Where does Jaromir Jagr rank purely offensively?

[Morgoth Bauglir]

We've discussed this until near the point of exhaustion in BTN forum.

I think most would agree that adjusted data takes not just a step, but a tremendous leap in the direction of fairness, since it is based on the concept of the value of a goal in each season's environment (i.e., scoring level).

Each era has to be looked at individually, as to the causes and effects which predominated at that time. Some eras were particularly tough for stars to get adjusted points: most of the 60s until expansion... most of the 80s... and most of the current era which coincides with the addition of overseas players. Some eras were particularly easy as well: WWII through most or all of the 50s... the O6 expansion through most or all of the 70s.

That's not really the issue with adjusted stats though. The problem lays in the fact that the differences between eras in scoring isn't simply across the board but rather it's tiered. The drop in scoring between the 80s and the DPE had a much bigger impact on bottom-6 forwards and defensemen than it did on top-6 forwards. This isn't about some nebulous concept of "fairness" that varies with who's grinding the axe; it's about trying to get it as accurate as possible.....and adjusted stats simply doesn't do that.

 

[Czech Your Math]

Which seemed to hint at Howe being close to Gretzky and Jagr being close to Howe.

The three aren't that close to each other in GCARV, did not mean to imply that.

You did not respond to my reasoning around their PPG seasons. Who do you think has the better longevity offensively, Gretzky or Jagr?

I'm not sure I understand what is meant by "better longevity." Whose Xth best season was better? Gretzky, at least to the point where is career ended (at which point his hockey value became 0). Jagr still had seasons of significant value beyond the number of seasons which Gretzky played, which is all that I meant.

These are the seasons

04/05
38 points in 32 games. How much do you project he would beat the great Maxim Suchinsky, who had 56 in 50, by? (And don't try "he inflated his stats. Suchinsky won the scoring race with the same stats the year before). How many GCARV does he get?

08/09 (the year after putting in 71 points in 82 games in the NHL)
7th in points with 53, 23 points behind the leader.

09/10
20th in point with 42 24 points behind the leader.

10/11
10th in points with 50, 30 points behind the leader.

For this you award him 89 GCARV. Messier has 286 for his career. Mikita has 4 art rosses. He gets 294. Beliveau gets 318. You are seriously saying that Jagr could have skipped the NHL and kept this standard up for a total of 16 years in russia and he would have them easily beat with 356.

I'm sorry but that is still completely ridiculous.

I think the fairest thing would be to average the surrounding NHL seasons for Jagr: At the 0.2 GC threshold, he would receive ~24 GCARV for '05, and ~10 for each of '09, '10, and '11, for a total of ~54 GCARV over those 4 seasons. So based on those number, he would have had to play 20-24 seasons to equal the career GCARV of those greats you mentioned. Keep in mind that Jagr's third place ranking in career GCARV would not rest at all on these seasons, it simply makes the gap greater. It is Bobby Hull that really benefits most (in terms of ranking) from receiving credit for non-NHL seasons.

 

[Master_Of_Districts]

That's not really the issue with adjusted stats though. The problem lays in the fact that the differences between eras in scoring isn't simply across the board but rather it's tiered. The drop in scoring between the 80s and the DPE had a much bigger impact on bottom-6 forwards and defensemen than it did on top-6 forwards. This isn't about some nebulous concept of "fairness" that varies with who's grinding the axe; it's about trying to get it as accurate as possible.....and adjusted stats simply doesn't do that.

Either way, adjusted stats are a more accurate indicator of talent than raw numbers.

so we're moving in the right direction.

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

Either way, adjusted stats are a more accurate indicator of talent than raw numbers.

so we're moving in the right direction.

No they aren't. They're just as inaccurate. They just happen to be inaccurate in a direction that pleases a certain segment of posters around here.

 

[Czech Your Math]

I think there has to be a formula for measuring goals over assists.

I think Goals Created is the fairest, since it uses the league's G/A ratio to help measure scarcity of each. HR's formula is not correct IMO.

Im sure you would rank peak ovy/crosby above sakic and yzerman in terms of offense right?

Not sure at all... seems pretty even to me at this point. I see a logjam of perhaps a dozen or more players, that includes all of those players, which are closer to each other than the top several players. They have arguments to be at or near the top of that logjam, but so do many of the other players in that group. I would need a clearer definition of peak offense to be more specific as to how they may rank. Ovechkin is past his peak IMO... he has 3 consecutive great seasons, that's for sure... but he also has a ton of question marks. If Crosby and/or Malkin stay healthy, then they have the best chance to be at/near the top of that peak/prime logjam... or even put a little distance between themselves and most of those in that group.

