100.00% | 104.35% | 126.32% | 92.31% | 100.00% | 109.09% | 109.09% | 91.89% | 100.00% | 109.68% | 121.43%
Number 2 | 1924 | NHL | 24 | 16 | 8 | 23 | 72.73% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 80.00% | 100.00% | 133.33% | 133.33% | 95.83% | 100.00% | 104.55% | 104.55%
Number 2 | 1925 | NHL | 30 | 30 | 15 | 42 | 78.95% | 100.00% | 107.14% | 111.11% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 115.38% | 115.38% | 91.30% | 100.00% | 102.44% | 107.69%
Number 2 | 1926 | NHL | 36 | 28 | 12 | 36 | 82.35% | 100.00% | 107.69% | 116.67% | 92.31% | 100.00% | 133.33% | 133.33% | 85.71% | 100.00% | 116.13% | 116.13%
Number 2 | 1927 | NHL | 44 | 25 | 15 | 36 | 75.76% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 131.58% | 83.33% | 100.00% | 115.38% | 115.38% | 97.30% | 100.00% | 112.50% | 116.13%
Number 2 | 1928 | NHL | 44 | 28 | 14 | 39 | 84.85% | 100.00% | 103.70% | 121.74% | 77.78% | 100.00% | 107.69% | 116.67% | 76.47% | 100.00% | 111.43% | 111.43%
Number 2 | 1929 | NHL | 44 | 21 | 15 | 29 | 95.45% | 100.00% | 116.67% | 123.53% | 93.75% | 100.00% | 125.00% | 150.00% | 90.63% | 100.00% | 107.41% | 107.41%
Number 2 | 1930 | NHL | 44 | 41 | 31 | 62 | 95.35% | 100.00% | 102.50% | 105.13% | 86.11% | 100.00% | 103.33% | 103.33% | 84.93% | 100.00% | 101.64% | 105.08%
Number 2 | 1931 | NHL | 44 | 30 | 27 | 48 | 96.77% | 100.00% | 107.14% | 120.00% | 84.38% | 100.00% | 117.39% | 117.39% | 94.12% | 100.00% | 111.63% | 114.29%
Number 2 | 1932 | NHL | 48 | 34 | 33 | 50 | 100.00% | 100.00% | 121.43% | 130.77% | 89.19% | 100.00% | 132.00% | 132.00% | 94.34% | 100.00% | 102.04% | 104.17%
Number 2 | 1933 | NHL | 48 | 27 | 27 | 44 | 96.43% | 100.00% | 112.50% | 122.73% | 96.43% | 100.00% | 108.00% | 108.00% | 88.00% | 100.00% | 102.33% | 107.32%
Number 2 | 1934 | NHL | 48 | 27 | 30 | 46 | 84.38% | 100.00% | 122.73% | 122.73% | 93.75% | 100.00% | 115.38% | 142.86% | 88.46% | 100.00% | 104.55% | 117.95%
Number 2 | 1935 | NHL | 48 | 25 | 32 | 47 | 69.44% | 100.00% | 113.64% | 113.64% | 94.12% | 100.00% | 110.34% | 118.52% | 82.46% | 100.00% | 102.17% | 104.44%
Number 2 | 1936 | NHL | 48 | 23 | 26 | 40 | 100.00% | 100.00% | 109.52% | 121.05% | 92.86% | 100.00% | 104.00% | 113.04% | 88.89% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 105.26%
Number 2 | 1937 | NHL | 48 | 23 | 27 | 45 | 100.00% | 100.00% | 104.55% | 109.52% | 93.10% | 100.00% | 108.00% | 108.00% | 97.83% | 100.00% | 102.27% | 104.65%
Number 2 | 1938 | NHL | 48 | 23 | 27 | 50 | 88.46% | 100.00% | 104.55% | 109.52% | 93.10% | 100.00% | 103.85% | 108.00% | 96.15% | 100.00% | 113.64% | 119.05%
Number 2 | 1939 | NHL | 48 | 24 | 33 | 44 | 92.31% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 114.29% | 97.06% | 100.00% | 106.45% | 117.86% | 93.62% | 100.00% | 104.76% | 107.32%
Number 2 | 1940 | NHL | 48 | 22 | 28 | 43 | 91.67% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 104.76% | 93.33% | 100.00% | 103.70% | 107.69% | 82.69% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 107.50%
Number 2 | 1941 | NHL | 48 | 24 | 28 | 44 | 92.31% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 104.35% | 62.22% | 100.00% | 107.69% | 112.00% | 70.97% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00%
Number 2 | 1942 | NHL | 48 | 24 | 32 | 54 | 75.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 86.49% | 100.00% | 103.23% | 106.67% | 96.43% | 100.00% | 101.89% | 103.85%
Number 2 | 1943 | NHL | 50 | 30 | 44 | 72 | 90.91% | 100.00% | 107.14% | 107.14% | 97.78% | 100.00% | 102.33% | 104.76% | 98.63% | 100.00% | 102.86% | 118.03%
Number 2 | 1944 | NHL | 50 | 36 | 48 | 77 | 94.74% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 97.96% | 100.00% | 104.35% | 114.29% | 93.90% | 100.00% | 104.05% | 105.48%
Number 2 | 1945 | NHL | 50 | 32 | 40 | 73 | 64.00% | 100.00% | 110.34% | 110.34% | 74.07% | 100.00% | 105.26% | 111.11% | 91.25% | 100.00% | 108.96% | 112.31%
Number 2 | 1946 | NHL | 50 | 31 | 30 | 52 | 83.78% | 100.00% | 106.90% | 114.81% | 88.24% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 111.11% | 85.25% | 100.00% | 104.00% | 104.00%
Number 2 | 1947 | NHL | 60 | 30 | 43 | 71 | 66.67% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 103.45% | 93.48% | 100.00% | 122.86% | 126.47% | 98.61% | 100.00% | 112.70% | 114.52%
Number 2 | 1948 | NHL | 60 | 30 | 36 | 60 | 90.91% | 100.00% | 107.14% | 111.11% | 97.30% | 100.00% | 105.88% | 116.13% | 98.36% | 100.00% | 105.26% | 107.14%
Number 2 | 1949 | NHL | 60 | 26 | 42 | 66 | 92.86% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 97.67% | 100.00% | 144.83% | 150.00% | 97.06% | 100.00% | 122.22% | 122.22%
Number 2 | 1950 | NHL | 70 | 35 | 36 | 69 | 81.40% | 100.00% | 102.94% | 120.69% | 65.45% | 100.00% | 102.86% | 105.88% | 88.46% | 100.00% | 101.47% | 106.15%
Number 2 | 1951 | NHL | 70 | 42 | 43 | 66 | 97.67% | 100.00% | 135.48% | 140.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 104.88% | 110.26% | 76.74% | 100.00% | 106.45% | 108.20%
Number 2 | 1952 | NHL | 70 | 31 | 42 | 69 | 65.96% | 100.00% | 103.33% | 103.33% | 84.00% | 100.00% | 107.69% | 107.69% | 80.23% | 100.00% | 106.15% | 113.11%
Number 2 | 1953 | NHL | 70 | 32 | 43 | 71 | 65.31% | 100.00% | 106.67% | 114.29% | 93.48% | 100.00% | 110.26% | 113.16% | 74.74% | 100.00% | 116.39% | 120.34%
Number 2 | 1954 | NHL | 70 | 33 | 37 | 67 | 89.19% | 100.00% | 113.79% | 122.22% | 77.08% | 100.00% | 102.78% | 112.12% | 82.72% | 100.00% | 108.06% | 124.07%
Number 2 | 1955 | NHL | 70 | 38 | 43 | 74 | 100.00% | 100.00% | 102.70% | 115.15% | 89.58% | 100.00% | 102.38% | 102.38% | 98.67% | 100.00% | 101.37% | 112.12%
Number 2 | 1956 | NHL | 70 | 38 | 47 | 79 | 80.85% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 102.70% | 83.93% | 100.00% | 111.90% | 114.63% | 89.77% | 100.00% | 111.27% | 112.86%
