Where does Jaromir Jagr rank purely offensively?

[Czech Your Math]

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

It doesn't measure quality, it measures production. The number of teams is proportional to the amount of opportunity (for ice time, PP time, etc.).

It can be predicted with great accuracy, based on a handful of variables, how the top 1N players will score in a given post-O6 expansion season... and it's a completely objective number.

Selecting the player suitable for the VsX comparison is a more subjective matter, and whichever player is chosen has been much more prone to team, linemate, and other factors (random and non-random).

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

It doesn't measure quality, it measures production. The number of teams is proportional to the amount of opportunity (for ice time, PP time, etc.).

It can be predicted with great accuracy, based on a handful of variables, how the top 1N players will score in a given post-O6 expansion season... and it's a completely objective number.

Selecting the player suitable for the VsX comparison is a more subjective matter, and whichever player is chosen has been much more prone to team, linemate, and other factors (random and non-random).

I would have to see it in action. Every time I've seen anyone try to come up with a system based on "number of teams," it has always ended up with results that make it look like they are just looking for some kind of mathematical justification for their bias against players who played before they were born.

 

[Czech Your Math]

I would have to see it in action. Every time I've seen anyone try to come up with a system based on "number of teams," it has always ended up with results that make it look like they are just looking for some kind of mathematical justification for their bias against players who played before they were born.

I don't think it would work nearly as well when comparing O6 to post-expansion seasons. If one really wants the fairest comparisons, it also probably should be limited to Canadian players as well.

 

[BraveCanadian]

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

I'll be honest that I don't understand your hangup about this..

Neither method can make any definitive estimation of player quality across time -- only an estimation of player quality in the year they are applied.

Taking an average opportunity player (the number of first liners per team for example) and comparing the top players to that average player will tell you how much more valuable a player is than an average player in generally the same role. Sort of a points above replacement for skaters.

Meanwhile VsX just starts from the other end and rates players in comparison to #2 or #3 etc. depending on the year.. I would honestly expect that standard to fluctuate more just because it is dependent on the outliers by definition (even if we do lop off the really outrageous ones).

Neither system can tell you that player x in 1991 is better or worse than player y in 1950 with any degree of certainty over one another.

You may consider that the 2nd best player in the league is a relatively constant bar to set but I don't see how the "average first liner with relatively the same opportunities" in the league would be any less constant a standard.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I'll be honest that I don't understand your hangup about this..

Neither method can make any definitive estimation of player quality across time -- only an estimation of player quality in the year they are applied.

Taking an average opportunity player (the number of first liners per team for example) and comparing the top players to that average player will tell you how much more valuable a player is than an average player in generally the same role. Sort of a points above replacement for skaters.

Meanwhile VsX just starts from the other end and rates players in comparison to #2 or #3 etc. depending on the year.. I would honestly expect that standard to fluctuate more just because it is dependent on the outliers by definition (even if we do lop off the really outrageous ones).

Neither system can tell you that player x in 1991 is better or worse than player y in 1950 with any degree of certainty over one another.

You may consider that the 2nd best player in the league is a relatively constant bar to set but I don't see how the "average first liner with relatively the same opportunities" in the league would be any less constant a standard.

Because the quality of the "average first liner" is directly proportional to league size and has very little to do with actual talent level.

If the league suddenly doubled in size, guys who are now second liners would all become first liners. Sidney Crosby would not magically become a better player if the league doubled in size, but he'd stand out a lot more from the "average" first liner.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Because the quality of the "average first liner" is directly proportional to league size and has very little to do with actual talent level.

If the league suddenly doubled in size, guys who are now second liners would all become first liners.

How often does the league double in size suddenly? How do we know that in the O6 for example there weren't players trapped in a second line role that were legitimate first liners?

At least comparing to the average it would show up that, for example, right after an expansion the star players would be exceeding the average by more than they had -- although probably by less than you expect since given the increased opportunities these former second liners would probably produce more too.