 

[Czech Your Math]

That's not really the issue with adjusted stats though. The problem lays in the fact that the differences between eras in scoring isn't simply across the board but rather it's tiered. The drop in scoring between the 80s and the DPE had a much bigger impact on bottom-6 forwards and defensemen than it did on top-6 forwards. This isn't about some nebulous concept of "fairness" that varies with who's grinding the axe; it's about trying to get it as accurate as possible.....and adjusted stats simply doesn't do that.

There may have been a lot of bottom-6 quality forwards which either did not decide to come to the NHL, or were not sought after, at least not in the same proportion as top-6 quality forwards. That would make it look "easier" for top-6 forwards to score adjusted points, because that group would have increased its collective talent by a greater % than that of other groups.

 

[Hardyvan123]

That's not really the issue with adjusted stats though. The problem lays in the fact that the differences between eras in scoring isn't simply across the board but rather it's tiered. The drop in scoring between the 80s and the DPE had a much bigger impact on bottom-6 forwards and defensemen than it did on top-6 forwards. This isn't about some nebulous concept of "fairness" that varies with who's grinding the axe; it's about trying to get it as accurate as possible.....and adjusted stats simply doesn't do that.

There may have been a lot of bottom-6 quality forwards which either did not decide to come to the NHL, or were not sought after, at least not in the same proportion as top-6 quality forwards. That would make it look "easier" for top-6 forwards to score adjusted points, because that group would have increased its collective talent by a greater % than that of other groups.

the adjusted stats are tiered argument has little actual truth in reality, part of the differences were that more PP goals were getting scored in the 80's and the PP% was much higher overall across all tiers.

Ditto shooting % of teams was higher in the 80's across the board.

There has been an argument presented by those that promote certain 80's players but the evidence clearly doesn't back it up.

 

[Corto]

I'm a bigger fan of Sakic's accomplishments on this board than most, but... just no. I don't believe that the 2nd place scorer in the 1950s was worse than the 5th place scorer in the 1990s, which is basically what you are saying.

Without getting into any other arguments in this thread, this one sticks out to me.

Sports grow, they expand, the talent pool gets bigger.

Being 2nd in a league of (random number) 100 and one country is not better by default than being 5th in a league of 1000 and 10 countries.

 

[pluppe]

I'm not sure I understand what is meant by "better longevity." Whose Xth best season was better? Gretzky, at least to the point where is career ended (at which point his hockey value became 0). Jagr still had seasons of significant value beyond the number of seasons which Gretzky played, which is all that I meant.

Since you mentioned that Howe/Jagr has/have tremendous longevity and this discussion is about offensive value I was just wondering if you think Jagr has a more tremendous longevity than Gretzky who started his eliteness 3 sesons earlier and produced at PPG pace for longer. I think that when talking about the greatest players of all time that 8 seasons of PPG after 30 and retirint at age 38 is a better sign of offensive longevity than 3 seasons of PPG but playing beyond 40.

I think the fairest thing would be to average the surrounding NHL seasons for Jagr: At the 0.2 GC threshold, he would receive ~24 GCARV for '05, and ~10 for each of '09, '10, and '11, for a total of ~54 GCARV over those 4 seasons. So based on those number, he would have had to play 20-24 seasons to equal the career GCARV of those greats you mentioned. Keep in mind that Jagr's third place ranking in career GCARV would not rest at all on these seasons, it simply makes the gap greater. It is Bobby Hull that really benefits most (in terms of ranking) from receiving credit for non-NHL seasons.

So if Jagr played his whole career in Russia at the same level of his russian years and had these scoring placements:

1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20

Starting at age 18 and playing til 40 with a PPG below 1 he would get 300 GCARV according to your calculation method. That would place him tied 12th all time against NHL competition. He would beat Mikita and be just behind Beliveau. Don't you see that you need to throw your calculations out the window.