Number 2 | 1957 | NHL | 70 | 33 | 51 | 85 | 75.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 103.13% | 92.73% | 100.00% | 102.00% | 113.33% | 95.51% | 100.00% | 101.19% | 110.39%
Number 2 | 1958 | NHL | 70 | 33 | 48 | 80 | 91.67% | 100.00% | 103.13% | 103.13% | 92.31% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 109.09% | 95.24% | 100.00% | 102.56% | 103.90%
Number 2 | 1959 | NHL | 70 | 41 | 48 | 91 | 91.11% | 100.00% | 102.50% | 124.24% | 87.27% | 100.00% | 104.35% | 104.35% | 94.79% | 100.00% | 103.41% | 116.67%
Number 2 | 1960 | NHL | 70 | 39 | 48 | 80 | 100.00% | 100.00% | 114.71% | 121.88% | 97.96% | 100.00% | 106.67% | 111.63% | 98.77% | 100.00% | 108.11% | 108.11%
Number 2 | 1961 | NHL | 70 | 48 | 50 | 90 | 96.00% | 100.00% | 137.14% | 150.00% | 86.21% | 100.00% | 102.04% | 104.17% | 94.74% | 100.00% | 107.14% | 116.88%
Number 2 | 1962 | NHL | 70 | 33 | 52 | 84 | 66.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 92.86% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 118.18% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 109.09% | 109.09%
Number 2 | 1963 | NHL | 70 | 37 | 49 | 81 | 97.37% | 100.00% | 102.78% | 105.71% | 98.00% | 100.00% | 102.08% | 106.52% | 94.19% | 100.00% | 106.58% | 110.96%
Number 2 | 1964 | NHL | 70 | 39 | 50 | 87 | 90.70% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 134.48% | 86.21% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 106.38% | 97.75% | 100.00% | 111.54% | 112.99%
Number 2 | 1965 | NHL | 70 | 39 | 47 | 83 | 92.86% | 100.00% | 134.48% | 139.29% | 79.66% | 100.00% | 104.44% | 111.90% | 95.40% | 100.00% | 109.21% | 116.90%
Number 2 | 1966 | NHL | 70 | 32 | 48 | 78 | 59.26% | 100.00% | 103.23% | 103.23% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 104.35% | 80.41% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 101.30%
Number 2 | 1967 | NHL | 70 | 35 | 49 | 80 | 67.31% | 100.00% | 112.90% | 125.00% | 79.03% | 100.00% | 106.52% | 111.36% | 82.47% | 100.00% | 114.29% | 123.08%
Number 2 | 1968 | NHL | 76 | 40 | 48 | 84 | 90.91% | 100.00% | 102.56% | 114.29% | 97.96% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 102.13% | 96.55% | 100.00% | 102.44% | 107.69%
Number 2 | 1969 | NHL | 76 | 49 | 67 | 107 | 84.48% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 108.89% | 87.01% | 100.00% | 113.56% | 115.52% | 84.92% | 100.00% | 103.88% | 110.31%
Number 2 | 1970 | NHL | 76 | 42 | 56 | 99 | 97.67% | 100.00% | 107.69% | 110.53% | 64.37% | 100.00% | 107.69% | 112.00% | 82.50% | 100.00% | 115.12% | 126.92%
Number 2 | 1971 | NHL | 78 | 51 | 76 | 139 | 67.11% | 100.00% | 115.91% | 118.60% | 74.51% | 100.00% | 116.92% | 122.58% | 91.45% | 100.00% | 119.83% | 132.38%
Number 2 | 1972 | NHL | 78 | 50 | 67 | 117 | 75.76% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 106.38% | 83.75% | 100.00% | 106.35% | 119.64% | 87.97% | 100.00% | 107.34% | 110.38%
Number 2 | 1973 | NHL | 78 | 52 | 72 | 104 | 94.55% | 100.00% | 104.00% | 118.18% | 96.00% | 100.00% | 107.46% | 118.03% | 80.00% | 100.00% | 102.97% | 104.00%
Number 2 | 1974 | NHL | 78 | 52 | 77 | 122 | 76.47% | 100.00% | 101.96% | 104.00% | 85.56% | 100.00% | 124.19% | 126.23% | 84.14% | 100.00% | 116.19% | 103.71%
Number 2 | 1975 | NHL | 80 | 53 | 89 | 127 | 86.89% | 100.00% | 101.92% | 106.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 108.54% | 120.27% | 94.07% | 100.00% | 104.96% | 106.72%
Number 2 | 1976 | NHL | 80 | 56 | 71 | 119 | 91.80% | 100.00% | 105.66% | 107.69% | 79.78% | 100.00% | 102.90% | 102.90% | 95.20% | 100.00% | 105.31% | 106.25%
Number 2 | 1977 | NHL | 80 | 56 | 69 | 122 | 93.33% | 100.00% | 105.66% | 114.29% | 86.25% | 100.00% | 104.55% | 104.55% | 89.71% | 100.00% | 116.19% | 125.77%
Number 2 | 1978 | NHL | 80 | 53 | 72 | 123 | 88.33% | 100.00% | 108.16% | 112.77% | 93.51% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 105.88% | 93.18% | 100.00% | 105.13% | 126.80%
Number 2 | 1979 | NHL | 80 | 59 | 77 | 130 | 85.51% | 100.00% | 113.46% | 118.00% | 88.51% | 100.00% | 108.45% | 108.45% | 97.01% | 100.00% | 100.78% | 103.17%
Number 2 | 1980 | NHL | 80 | 56 | 84 | 137 | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 105.66% | 97.67% | 100.00% | 112.00% | 127.27% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 109.60% | 129.25%
Number 2 | 1981 | NHL | 80 | 58 | 82 | 135 | 85.29% | 100.00% | 103.57% | 105.45% | 75.23% | 100.00% | 106.49% | 112.33% | 82.32% | 100.00% | 103.05% | 113.45%
Number 2 | 1982 | NHL | 80 | 64 | 93 | 147 | 69.57% | 100.00% | 106.67% | 116.36% | 77.50% | 100.00% | 106.90% | 112.05% | 69.34% | 100.00% | 105.76% | 108.09%
Number 2 | 1983 | NHL | 80 | 66 | 86 | 124 | 92.96% | 100.00% | 110.00% | 115.79% | 68.80% | 100.00% | 111.69% | 128.36% | 63.27% | 100.00% | 102.48% | 105.08%
Number 2 | 1984 | NHL | 80 | 56 | 86 | 126 | 64.37% | 100.00% | 103.70% | 103.70% | 72.88% | 100.00% | 111.69% | 117.81% | 61.46% | 100.00% | 104.13% | 105.88%
Number 2 | 1985 | NHL | 80 | 71 | 84 | 135 | 97.26% | 100.00% | 122.41% | 129.09% | 62.22% | 100.00% | 105.00% | 109.09% | 64.90% | 100.00% | 103.85% | 107.14%
Number 2 | 1986 | NHL | 80 | 61 | 93 | 141 | 89.71% | 100.00% | 105.17% | 112.96% | 57.06% | 100.00% | 103.33% | 114.81% | 65.58% | 100.00% | 102.17% | 107.63%
Number 2 | 1987 | NHL | 80 | 58 | 72 | 108 | 93.55% | 100.00% | 107.41% | 107.41% | 59.50% | 100.00% | 102.86% | 112.50% | 59.02% | 100.00% | 100.93% | 100.93%
Number 2 | 1988 | NHL | 80 | 56 | 98 | 149 | 80.00% | 100.00% | 101.82% | 105.66% | 89.91% | 100.00% | 112.64% | 127.27% | 88.69% | 100.00% | 113.74% | 123.14%
Number 2 | 1989 | NHL | 80 | 70 | 114 | 168 | 82.35% | 100.00% | 107.69% | 129.63% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 126.67% | 137.35% | 84.42% | 100.00% | 108.39% | 112.00%
Number 2 | 1990 | NHL | 80 | 62 | 84 | 129 | 86.11% | 100.00% | 112.73% | 112.73% | 82.35% | 100.00% | 106.33% | 107.69% | 90.85% | 100.00% | 101.57% | 104.88%