Right now with VsX a 85 in 1968 is treated the same as a 85 in 1966 by most people as being equivalent.. exactly the issue that you're afraid of..

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

How often does the league double in size suddenly?

At least comparing to the average it would show up that, for example, right after an expansion the star players would be exceeding the average by more than they had.

Yes, comparing to average would show how far above average star players are, but really, who cares? If the value of the average changes, I really don't give a rat's ass how far a player is above average, and I don't see why anyone else would.

Right now with VsX a 85 in 1968 is treated the same as a 85 in 1966 by most people as being equivalent.. exactly the issue that you're afraid of..

Why would I be afraid of that? If the standard used to create VsX is properly calibrated, an 85 before and after expansion should be treated equally.

You seem to be proposing that the best players suddenly became significantly better in 1968 than they were in 1967, because suddenly they were farther above the league average. You can't possibly think that that is a rational result, can you?

 

[BraveCanadian]

Yes, comparing to average would show how far above average star players are, but really, who cares? If the value of the average changes, I really don't give a rat's ass how far a player is above average, and I don't see why anyone else would.

Their value as a star is exactly equal to how much better than the average player with the same opportunities they are...

Why would I be afraid of that? If the standard used to create VsX is properly calibrated, an 85 before and after expansion should be treated equally.

1 - because it is impossible to calibrate properly. It started off as a system and ended up being massaged by hand to make it work.

2 - because they obviously aren't equal which is why you were worried about expansion on measuring how players did in the first place.

You seem to be proposing that the best players suddenly became significantly better in 1968 than they were in 1967, because suddenly they were farther above the league average. You can't possibly think that that is a rational result, can you?

That is not at all what I am saying.

The top players being farther from the average would illustrate explicitly that the average was possibly worse after the expansion rather than hide it.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Their value as a star is exactly equal to how much better than the average player with the same opportunities they are...




1 - because it is impossible to calibrate properly. It started off as a system and ended up being massaged by hand to make it work.

2 - because they obviously aren't equal which is why you were worried about expansion on measuring how players did in the first place.



That is not at all what I am saying.

The top players being farther from the average would illustrate explicitly that the average was possibly worse after the expansion rather than hide it.

Ah... see this is the difference in opinion here. What you call "obvious," i think tends to show a bias against pre-expansion players

Not only do I not think it is obvious that the top players in 1968 are better than the top players in 1967 (which is what you are arguing with your claim that pre and post expansion VsX scores should be treated differently), I think it is obviously false.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Ah... see this is the difference in opinion here. What you call "obvious," i call your extreme bias against pre-expansion players.

What?

Not only do I not think it is obvious that the top players in 1968 are better than the top players in 1967 (which is what you are arguing with your claim that pre and post expansion VsX scores should be treated differently), I think it is obviously false.

You are completely misconstruing my point due to your accusations of bias. That is exactly the opposite of what I am saying, again.

You are worried about tying to the average because you presume that post expansion the average player would be worse and post expansion players would look better by that metric. I am saying that using VsX these seasons would theoretically show up as being equal pre and post expansion that really were not.

I am saying that by comparing to the average player with the same opportunities you would see the spike and therefore see plainly that something else was at work instead of implicitly assuming that it was calibrated and a guy who was #2 with an 85 VsX in 66 did just as well as a guy who was #2 VsX in 68.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

What?



You are completely misconstruing my point due to your accusations of bias. That is exactly the opposite of what I am saying, again.

Then what are you saying? You said we should treat the #2 scorer in 1967 different from the #2 scorer in 1968, did you not? (VsX being based on the second best scorer in the league).

 

[Canadiens1958]

Key Point

Then what are you saying? You said we should treat the #2 scorer in 1967 different from the #2 scorer in 1968, did you not? (VsX being based on the second best scorer in the league).

Sense that the value of an adjustment or measure - VsX is that it would describe each seasons' #2 scorer(using the analogy above) equally well.