And now you say 54 but this is your initial post that I reacted to:

I calculated Adjusted Goals Created Above Replacement Value.
This data:

A) used adjusted points at 6.00 GPG
B) was calculated as of the end of last season
C) used RV of .20 adjusted GCPG (e.g, this could be 16.4 adjusted goals and ~ 28.7 adjusted assists per season... so a player whose goal/assist ratio matched that of the league would have roughly 45 adjusted points/82 games)
D) used what I consider the "standard" GC formula of: GC = .5 [ G + (A * GPA) ] where GPA is league goals per assist for that season

Adjusted GC Above Replacement Value (RV of .20)
===================================
1 Gretzky 589
2 Howe 505
3 Jagr 402
4 Lemieux 398
5 Esposito 358
6 Sakic 347
7 Beliveau 318
8 Selanne 317
9 Dionne 313
10 RichardM 311
11 Yzerman 309
12 HullBo 306
13 HullBr 300
14 Mikita 294
15 Messier 286

The effects of this season may help illustrate how this is not simply a "compiling" stat. Selanne's current season shouldn't affect his total much. At this point, he might have actually lost ~1 GCARV. Meanwhile, Jagr has likely gained ~8-9 GCARV to this point. Only because Jagr is still playing at a very high level is he substantially increasing his GCARV, not simply by playing more games.

Also, I tried to use fair assumptions (such as averaging NHL seasons before and after) to estimate players' WHA/KHL seasons, and calculated these GCARV totals as of the end of last season:

1 Gretzky 611
2 Howe 571
3 Jagr 491
4 HullBo 405
5 Lemieux 398

Just some food for thought.

Where you added 89 GCARV from his russian years. How did that happen?

Bottom line is that Jagrs years in russia are not very impressive from an all time stand point and any metric that gives them significant weight in comparison to these other great players is a metric in great need of a makeover.

 

[BraveCanadian]

That's not really the issue with adjusted stats though. The problem lays in the fact that the differences between eras in scoring isn't simply across the board but rather it's tiered. The drop in scoring between the 80s and the DPE had a much bigger impact on bottom-6 forwards and defensemen than it did on top-6 forwards. This isn't about some nebulous concept of "fairness" that varies with who's grinding the axe; it's about trying to get it as accurate as possible.....and adjusted stats simply doesn't do that.

I believe this to be the case as well.

Scoring distribution has changed over time as well as the relative value of goals.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Scoring Attribution

I believe this to be the case as well.

Scoring distribution has changed over time as well as the relative value of goals.

Scoring attribution is another consideration as well.

SO goals are not fully attributed to the scorers nor saves or defended opportunities to the goalies for that matter.

Likewise assists have been attributed differently throughout the history of the NHL. Example some seasons in the 1940s assists were attributed at app a 1.2 ratio to goals. Recently, certain seasons have seen attributed at app a 1.6 ratio to goals.

Back to scoring distribution, X TG/G distributed amongst 10, 12, 15, 18 or points in between skater game day rosters of two teams will create different concentrations or distributions.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Without getting into any other arguments in this thread, this one sticks out to me.

Sports grow, they expand, the talent pool gets bigger.

Being 2nd in a league of (random number) 100 and one country is not better by default than being 5th in a league of 1000 and 10 countries.

1) League size is irrelevant to the size of the talent pool. The number of hockey players didn't magically double in 1968.

2) The league is still approximately 50% Canadian

3) A deeper talent pool does not necessarily make the players at the top better.

 

[unknown33]

No they aren't. They're just as inaccurate.

Care to explain why?

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

Care to explain why?

I already did >>>>>

That's not really the issue with adjusted stats though. The problem lays in the fact that the differences between eras in scoring isn't simply across the board but rather it's tiered. The drop in scoring between the 80s and the DPE had a much bigger impact on bottom-6 forwards and defensemen than it did on top-6 forwards. This isn't about some nebulous concept of "fairness" that varies with who's grinding the axe; it's about trying to get it as accurate as possible.....and adjusted stats simply doesn't do that.

 

[unknown33]

I already did >>>>>

So your final verdict is that because it still isn't perfect it can't be an improvement.

 

[Rhiessan71]

We've discussed this until near the point of exhaustion in BTN forum.

I think most would agree that adjusted data takes not just a step, but a tremendous leap in the direction of fairness, since it is based on the concept of the value of a goal in each season's environment (i.e., scoring level).

Each era has to be looked at individually, as to the causes and effects which predominated at that time. Some eras were particularly tough for stars to get adjusted points: most of the 60s until expansion... most of the 80s... and most of the current era which coincides with the addition of overseas players. Some eras were particularly easy as well: WWII through most or all of the 50s... the O6 expansion through most or all of the 70s.

Yes we talked about it in the BTN forum and the conclusion wasn't that anything I said was wrong, the conclusion was that there isn't a current system capable of accounting for how much scoring has dropped off in the lower tiers compared to the higher tiers. Not to mention the crazy anomalies and inflation present when dealing DPE values or how inaccurate AS's become when dealing with outliers.