Number 2 | 1991 | NHL | 80 | 51 | 90 | 131 | 59.30% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 73.77% | 100.00% | 120.00% | 123.29% | 80.37% | 100.00% | 113.91% | 115.93%
Number 2 | 1992 | NHL | 80 | 54 | 87 | 123 | 77.14% | 100.00% | 101.89% | 101.89% | 96.67% | 100.00% | 108.75% | 110.13% | 93.89% | 100.00% | 101.65% | 112.84%
Number 2 | 1993 | NHL | 84 | 76 | 95 | 148 | 100.00% | 100.00% | 110.14% | 120.63% | 97.94% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 104.40% | 92.50% | 100.00% | 104.23% | 108.03%
Number 2 | 1994 | NHL | 84 | 57 | 84 | 120 | 95.00% | 100.00% | 101.79% | 107.55% | 91.30% | 100.00% | 105.00% | 109.09% | 92.31% | 100.00% | 107.14% | 108.11%
Number 2 | 1995 | NHL | 48 | 32 | 44 | 70 | 94.12% | 100.00% | 106.67% | 106.67% | 91.67% | 100.00% | 102.33% | 107.32% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 107.69% | 112.90%
Number 2 | 1996 | NHL | 82 | 62 | 92 | 149 | 89.86% | 100.00% | 112.73% | 119.23% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 105.75% | 106.98% | 92.55% | 100.00% | 124.17% | 125.21%
Number 2 | 1997 | NHL | 82 | 51 | 72 | 109 | 98.08% | 100.00% | 102.00% | 102.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 114.29% | 114.29% | 89.34% | 100.00% | 110.10% | 112.37%
Number 2 | 1998 | NHL | 82 | 52 | 67 | 91 | 100.00% | 100.00% | 101.96% | 101.96% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 101.52% | 108.06% | 89.22% | 100.00% | 101.11% | 101.11%
Number 2 | 1999 | NHL | 82 | 44 | 67 | 107 | 93.62% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 80.72% | 100.00% | 108.06% | 111.67% | 84.25% | 100.00% | 105.94% | 110.31%
Number 2 | 2000 | NHL | 82 | 44 | 56 | 94 | 75.86% | 100.00% | 102.33% | 104.76% | 88.89% | 100.00% | 103.70% | 105.66% | 97.92% | 100.00% | 103.30% | 109.30%
Number 2 | 2001 | NHL | 82 | 54 | 69 | 118 | 91.53% | 100.00% | 103.85% | 120.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 101.47% | 106.15% | 97.52% | 100.00% | 122.92% | 124.21%
Number 2 | 2002 | NHL | 82 | 41 | 55 | 90 | 78.85% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 85.94% | 100.00% | 103.77% | 110.00% | 93.75% | 100.00% | 105.88% | 112.50%
Number 2 | 2003 | NHL | 82 | 48 | 65 | 104 | 96.00% | 100.00% | 104.35% | 106.67% | 84.42% | 100.00% | 103.17% | 114.04% | 98.11% | 100.00% | 102.97% | 106.12%
Number 2 | 2004 | NHL | 82 | 41 | 56 | 87 | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 107.89% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 101.82% | 103.70% | 92.55% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 103.57%
Number 2 | 2006 | NHL | 82 | 54 | 71 | 123 | 96.43% | 100.00% | 103.85% | 103.85% | 73.96% | 100.00% | 102.90% | 102.90% | 98.40% | 100.00% | 116.04% | 119.42%
Number 2 | 2007 | NHL | 82 | 50 | 84 | 114 | 96.15% | 100.00% | 104.17% | 108.70% | 91.30% | 100.00% | 113.51% | 118.31% | 95.00% | 100.00% | 105.56% | 108.57%
Number 2 | 2008 | NHL | 82 | 52 | 66 | 106 | 80.00% | 100.00% | 104.00% | 110.64% | 98.51% | 100.00% | 104.76% | 108.20% | 94.64% | 100.00% | 108.16% | 109.28%
Number 2 | 2009 | NHL | 82 | 46 | 70 | 110 | 82.14% | 100.00% | 102.22% | 106.98% | 89.74% | 100.00% | 106.06% | 106.06% | 97.35% | 100.00% | 106.80% | 113.40%
Number 2 | 2010 | NHL | 82 | 51 | 69 | 109 | 100.00% | 100.00% | 102.00% | 115.91% | 83.13% | 100.00% | 101.47% | 102.99% | 97.32% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 107.92%
Number 2 | 2011 | NHL | 82 | 45 | 68 | 99 | 90.00% | 100.00% | 104.65% | 109.76% | 90.67% | 100.00% | 107.94% | 119.30% | 95.19% | 100.00% | 101.02% | 105.32%
Number 2 | 1912 | PCHA | 16 | 26 | 0 | 26 | 96.30% | 100.00% | 108.33% | 113.04% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 96.30% | 100.00% | 108.33% | 113.04%
Number 2 | 1913 | PCHA | 15 | 14 | 8 | 20 | 58.33% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 114.29% | 133.33% | 68.97% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 100.00%
Number 2 | 1914 | PCHA | 16 | 24 | 11 | 31 | 100.00% | 100.00% | 109.09% | 114.29% | 73.33% | 100.00% | 122.22% | 157.14% | 79.49% | 100.00% | 110.71% | 114.81%
Number 2 | 1915 | PCHA | 18 | 24 | 11 | 44 | 72.73% | 100.00% | 104.35% | 109.09% | 52.38% | 100.00% | 122.22% | 137.50% | 97.78% | 100.00% | 146.67% | 146.67%
Number 2 | 1916 | PCHA | 18 | 22 | 13 | 32 | 95.65% | 100.00% | 104.76% | 122.22% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 130.00% | 130.00% | 91.43% | 100.00% | 110.34% | 123.08%
Number 2 | 1917 | PCHA | 24 | 37 | 17 | 53 | 86.05% | 100.00% | 102.78% | 105.71% | 94.44% | 100.00% | 113.33% | 113.33% | 98.15% | 100.00% | 110.42% | 115.22%
Number 2 | 1918 | PCHA | 18 | 20 | 11 | 32 | 62.50% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 142.86% | 91.67% | 100.00% | 110.00% | 137.50% | 74.42% | 100.00% | 139.13% | 152.38%
Number 2 | 1919 | PCHA | 20 | 22 | 9 | 29 | 95.65% | 100.00% | 115.79% | 146.67% | 69.23% | 100.00% | 112.50% | 128.57% | 80.56% | 100.00% | 116.00% | 152.63%
Number 2 | 1920 | PCHA | 22 | 26 | 10 | 29 | 100.00% | 100.00% | 162.50% | 173.33% | 76.92% | 100.00% | 111.11% | 125.00% | 87.88% | 100.00% | 120.83% | 120.83%
Number 2 | 1921 | PCHA | 24 | 23 | 13 | 32 | 88.46% | 100.00% | 115.00% | 115.00% | 76.47% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 108.33% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 103.23% | 106.67%
Number 2 | 1922 | PCHA | 24 | 16 | 10 | 26 | 61.54% | 100.00% | 106.67% | 106.67% | 83.33% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 111.11% | 86.67% | 100.00% | 104.00% | 108.33%
Number 2 | 1923 | PCHA | 30 | 28 | 12 | 40 | 71.79% | 100.00% | 127.27% | 133.33% | 75.00% | 100.00% | 120.00% | 133.33% | 72.73% | 100.00% | 137.93% | 142.86%
Number 2 | 1924 | PCHA | 30 | 21 | 9 | 28 | 100.00% | 100.00% | 110.53% | 116.67% | 90.00% | 100.00% | 100.00% | 150.00% | 93.33% | 100.00% | 107.69% | 121.74%