For a variety of reasons, mainly a lack of complete inclusions or omissions, this does not seem to be happening.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Then what are you saying? You said we should treat the #2 scorer in 1967 different from the #2 scorer in 1968, did you not? (VsX being based on the second best scorer in the league).

What I am trying to say (and obviously doing a bad job of it) is that I think above average is more systematic and granular.. and it would show things like the average dropping off (if it did) because our hypothetical #2 who was 85 pre expansion and 85 post expansion by VsX would show a spike post expansion.

The pack of top forwards should all show a similar spike in the metric and it would make it obvious something was changing in the environment rather than assuming those seasons were played at the same level.

( and don't go on a bias rant, I have nothing against O6 guys at all )

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

What I am trying to say (and obviously doing a bad job of it) is that I think above average is more systematic and granular.. and it would show things like the average dropping off (if it did) because our hypothetical #2 who was 85 pre expansion and 85 post expansion by VsX would show a spike post expansion.

The pack of top forwards should all show a similar spike in the metric and it would make it obvious something was changing in the environment rather than assuming those seasons were played at the same level.

( and don't go on a bias rant, I have nothing against O6 guys at all )

If you want to measure the quality or parity of the league, what you say makes sense. It makes no sense when it comes to measuring the quality of the top players.

Adding a crap ton of AHLers to the league should not affect the quality of the top players

 

[Czech Your Math]

What I am trying to say (and obviously doing a bad job of it) is that I think above average is more systematic and granular.. and it would show things like the average dropping off (if it did) because our hypothetical #2 who was 85 pre expansion and 85 post expansion by VsX would show a spike post expansion.

The pack of top forwards should all show a similar spike in the metric and it would make it obvious something was changing in the environment rather than assuming those seasons were played at the same level.

The period immediate following expansion is particularly difficult to analyze. It's not easy for any single metric to truly, exactly, clearly illustrate what was going on during that time. It actually became substantially easier for stars to score (even adjusted) points, but this fact was partially obscured by the futility of the lesser teams (mostly composed of lesser players), so that the league averages didn't reflect the ease with which star players (mostly on O6 teams) could score points.

There are flaws with any metric, but I believe the flaws of simple adjusted points or "Vs1N Canadians" (average of top N Canadian players; N = # teams) are much less than that of raw data or "VsX." I don't expect that everyone will agree with this.

 

[BraveCanadian]

The period immediate following expansion is particularly difficult to analyze. It's not easy for any single metric to truly, exactly, clearly illustrate what was going on during that time. It actually became substantially easier for stars to score (even adjusted) points, but this fact was partially obscured by the futility of the lesser teams (mostly composed of lesser players), so that the league averages didn't reflect the ease with which star players (mostly on O6 teams) could score points.

There are flaws with any metric, but I believe the flaws of simple adjusted points or "Vs1N Canadians" (average of top N Canadian players; N = # teams) are much less than that of raw data or "VsX." I don't expect that everyone will agree with this.

Yes I can see the benefits of looking at it from both perspectives actually.

Maybe if we could somehow combine how a player does vs. the average player with the same opportunities as well as how they do in relation to the top of the pack (VsX) we could get the best of both.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Surprised

The period immediate following expansion is particularly difficult to analyze. It's not easy for any single metric to truly, exactly, clearly illustrate what was going on during that time. It actually became substantially easier for stars to score (even adjusted) points, but this fact was partially obscured by the futility of the lesser teams (mostly composed of lesser players), so that the league averages didn't reflect the ease with which star players (mostly on O6 teams) could score points.

There are flaws with any metric, but I believe the flaws of simple adjusted points or "Vs1N Canadians" (average of top N Canadian players; N = # teams) are much less than that of raw data or "VsX." I don't expect that everyone will agree with this.

Surprised by the bolded. The 1967 expansion featured players from the minors, mainly with NHL experience being brought in under the NHL umbrella. Hardly any juniors or other feeder players were accelerated to the NHL.

The various metrics making the rounds are not NHL exclusive. They may be applied to the AHL, WHL, CHL, etc in a fashion that will give a picture of the individual talents in the minor league feeder system.