Despite all this, you continue to use AS's at their full value completely ignoring/replacing the Raw data.
As I've stated like a million times now, you're just as wrong in doing this as someone who just uses Raw stats. AS's are a guide to value, they are NOT a replacement!

the adjusted stats are tiered argument has little actual truth in reality, part of the differences were that more PP goals were getting scored in the 80's and the PP% was much higher overall across all tiers.

Ditto shooting % of teams was higher in the 80's across the board.

There has been an argument presented by those that promote certain 80's players but the evidence clearly doesn't back it up.

Excuse me? Hardy, some advice...don't get involved with topics above your pay grade.

To borrow one of the best posts on the subject...

The biggest issue with traditional adjusted stats is that they assume that the distribution of offense has remained fixed over time, and just the amount of total offense has changed. And this had been demonstrated as false.

CYM did a great job on the history board showing that scoring from first line players actually didn't increase from the late 70s into the 80s - the offensive explosion came almost entirely from lower lines scoring more.

Likewise, it's been known for some time that "dead puck era" first liners scored a higher percentage of offense than 80s first liners. Two reasons have been given:

1) A larger percentage of offense during the dead puck era and beyond comes from powerplays and first liners get most of the powerplay time. Overpass proved this to be true statistically.

2) Much of the increase in scoring in the 80s came from bad D and goaltending, and such goals would be distributed to all players much more equally than "skill goals.". Meaning the less skilled players would have a higher percentage of their offense taken away by the better D and goaltending that would later develop. This one has not been proven statistically, bit intuitively seems true

 

[Rhiessan71]

So your final verdict is that because it still isn't perfect it can't be an improvement.

It's not an improvement, it's not a replacement, it's not better than the Raw stats.

Adjusted Stats are NOT supposed to be used as a final answer period! They are a guide to be used in conjunction with everything else.

In this particular case there are two major issues on top of the normal tier scoring issues.

#1) That outliers completely screw all attempts at being adjusted to the average. Kinda why they're called outliers eh and this thread is not just about regular outliers, we're talking about THE outliers.

#2) Adjusted DPE stats are, for lack of an allowed word beginning with "f", funky. Their values are inflated and do extremely weird things when taken out of the DPE and compared to other eras.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Yes we talked about it in the BTN forum and the conclusion wasn't that anything I said was wrong, the conclusion was that there isn't a current system capable of accounting for how much scoring has dropped off in the lower tiers compared to the higher tiers. Not to mention the crazy anomalies and inflation present when dealing DPE values or how inaccurate AS's become when dealing with outliers.
.

There is a system that takes this into account that has been developed over the years on hfboards between the ATD forum and the BTN forum. In my opinion, VsX is by far the best method of accounting for how the scoring of superstar calibre player has changed over time. It picks a standard (usually the 2nd best scorer in the NHL, but if the 2nd best scorer is a mathematical outlier, the standard is slightly modified) and compares all players as a percentage of that method.

Much better than H-R's adjusted stats which, like you said, are based off-league average players.

The downside to VsX is that it is strictly based on seasonal point totals, so players who don't play full seasons are hurt by it.

 

[Czech Your Math]

Since you mentioned that Howe/Jagr has/have tremendous longevity and this discussion is about offensive value I was just wondering if you think Jagr has a more tremendous longevity than Gretzky who started his eliteness 3 sesons earlier and produced at PPG pace for longer. I think that when talking about the greatest players of all time that 8 seasons of PPG after 30 and retirint at age 38 is a better sign of offensive longevity than 3 seasons of PPG but playing beyond 40.

I was speaking in terms of career value. Gretzky had tremendous longevity, compared to most elite players, even on a career basis. It just happens that Howe and Jagr (if you count his non-NHL seasons and/or he plays past this season) have even more seasons with significant value than Gretzky. That doesn't mean their career offensive value is higher, and certainly doesn't help them in the peak/prime areas.

So if Jagr played his whole career in Russia at the same level of his russian years and had these scoring placements:

1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20

Starting at age 18 and playing til 40 with a PPG below 1 he would get 300 GCARV according to your calculation method. That would place him tied 12th all time against NHL competition. He would beat Mikita and be just behind Beliveau. Don't you see that you need to throw your calculations out the window.

I know that it is dangerous projecting NHL performance from even the best non-NHL leagues (e.g., RSL, WHA, KHL), due to the much larger ice surface and other factors inherent in each league. I only used Jagr's KHL seasons, because they were surrounded by NHL seasons. At one point, I think I had looked at a couple of methods of estimating his performance in those seasons: Using some type of equivalency between the league & NHL... or averaging the surrounding NHL seasons. I think the fairest thing, when possible, would be to do the latter (if one believes estimates are necessary at all).