 

[Leafs Forever]

Much appreciated. Some pretty substantial variations apparent some years, I think.

 

[BM67]

I'm going to stick this in here, since the draft thread will get locked at some time.

Not really, when the point is to attempt to assign players a “score” based on how impressive their totals are in a historical context. 1987 is definitely a weird year when you look at how every non-Gretzky fared. The issue is not just in the top-5 scorers.

The number of 90, 80, and 70-point scorers went from an average of 21-33-56 in 1985 and 1986, to 13-23-52 in 1987, to an average of 17-34-57 in 1988 and 1989.

Point is, I have no problem with how the 1987 scores turn out.



Aren’t we talking about the effect of removing Bossy in 1986? If I did, the comparable would be one point higher, meaning minimal differences in the scores.

If you’re referring to 1989, I disagree that the rest of the leaderboard is below average. It looks like any other season in that range to me. The effect of bumping up those players’ scores is desired, the huge undesired effect I was referring to would be the embarrassingly low scores they would have if based on Wayne’s 169 (or even that 140 average)



On the surface, it looks like you are probably right that using 139 in 1982 is not a good idea. At the time I didn’t see it as a “crazy” enough result to break the pattern and “arbitrarily” remove it (see 1989 Yzerman, 1996 Jagr, 2006 Jagr) and one would think that this season to fall more “in line” with other seasons, a lower comparable would likely have to be used. But it actually falls in line with the other seasons pretty nicely:

year | 90+ | 80+ | 70+ | 60+
1978 | 3 | 3 | 12 | 21
1979 | 4 | 6 | 10 | 23
1980 | 3 | 8 | 20 | 36
1981 | 4 | 8 | 18 | 30
1982 | 5 | 8 | 15 | 38
1983 | 4 | 12 | 24 | 56
1984 | 9 | 15 | 35 | 59
1985 | 6 | 12 | 26 | 39
1986 | 8 | 16 | 22 | 53
1987 | 10 | 19 | 43 | 71
1988 | 7 | 12 | 25 | 54
1989 | 9 | 22 | 42 | 69
1990 | 4 | 13 | 26 | 44
1991 | 9 | 14 | 26 | 49
1992 | 12 | 23 | 45 | 67
1993 | 6 | 11 | 22 | 44
1994 | 8 | 21 | 41 | 71

I know it can never be perfectly linear, and I wouldn’t want to try to “force” it to be, either, but I am satisfied with how this looks. It reflects that over this time, the number of players in the NHL capable of scoring at a level of x% of the #2 non-outlier has steadily increased. You can definitely pick out a couple odd spots, some are explainable (1980 was a spike, due to the absorption of the WHA), some aren’t (1987 is slightly but not obscenely out of line)

If I used 140 as the comparable in 1989, the numbers would look like this: 4, 6, 10, 29. Far too out of line with the seasons around it and, IMO, not reflective of how that season went.

A start would be taking the average of the #2-5 scorers that came across their scores “honestly” (Gretzky 168, Yzerman 155, Mullen 110, Kurri 102 = 134) Then we’d end up with 4, 7, 13, 34 – which I would still very much disagree with, but is more “right” than the above. Personally, I like that year the way I have it.

Lets look at 1987. The 71 players above 60% is tied for the highest in the 17 years on your table. 71st in scoring is 63 points. 63 points from 1985-1989 gets you: 70th, 85th, 71st, 71st, & 76th. 71st place is 63, 67, 63, 63 & 65 points. 60%+ equals: 76 pts, 73 pts, 63 pts, 72 pts, & 66 pts. That doesn't vary as much as your 60%+: 39, 53, 71, 54 & 69 players.

That's 63 pts: 70th-85th; 71st: 63-67 pts; 60%+: 66-76 pts; 60%+: 39-71 players.

Leaving the #2 at #2 and 108 points would only move that to 65 points and 64 players for 1987. (That 64 players would still be the 4th highest for the 17 years.) I don't see anything out of line there, so you fixed something that wasn't broken. Maybe your tweak is better, but I'm doubtful at this point.