 

[Killion]

The period immediate following expansion is particularly difficult to analyze.... I don't expect that everyone will agree with this.

No, I guess not huh & ya, it is problematical from a statistical perspective to analyze. In 67/68 the Regular Season tally was increased from 70-74 Games, with each team playing 50 games within its own division thus rendering somewhat moot any inference that the Blues vs Seals or Flyers vs Kings or what have you, all playing on a level field would be completely dominated by powerhouse 06ers. By 1974 the number of Regular Seasons had increased to 78, then 80, a more balanced inter-conference schedule drafted & executed. More games, more goals. Has to be factored in. By that time, any advantage (excluding the Canadiens of course) the 06ers mightve had pretty much history. Indeed, the Flyers Top O' the World.

 

[Czech Your Math]

No, I guess not huh & ya, it is problematical from a statistical perspective to analyze. In 67/68 the Regular Season tally was increased from 70-74 Games, with each team playing 50 games within its own division thus rendering somewhat moot any inference that the Blues vs Seals or Flyers vs Kings or what have you, all playing on a level field would be completely dominated by powerhouse 06ers. By 1974 the number of Regular Seasons had increased to 78, then 80, a more balanced inter-conference schedule drafted & executed. More games, more goals. Has to be factored in. By that time, any advantage (excluding the Canadiens of course) the 06ers mightve had pretty much history. Indeed, the Flyers Top O' the World.

Looking at the GF/GA ratio of the O6 teams, their advantage peaked ~'71-'73... and was much less during the latter part of the '70s (between 2-7% starting in '75, except for a spike in '78). It still never went below 1.025 (2.5% better than average) until '81, the second year after WHA merger.

I doubt the small change in number of games significantly affected adjusted production (since it already adjust for length of schedule). The balance of the schedule may have been a somewhat more important factor. However, the (im)balance amongst the teams was by far the most important factor IMO. The scoring environment for the top players became much easier much more quickly than was reflected in the league GPG data, because the direct effect of this increased production was mostly negated by the futility of lesser players on lesser teams. We're not talking about a couple of expansion teams in a ~25 team league, we're talking about the league doubling overnight via a questionable (in terms of fairness) re-allocation of players and then continued expansion shortly after that. On top of that, the WHA siphoned off a substantial amount of talent, decreasing the overall talent in the league. Just too much going on at once to easily analyze it.

 

[BraveCanadian]

If you want to measure the quality or parity of the league, what you say makes sense. It makes no sense when it comes to measuring the quality of the top players.

Adding a crap ton of AHLers to the league should not affect the quality of the top players

It wouldn't. The top players would all still be where they were in relation to each other.

It would just demonstrate their value better.

 

[Hardyvan123]

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

Yes what you say is true but the number of teams and distribution of thsoe top players, ie the number of top line, top PP units, ect... does change the opportunity for players depending on the amount of teams in the league.

No one is saying that the NHL talent pool (from the same pool and no influx form other sources) changed in 68 for instance, but the opportunities did and scoring was affected.

2) The league is still approximately 50% Canadian

Sure but just go look at all of the province, BC and the Maritimes specifically, which in the past produced very few NHL players, or elite ones as well and now do. That's a change (and rate of growth that has outdistanced expansion).

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

No you are right but it's not just 1 country producing elite talent now but the US, Russia, Swedes, Finns, Czechs and some smaller ones that simply didn't contribute any NHL talent pre 1972ish (basically pre 1980ish, except for a trickle of players, the US leading the growth spurt) in the NHL.


The attempts to downplay the extremely significant impact of these changes when comparing players over time is frankly astonishing at times.

 

[Hardyvan123]

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.

Numbers of teams, and top line, PP duty ect, is an important factor that VsX doesn't address, and I'll agree that it's a pretty good system, with adjusted stats being in the middle somewhere, both easily more valuable than raw counting stats (which have value in single seasons but become almost useless comparing players over time).

the variance of the larger amount of teams and possibilities for more of it with more than less teams, along with large increases in non Canadian talent should be addressed somewhere but it won't be neat and tidy in a formula.