And now you say 54 but this is your initial post that I reacted to:

Where you added 89 GCARV from his russian years. How did that happen?

Bottom line is that Jagrs years in russia are not very impressive from an all time stand point and any metric that gives them significant weight in comparison to these other great players is a metric in great need of a makeover.

I honestly don't know exactly where that number came from, other than it came from the part of a spreadsheet that is a WIP and that I hadn't looked at in many moons. I would disagree that Jagr's years in Russia were not impressive, in that he still had significant value during those seasons. If you want to say that in the same way you might way "half of Messier's career was unimpressive, at least from offensive standpoint", then I might agree with you more. I apologize for any errors made in the estimates for non-NHL seasons for any players, I will have to revisit those numbers at some point in the future.

 

[unknown33]

Adjusted Stats are NOT supposed to be used as a final answer period!

Who said that? Who does that?

It's not an improvement, it's not a replacement, it's not better than the Raw stats.

In this particular case there are two major issues on top of the normal tier scoring issues.

#1) That outliers completely screw all attempts at being adjusted to the average. Kinda why they're called outliers eh and this thread is not just about regular outliers, we're talking about THE outliers.

#2) Adjusted DPE stats are, for lack of an allowed word beginning with "f", funky. Their values are inflated and do extremely weird things when taken out of the DPE and compared to other eras.

Sounds like they cause less problems than raw stats, therefore I would still call them 'better'.

Nevertheless like Devil said VsX looks like further improvment, so forget about H-R adjusted stats.

 

[Czech Your Math]

Scoring distribution has changed over time as well as the relative value of goals.

If we don't examine some of the most likely reasons for changes in the distribution, we may reach incorrect conclusions about their meaning.

Scoring attribution is another consideration as well.

SO goals are not fully attributed to the scorers nor saves or defended opportunities to the goalies for that matter.

Besides being a "gimmick" in the minds of many, the SO creates a host of problems when analyzing post-lockout hockey data.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Who said that? Who does that?

Czech Your Math

If anyone - Czech or otherwise - is using adjusted stats as the alpha/omega of an argument, that's a problem.

That's where we disagree then.

Sounds like they cause less problems than raw stats, therefore I would still call them 'better'.

Not better! Being better implies they are a replacement, they are NOT!
They are an attempt at putting the Raw data in perspective. The value they represent is NOT A FINAL ANSWER!!!

Nevertheless like Devil said VsX looks like further improvment, so forget about H-R adjusted stats.

Yes, VsX looks to be a better estimation of value than HR's AS's.

 

[Czech Your Math]

There is a system that takes this into account that has been developed over the years on hfboards between the ATD forum and the BTN forum. In my opinion, VsX is by far the best method of accounting for how the scoring of superstar calibre player has changed over time. It picks a standard (usually the 2nd best scorer in the NHL, but if the 2nd best scorer is a mathematical outlier, the standard is slightly modified) and compares all players as a percentage of that method.

Much better than H-R's adjusted stats which, like you said, are based off-league average players.

The downside to VsX is that it is strictly based on seasonal point totals, so players who don't play full seasons are hurt by it.

I think there are still so many factors... even random variance... that can easily influence the VsX number. I would prefer something like "VsN":

N is the number of teams, so in today's game it would be top 32.
This keeps the comparison group in fixed proportion to opportunity (for example, on some teams the PP may basically run through one player the majority of the time).
It doesn't exclude any players for any reason, at least in its basic form.
The small group evens out most of the random variance, while still maintaining a select group with which to compare.

 

[Czech Your Math]

Even if those were the only competitors, there's still a pretty serious issue of quality over quantity. Maurice Richard is a little better than those guys.

In terms of regular season point production, I don't think MR was better than those guys... worse than many of them IMO.

The context in which he was mentioned was as competition for the Ross. If one wants to promote MR as one of the best offensive players, due to his offensive exploits in the playoffs, that's fine... but it really has no bearing on his regular season level of play, nor on the level of competition which resulted from his presence.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I think there are still so many factors... even random variance... that can easily influence the VsX number. I would prefer something like "VsN":

N is the number of teams, so in today's game it would be top 32.
This keeps the comparison group in fixed proportion to opportunity (for example, on some teams the PP may basically run through one player the majority of the time).
It doesn't exclude any players for any reason, at least in its basic form.
The small group evens out most of the random variance, while still maintaining a select group with which to compare.

Any system that ties player quality into the number of teams this strongly is a non-starter as far as I am concerned