On the other hand with only 39 players making the 60%+ mark in 1985, with 2 outliers already removed, I'd think that might need a closer look.

One will need to look at other points in the data, and compare them to the straight #2 numbers to get a better picture, but just with the numbers above it looks like you didn't "fix" at least two years. I also wonder how many years have you gone too far, as I believe you have in 1989.

In 1989 the top 4 are way ahead of average, and the rest of the pack are slightly below average. So a line like 4, 7, 13, 34 is much more in line with reality than 9, 22, 42, 69, which makes it look like the leaders were below average and the pack were above.

 

[seventieslord]

I'm going to stick this in here, since the draft thread will get locked at some time.



Lets look at 1987. The 71 players above 60% is tied for the highest in the 17 years on your table. 71st in scoring is 63 points. 63 points from 1985-1989 gets you: 70th, 85th, 71st, 71st, & 76th. 71st place is 63, 67, 63, 63 & 65 points. 60%+ equals: 76 pts, 73 pts, 63 pts, 72 pts, & 66 pts. That doesn't vary as much as your 60%+: 39, 53, 71, 54 & 69 players.

That's 63 pts: 70th-85th; 71st: 63-67 pts; 60%+: 66-76 pts; 60%+: 39-71 players.

Leaving the #2 at #2 and 108 points would only move that to 65 points and 64 players for 1987. (That 64 players would still be the 4th highest for the 17 years.) I don't see anything out of line there, so you fixed something that wasn't broken. Maybe your tweak is better, but I'm doubtful at this point.

Maybe 1987 wasn't broken to begin with. However, the majority of seasons in this range were.

Leaving it as-is still leaves me in the position of saying Kurri was the #2 scorer for that year, when, if #1 is removed, he almost certainly wouldn't be.

On the other hand with only 39 players making the 60%+ mark in 1985, with 2 outliers already removed, I'd think that might need a closer look.

Bossy in 6th is more than 10% up on Savard in 7th. Arguably, that should be the comparable but then that is calling Hawerchuk and Dionne "outliers". If 105 was the comparable for that year, we have 20-30-45-71... which is extremely wacky. This may have to just be called a "weird year". (it's 8-20-32-51 if we use Bossy's 117 as the comparable, which gives easily the most "desireable" results but there's also less "logic" behind it because he outscored the next guy by so much.)

One will need to look at other points in the data, and compare them to the straight #2 numbers to get a better picture, but just with the numbers above it looks like you didn't "fix" at least two years. I also wonder how many years have you gone too far, as I believe you have in 1989.

In 1989 the top 4 are way ahead of average, and the rest of the pack are slightly below average. So a line like 4, 7, 13, 34 is much more in line with reality than 9, 22, 42, 69, which makes it look like the leaders were below average and the pack were above.

the scores of those in the top-4 will reflect how far ahead of the average they are, which is ok with me. I think in this particular season the "pack" did have a better year. 9-22-42-69 is on the higher side, but 4-7-13-34 is embarrassingly low compared to the seasons surrounding it. If I had to pick one I would pick the former every time. Of course, that means something in between those two "fits" better but I don't see a "good" way to get there either, other than arbitrarily.

 

[BenchBrawl]

where is the graph you made about defensemen? I think it was something like a week or two ago?

 

[BM67]

Maybe 1987 wasn't broken to begin with. However, the majority of seasons in this range were.

Leaving it as-is still leaves me in the position of saying Kurri was the #2 scorer for that year, when, if #1 is removed, he almost certainly wouldn't be.

You're getting caught up in a name again. As I said, Lemieux was already removed by injury. Same can be said for Bossy, which drags Trottier down as well, and Stastny. Age caught a few guys before guys like Yzerman could get it going. I'd say this seems like a year where the outliers removed themselves already.

Bossy in 6th is more than 10% up on Savard in 7th. Arguably, that should be the comparable but then that is calling Hawerchuk and Dionne "outliers". If 105 was the comparable for that year, we have 20-30-45-71... which is extremely wacky. This may have to just be called a "weird year". (it's 8-20-32-51 if we use Bossy's 117 as the comparable, which gives easily the most "desireable" results but there's also less "logic" behind it because he outscored the next guy by so much.)

It may be that the logjam of talent at the top warrants there only being 39 guys 60%+ in 1985. Maybe that's too many. Once we look at more of the data, we can decide.

the scores of those in the top-4 will reflect how far ahead of the average they are, which is ok with me. I think in this particular season the "pack" did have a better year. 9-22-42-69 is on the higher side, but 4-7-13-34 is embarrassingly low compared to the seasons surrounding it. If I had to pick one I would pick the former every time. Of course, that means something in between those two "fits" better but I don't see a "good" way to get there either, other than arbitrarily.

Point totals for selected spots in the top 25 78-94

Year | #1 | #2 | #3 | #4 | #5 | #10 | #15 | #20 | #25
1978 | 132 | 123 | 117 | 97 | 94 | 87 | 81 | 77 | 73
1979 | 134 | 130 | 129 | 126 | 108 | 91 | 85 | 80 | 77
1980 | 137 | 137 | 125 | 106 | 105 | 94 | 92 | 89 | 79
1981 | 164 | 135 | 131 | 119 | 112 | 103 | 96 | 87 | 83
1982 | 212 | 147 | 139 | 136 | 129 | 106 | 97 | 92 | 89
1983 | 196 | 124 | 121 | 118 | 107 | 104 | 92 | 88 | 84
1984 | 205 | 126 | 121 | 119 | 118 | 105 | 95 | 92 | 89
1985 | 208 | 135 | 130 | 126 | 121 | 102 | 100 | 95 | 89
1986 | 215 | 141 | 138 | 131 | 123 | 105 | 97 | 89 | 84
1987 | 183 | 108 | 107 | 107 | 105 | 95 | 87 | 81 | 79
1988 | 168 | 149 | 131 | 121 | 111 | 106 | 93 | 89 | 86
1989 | 199 | 168 | 155 | 150 | 115 | 98 | 90 | 88 | 85
1990 | 142 | 129 | 127 | 123 | 123 | 102 | 96 | 92 | 90
1991 | 163 | 131 | 115 | 113 | 110 | 101 | 91 | 87 | 82
1992 | 131 | 123 | 121 | 109 | 107 | 99 | 93 | 87 | 82
1993 | 160 | 148 | 142 | 137 | 132 | 123 | 107 | 100 | 97
1994 | 130 | 120 | 112 | 111 | 107 | 99 | 93 | 91 | 86

Just sticking to the 12 years, 79-80 to 90-91, with 21 teams and an 80 game schedule. The leader board for 1989 has: #1: 5th highest; #2: 1st; #3: 1st;#4: 1st; #5: 6th; #10: 10th; #15: 11th; #20: T8th; #25: 6th. As you can see #2-3-4 are very high, #1-5-25 are average, and #10-15-20 are well below average. As I posted above, down around #71, the season isn't out of line with the 4 seasons before it.