Unfortunately alot of people want to throw out the 2 significant points above if they can't be formulated 100% which is basically throwing the baby out with the bath water.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Numbers of teams, and top line, PP duty ect, is an important factor that VsX doesn't address, and I'll agree that it's a pretty good system, with adjusted stats being in the middle somewhere, both easily more valuable than raw counting stats (which have value in single seasons but become almost useless comparing players over time).

the variance of the larger amount of teams and possibilities for more of it with more than less teams, along with large increases in non Canadian talent should be addressed somewhere but it won't be neat and tidy in a formula.

Unfortunately alot of people want to throw out the 2 significant points above if they can't be formulated 100% which is basically throwing the baby out with the bath water.

I agree that VsX doesn't address number of teams, or top line, PP duty etc - that's why it will underrate second tier stars from a time when the league is smaller when there were fewer opportunities to go around.

But when talking about Jaromir Jagr's place in history as an offensive player, the only players worth comparing him to are players who were good enough to be on the first line and get ample PP time for basically their entire careers, and VsX does just fine in comparing this calibre of player.

 

[Rhiessan71]

I agree that VsX doesn't address number of teams, or top line, PP duty etc - that's why it will underrate second tier stars from a time when the league is smaller when there were fewer opportunities to go around.

But when talking about Jaromir Jagr's place in history as an offensive player, the only players worth comparing him to are players who were good enough to be on the first line and get ample PP time for basically their entire careers, and VsX does just fine in comparing this calibre of player.

Beat me to it.
At least with VsX, these top tier players are being "adjusted" by their peers so to speak instead of by a League average that some of these players are so far away from they couldn't see it with a telescope.

Still looking VsX over but one thing that stands out right off the bat is that there is an attempt at common sense involved and doesn't just blindly consider all 2nd place scorers the same.
Compared to regular AS's which are the epitome of the word blind.

 

[livewell68]

That looks better but I still have a few questions.

How does Jagr gain anything in longevity on Gretzky when it comes to strictly offense?

Jagr had his last PPG season at 34 (then had 1 in three years of KHL).
Gretzky had his last PPG season at 37 finishing 3rd in the points race.

Jagr had 3 PPG seasons from the age of 30.
Gretzky had 8 straight (and this is into the dead puck era).

Grezky also has a much better start to his career being elite from 18 when Jagr became elite around age 21.

If we use Hockey References Adjusted point shares (which is very flawed but still) it looks like this
19.7, 19.6, 19.6, 18.0, 17.6, 17.0, 14.5, 14.3, 14.1, 12.8, 12.7, 11.3, 11.1, 9.5, 9.4, 9.1, 8.4, 4.8, 4.2, 3.3,

16.0, 15.5, 14.6, 14.1, 12.6, 12.2, 12.0, 11.0, 9.1, 9.1, 9.1, 8.7, 8.3, 8.1, 8.0, 6.1, 6.1, 4.1, 4.0

Here Gretzkys 15th best season is clearly better than Jagrs 9th.


And I think your GCARV system needs some serious work if it gives Jagrs 3 average KHL seasons almost the same value as 1/3 of Mikitas or Messiers careers. That is just ridiculous.


Jagr is very impressive for a 41 year old but to say he is now bridging the offensive gap to Gretzky is almost like saying I will start bridging the gap in Boxing to Mohammad Ali after the age of 50 if I don't get parkinson.

Actually it was age 35 in 2006-07 when he scored 96 Pts in 82 games (good for 8th overall in league scoring) despite playing with a surgically repaired shooting hand shoulder all season long that clearly was hampering his shot. Also at age 36, he turned in one of the better playoff performances of recent memory when he scored 15 Pts in 10 games and which was good enough for 12th in playoff scoring.

He could still finish this season near or at PPG too.