A line like 4-7-13-34 is much more in line with that than the line of 9-22-42-69 (all 4 rank in top 3 of the 17 years in your table), which is more in line with a season like 1987, where the leader board is so weak at top that the weak pack looks average by comparison.

 

[seventieslord]

You're getting caught up in a name again. As I said, Lemieux was already removed by injury. Same can be said for Bossy, which drags Trottier down as well, and Stastny. Age caught a few guys before guys like Yzerman could get it going. I'd say this seems like a year where the outliers removed themselves already.

could be.

It may be that the logjam of talent at the top warrants there only being 39 guys 60%+ in 1985. Maybe that's too many. Once we look at more of the data, we can decide.

I wouldn't want other great scorers to look bad only because of a logjam at the top.

Point totals for selected spots in the top 25 78-94

Year | #1 | #2 | #3 | #4 | #5 | #10 | #15 | #20 | #25
1978 | 132 | 123 | 117 | 97 | 94 | 87 | 81 | 77 | 73
1979 | 134 | 130 | 129 | 126 | 108 | 91 | 85 | 80 | 77
1980 | 137 | 137 | 125 | 106 | 105 | 94 | 92 | 89 | 79
1981 | 164 | 135 | 131 | 119 | 112 | 103 | 96 | 87 | 83
1982 | 212 | 147 | 139 | 136 | 129 | 106 | 97 | 92 | 89
1983 | 196 | 124 | 121 | 118 | 107 | 104 | 92 | 88 | 84
1984 | 205 | 126 | 121 | 119 | 118 | 105 | 95 | 92 | 89
1985 | 208 | 135 | 130 | 126 | 121 | 102 | 100 | 95 | 89
1986 | 215 | 141 | 138 | 131 | 123 | 105 | 97 | 89 | 84
1987 | 183 | 108 | 107 | 107 | 105 | 95 | 87 | 81 | 79
1988 | 168 | 149 | 131 | 121 | 111 | 106 | 93 | 89 | 86
1989 | 199 | 168 | 155 | 150 | 115 | 98 | 90 | 88 | 85
1990 | 142 | 129 | 127 | 123 | 123 | 102 | 96 | 92 | 90
1991 | 163 | 131 | 115 | 113 | 110 | 101 | 91 | 87 | 82
1992 | 131 | 123 | 121 | 109 | 107 | 99 | 93 | 87 | 82
1993 | 160 | 148 | 142 | 137 | 132 | 123 | 107 | 100 | 97
1994 | 130 | 120 | 112 | 111 | 107 | 99 | 93 | 91 | 86

Just sticking to the 12 years, 79-80 to 90-91, with 21 teams and an 80 game schedule. The leader board for 1989 has: #1: 5th highest; #2: 1st; #3: 1st;#4: 1st; #5: 6th; #10: 10th; #15: 11th; #20: T8th; #25: 6th. As you can see #2-3-4 are very high, #1-5-25 are average, and #10-15-20 are well below average. As I posted above, down around #71, the season isn't out of line with the 4 seasons before it.

A line like 4-7-13-34 is much more in line with that than the line of 9-22-42-69 (all 4 rank in top 3 of the 17 years in your table), which is more in line with a season like 1987, where the leader board is so weak at top that the weak pack looks average by comparison.

I'm still not seeing how 4-7-13-34 is a better result. You say 1987 is a year where "the leader board is so weak at top that the weak pack looks average by comparison" - 1989 appears to be the exact opposite. And there were higher scoring players in 1989, I don't think the right result is for them to appear significantly worse just because Lemieux and Gretzky were healthy and peaking at the same time, both brought teammates along for the ride, and Yzerman reached a level he'd never approach again too.

The way I currently have it set, the results for the two years are nearly identical. I'd be much more comfortable with that, than having results that pretend the top-end talent suddenly was cut in half in just two years.

 

[BM67]

I wouldn't want other great scorers to look bad only because of a logjam at the top.

So you don't want the numbers to reflect reality in a given year?

I'm still not seeing how 4-7-13-34 is a better result. You say 1987 is a year where "the leader board is so weak at top that the weak pack looks average by comparison" - 1989 appears to be the exact opposite. And there were higher scoring players in 1989, I don't think the right result is for them to appear significantly worse just because Lemieux and Gretzky were healthy and peaking at the same time, both brought teammates along for the ride, and Yzerman reached a level he'd never approach again too.

The way I currently have it set, the results for the two years are nearly identical. I'd be much more comfortable with that, than having results that pretend the top-end talent suddenly was cut in half in just two years.

There is no point in the top 100 scorers where someone had a higher point total in 87 than in 89, yet the 89 top 100 can't keep up with the top 4 in 89. Why shouldn't the numbers reflect that?

Seems what you want to do is compare players to the average #2 over a 5 year period or something like that.

 

[seventieslord]

So you don't want the numbers to reflect reality in a given year?

I'm saying that the best players being better, doesn't make the other players worse.

There is no point in the top 100 scorers where someone had a higher point total in 87 than in 89, yet the 89 top 100 can't keep up with the top 4 in 89. Why shouldn't the numbers reflect that?

I think my above answer is satisfactory for this one as well.

 

[DoMakc]

In baseball they are using ERA+ to compare pitchers across the different eras. This stat basicly shows the difference between a pitcher a an average pitcher in his era (with a ballpark adjustment). Maybe this aproach can be more usefull in hockey too, since averages don't fluctuate as much #2's do?

 

[BM67]

I'm saying that the best players being better, doesn't make the other players worse.



I think my above answer is satisfactory for this one as well.

It's a dominance number, so it shows dominance. Gretzky isn't a better player because Lemieux is injured, but he is going to be more dominant in the scoring race, and that is what the number will show.

Thornton is more dominant in the scoring race, and thus in vs#2, than Forsberg or Lindros, because he stays healthier, not because he's a better player.

 

[seventieslord]

It's a dominance number, so it shows dominance. Gretzky isn't a better player because Lemieux is injured, but he is going to be more dominant in the scoring race, and that is what the number will show.

Thornton is more dominant in the scoring race, and thus in vs#2, than Forsberg or Lindros, because he stays healthier, not because he's a better player.

I'm talking about the players in the pack. I'm not too concerned about the players at the top. I know guys like Gretzky will deservedly get insane scores and guys like Thornton numbers closer to 100 when they win.

 

[BM67]

Let's test the vs method. Here are the top 25 NHL points leaders by 6 different measures. Points, Adjusted Points and vs#1-4 career totals, in random order.

The shortest career on any of the lists is Bobby Hull's at 16 years. 4 of the lists have Recchi ahead of Dionne, and the other 2 have him just behind. Recchi played for 22 years, while Dionne played for 18. I think Nels Stewart came the closest to making a list of any 15 year career player.

Do any of these lists reflect the 25 "best" careers?

A|B|C|D|E|F
Gordie Howe | Wayne Gretzky | Gordie Howe | Wayne Gretzky | Gordie Howe | Gordie Howe
Wayne Gretzky | Mark Messier | Wayne Gretzky | Gordie Howe | Wayne Gretzky | Wayne Gretzky
Jaromir Jagr | Gordie Howe | Mark Messier | Jaromir Jagr | Mark Messier | Mark Messier
Joe Sakic | Ron Francis | Ron Francis | Mark Messier | Stan Mikita | Ron Francis
Stan Mikita | Marcel Dionne | Stan Mikita | Ron Francis | Ron Francis | Stan Mikita
Alex Delvecchio | Steve Yzerman | Jaromir Jagr | Joe Sakic | Phil Esposito | Alex Delvecchio
Jean Beliveau | Mario Lemieux | Alex Delvecchio | Steve Yzerman | Alex Delvecchio | Jaromir Jagr
Mark Messier | Joe Sakic | Joe Sakic | Mark Recchi | Jaromir Jagr | Joe Sakic
Ron Francis | Jaromir Jagr | Phil Esposito | Mario Lemieux | Joe Sakic | Steve Yzerman
Mark Recchi | Phil Esposito | Steve Yzerman | Phil Esposito | Steve Yzerman | Phil Esposito
Phil Esposito | Raymond Bourque | Jean Beliveau | Teemu Selanne | Jean Beliveau | Jean Beliveau
John Bucyk | Mark Recchi | John Bucyk | Marcel Dionne | John Bucyk | John Bucyk
Steve Yzerman | Paul Coffey | Mark Recchi | Stan Mikita | Marcel Dionne | Marcel Dionne
Maurice Richard | Stan Mikita | Marcel Dionne | Alex Delvecchio | Mark Recchi | Mark Recchi
Norm Ullman | Bryan Trottier | Maurice Richard | Raymond Bourque | Maurice Richard | Maurice Richard
Bobby Hull | Adam Oates | Norm Ullman | Mats Sundin | Norm Ullman | Norm Ullman
Teemu Selanne | Doug Gilmour | Mario Lemieux | Mike Modano | Mario Lemieux | Mario Lemieux
Mike Modano | Dale Hawerchuk | Bobby Hull | Adam Oates | Bobby Hull | Bobby Hull
Mats Sundin | Jari Kurri | Raymond Bourque | John Bucyk | Raymond Bourque | Raymond Bourque
Marcel Dionne | Luc Robitaille | Mats Sundin | Brett Hull | Mike Modano | Mats Sundin
Mario Lemieux | Teemu Selanne | Mike Modano | Jean Beliveau | Mats Sundin | Mike Modano
Brendan Shanahan | Brett Hull | Teemu Selanne | Brendan Shanahan | Teemu Selanne | Teemu Selanne
Brett Hull | Mike Modano | Adam Oates | Luc Robitaille | Adam Oates | Adam Oates
Adam Oates | John Bucyk | Brett Hull | Paul Coffey | Brett Hull | Paul Coffey
Raymond Bourque | Brendan Shanahan | Brendan Shanahan | Doug Gilmour | Brendan Shanahan | Brett Hull

The names that just miss the top 25 vary more than the names on the list: #26= Andy Bathgate, Guy Lafleur, Paul Coffey, Pierre Turgeon, Ted Lindsay, Brendan Shanahan.

 

[seventieslord]

Let's test the vs method. Here are the top 25 NHL points leaders by 6 different measures. Points, Adjusted Points and vs#1-4 career totals, in random order.

The shortest career on any of the lists is Bobby Hull's at 16 years. 4 of the lists have Recchi ahead of Dionne, and the other 2 have him just behind. Recchi played for 22 years, while Dionne played for 18. I think Nels Stewart came the closest to making a list of any 15 year career player.

Do any of these lists reflect the 25 "best" careers?.

no. but I don't think that's what we expect of the vs. #2 system, is it? I use it to help gauge the impressiveness of one season by a player, or a series of consecutive seasons, or their best x number of seasons. it can't be used as a measure of a player's career anymore than career points can be.

 

[BM67]

If vs#2 has meaning over 1 season, and over 10 seasons, why shouldn't it have meaning over 20 seasons?

I don't have any hard expectations for what vs#2 can or can't do at this point. I'm comparing it to other measures and seeing how it compares.

Raw point totals are not much good. Adjusted points are better, but still flawed. Vs#2 can be better than them and still not of much use, but I think we should look at them and find out, rather than reject the idea before looking.

Right now I'd say it's the best measure of how a player did over his career in the multi-league pre-merger days. Top 5s or 10s or accumulated point totals don't even come close to it.

Other than that, I'd say the jury is still out.

Look at Dionne and Recchi in the table above. Are their rankings flawed? Are their rankings in the table a flaw of the methods used, or a flaw in my expectations?

 

[seventieslord]

Look at Dionne and Recchi in the table above. Are their rankings flawed? Are their rankings in the table a flaw of the methods used, or a flaw in my expectations?

I'm not sure in what way you would want me to consider them flawed. If you're asking, does Recchi ever show up ahead of Dionne when we both know damn well he shouldn't, then yes, he does, and yes that makes this "sum of all percentages" list flawed.

This is a function of Recchi's freakish longevity and ability to keep piling up 50-70 scores late into his career.

Also, if proper outliers were removed, Dionne would look better, as he should.

 

[BM67]

I'm not sure in what way you would want me to consider them flawed. If you're asking, does Recchi ever show up ahead of Dionne when we both know damn well he shouldn't, then yes, he does, and yes that makes this "sum of all percentages" list flawed.

This is a function of Recchi's freakish longevity and ability to keep piling up 50-70 scores late into his career.

Also, if proper outliers were removed, Dionne would look better, as he should.

Recchi is ahead of Dionne in adjusted points as well as 2 of the 4 vs columns. He's just behind him in the other 2.

Recchi only played 4 more years than Dionne, and Dionne didn't stick around for a bunch of sub-par seasons either, just a quick crash at the end.

The only list where Dionne blows Recchi away is the raw points column. Dionne played in the WHA period and the firewagon 80s, so his points are inflated. Recchi played through the dead puck era, so his points are deflated.

Recchi wasn't the scorer that Dionne was at his peak, but should 4 extra years, after you equalize for the differing scoring levels, be enough to get them to finish next to each other in a career scoring list?

It was a surprise to me that they are ranked where they are on some of the lists. If I had thought about it, I would have predicted that Dionne would be way ahead in raw points, and that Dionne's vs#1 number would be crushed by "the Gretzky factor". So no surprises in those columns. That Recchi is ahead by several spots in adjusted points, and in pretty much a tie in the other vs columns isn't what I would have expected.

Is it my expectations that are flawed? Recchi was never as good a scorer as Dionne, but did he have as good a career as far as piling up points? Four extra 50-70 point seasons do make up for a lot of seasons trailing by 10-20 points.

Recchi only trails Dionne by 238 raw points. Move Recchi up by 5%, and Dionne down by 5%, and they are only 73 points apart. The more I think about it, the more I agree with them being close.

 

[seventieslord]

Recchi is ahead of Dionne in adjusted points as well as 2 of the 4 vs columns. He's just behind him in the other 2.

Recchi only played 4 more years than Dionne, and Dionne didn't stick around for a bunch of sub-par seasons either, just a quick crash at the end.

The only list where Dionne blows Recchi away is the raw points column. Dionne played in the WHA period and the firewagon 80s, so his points are inflated. Recchi played through the dead puck era, so his points are deflated.

Recchi wasn't the scorer that Dionne was at his peak, but should 4 extra years, after you equalize for the differing scoring levels, be enough to get them to finish next to each other in a career scoring list?

It was a surprise to me that they are ranked where they are on some of the lists. If I had thought about it, I would have predicted that Dionne would be way ahead in raw points, and that Dionne's vs#1 number would be crushed by "the Gretzky factor". So no surprises in those columns. That Recchi is ahead by several spots in adjusted points, and in pretty much a tie in the other vs columns isn't what I would have expected.

Is it my expectations that are flawed? Recchi was never as good a scorer as Dionne, but did he have as good a career as far as piling up points? Four extra 50-70 point seasons do make up for a lot of seasons trailing by 10-20 points.

Recchi only trails Dionne by 238 raw points. Move Recchi up by 5%, and Dionne down by 5%, and they are only 73 points apart. The more I think about it, the more I agree with them being close.

from a "point accumulation" standpoint, yes, they probably are. From an all-time value standpoint, peak obviously matters a lot (perhaps too much to some people, but it does matter)

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

My new name-neutral vs. 2 method, taking into account the criticisms of other methods. This method is valid for post-expansion NHL and MIGHT be valid for all consolidated NHL.

Vs 2 scorer at all times except:

if any of the top 5 scorers is more than 10% above the guy immediately below Then compare to the first scorer who doesn't fit the criteria.

I believe this solves both the problems of the 1970s Bruins and the 1989 weirdness without resorting to arbitrary removal of outliers. Thoughts?

Edit: Just checked it against the 1970s and I still got wild fluctuations year by year, which is a sign of a system not working well. It seems to work very well for the 80s, 90s, and 00s though

 

[seventieslord]

Let me guess, it is because of hodge, cashman, etc?

If so, just do a common sense fudge. There is nothing wrong with that. Take out any player who obviously wouldn't have that many points without a superior teammate.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Let me guess, it is because of hodge, cashman, etc?

If so, just do a common sense fudge. There is nothing wrong with that. Take out any player who obviously wouldn't have that many points without a superior teammate.

1968:
1. Stan Mikita*-CBH 87
2. Phil Esposito*-BOS 84
3. Gordie Howe*-DET 82
4. Jean Ratelle*-NYR 78
5. Rod Gilbert*-NYR 77

Easy, use Esposito

1969:
1. Phil Esposito*-BOS 126
2. Bobby Hull*-CBH 107
3. Gordie Howe*-DET 103
4. Stan Mikita*-CBH 97
5. Ken Hodge-BOS 90

Use Bobby Hull

1970:
1. Bobby Orr*-BOS 120
2. Phil Esposito*-BOS 99
3. Stan Mikita*-CBH 86
4. Phil Goyette-STL 78
5. Walt Tkaczuk-NYR 77

By my method use Mikita. But this doesn't make sense. 86 is much lower than the 107 standard for the previous year, while the 10th and 20th place scorers vary very little between the years. So the common sense thing to do would be just use Esposito, but then that breaks down the ability to make a non-arbitrary formula.

1971:
1. Phil Esposito*-BOS 152
2. Bobby Orr*-BOS 139
3. John Bucyk*-BOS 116
4. Ken Hodge-BOS 105
5. Bobby Hull*-CBH 96

My proposed method would use Bucyk. You seem to think we should use Hull?

One again the 10th and 20th place scorers are very similar, so it seems strange to use a number that fluxuates so much.

I'm starting to think that VS5 or VS10 is a superior method than VS2. It seems clear to me that the top 5 scorers fluxuate too much to form a meaningful standard.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Point totals for selected spots in the top 25 78-94

Year | #1 | #2 | #3 | #4 | #5 | #10 | #15 | #20 | #25
1978 | 132 | 123 | 117 | 97 | 94 | 87 | 81 | 77 | 73
1979 | 134 | 130 | 129 | 126 | 108 | 91 | 85 | 80 | 77
1980 | 137 | 137 | 125 | 106 | 105 | 94 | 92 | 89 | 79
1981 | 164 | 135 | 131 | 119 | 112 | 103 | 96 | 87 | 83
1982 | 212 | 147 | 139 | 136 | 129 | 106 | 97 | 92 | 89
1983 | 196 | 124 | 121 | 118 | 107 | 104 | 92 | 88 | 84
1984 | 205 | 126 | 121 | 119 | 118 | 105 | 95 | 92 | 89
1985 | 208 | 135 | 130 | 126 | 121 | 102 | 100 | 95 | 89
1986 | 215 | 141 | 138 | 131 | 123 | 105 | 97 | 89 | 84
1987 | 183 | 108 | 107 | 107 | 105 | 95 | 87 | 81 | 79
1988 | 168 | 149 | 131 | 121 | 111 | 106 | 93 | 89 | 86
1989 | 199 | 168 | 155 | 150 | 115 | 98 | 90 | 88 | 85
1990 | 142 | 129 | 127 | 123 | 123 | 102 | 96 | 92 | 90
1991 | 163 | 131 | 115 | 113 | 110 | 101 | 91 | 87 | 82
1992 | 131 | 123 | 121 | 109 | 107 | 99 | 93 | 87 | 82
1993 | 160 | 148 | 142 | 137 | 132 | 123 | 107 | 100 | 97
1994 | 130 | 120 | 112 | 111 | 107 | 99 | 93 | 91 | 86

Just sticking to the 12 years, 79-80 to 90-91, with 21 teams and an 80 game schedule. The leader board for 1989 has: #1: 5th highest; #2: 1st; #3: 1st;#4: 1st; #5: 6th; #10: 10th; #15: 11th; #20: T8th; #25: 6th. As you can see #2-3-4 are very high, #1-5-25 are average, and #10-15-20 are well below average. As I posted above, down around #71, the season isn't out of line with the 4 seasons before it.

A line like 4-7-13-34 is much more in line with that than the line of 9-22-42-69 (all 4 rank in top 3 of the 17 years in your table), which is more in line with a season like 1987, where the leader board is so weak at top that the weak pack looks average by comparison.

Looking at this chart - I'm going to say it now. VS5 or VS10 is a superior method to VS2. The data at 5 and 10 follows a much more gentle curve and doesn't appear as prone to random fluxuations as the second place scorer.

Actually, looking at it again, there are some years when even the 5th place scorer fluxuates. VS10 is a nice smooth curve through the entire time period - where the only peaks are years like 1993, when there should be one.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Benefit to using VS10: Much smoother curve than VS2 or VS5

Drawback to using VS10: It assumes every 10th place finish is equal, something I disagree with if we are talking before and after the European influx.

I didn't think of this in my post above. That's a major problem.