Where does Kucherov rank among Russians?

[daver]

If a player scores 60 goals in a scoring environment of about eight goals per game and another scores 55 goals in a scoring environment of about six goals per game, the latter player's goal scoring is more valuable in the sense that he probably helped his team win more games and pick up more points with his scoring.

If both players won the Richard in their respective years, then their relative value would be similar.

One would presume the Rocket winner in one season could win the Rocket if they played in another season.

 

[Michael Farkas]

No scout watches every shift of every player in their draft year...that's not a requirement. In fact, I think it's actually a detriment.

It is "tougher" and folks that undertake this tougher route need to understand how the game and positions within the game have evolved over time. But it's a wholly worthwhile venture. More valuable than trying to perfect a math formula, certainly...

 

[WarriorofTime]

If both players won the Richard in their respective years, then their relative value would be similar.

One would presume the Rocket winner in one season could win the Rocket if they played in another season.

That's not even remotely true and silly to suggest. Jamie Benn's 87 point season in 2014-15 is not the equivalent of McDavid's 153 point season in 2022-23 even though both result in Art Rosses. VsX can never properly capture this because 1 is 1. What VsX assumes is that 5, 10, 20, etc. is the automatic equivalent in every single season. What league scoring assumes is that individual players cannot impact league scoring much (at least post Original Six , in the O6, one player's team's games accounted for 33.3 % of total games played, as opposed to 1/16th in a 32 team league). It does a better job controlling for factors like some teams having a clear go to guy that they throw everything at, some teams scoring "by committee", injuries/down years for particular players, distribution of dominant talent across time and space. McDavid born a few years earlier and goes in Taylor Hall's spot, he goes out and posts a big season, wins Art Ross, Crosby doesn't get hurt, Ovechkin doesn't play a trap, Kane doesn't have a wrist injury and plays out of position. Now VsX looks very different for 2011-12 but league scoring only moves a smidge.

 

[Professor What]

If both players won the Richard in their respective years, then their relative value would be similar.

One would presume the Rocket winner in one season could win the Rocket if they played in another season.

Not sure I can agree with this. Take for example, a comparison between 1948-49 and 1981-82. Sid Abel's 28 goals led the league in the former, yet I have a hard time believing that it was equivalent to Mike Bossy's 64 in the latter, let alone Wayne Gretzky's 92. That's equivalent to trophy counting, imo, which is rightfully derided by many. One first-place performance being the same as another is an oversimplification. Sometimes the league is stronger than other times or the stars are just stronger. Some individual seasons are simply better than others even if they hold the same rank, or even if the better season is lower in the ranks for that particular year.

 

[WarriorofTime]

People are just having a really hard time acknowledging that a number of players are just having really special seasons this year, even when you control for scoring rates. A team like Ottawa is middle of the pack in terms of goals scored and has a number of talented forwards on the roster, and nobody is PPG+ on the roster. Same with Winnipeg who is middle of the pack in goals and one of the best overall teams in the NHL. There is an impulsive need to denigrate the present. The depth of star scoring talent is better than it has ever been. I truly believe that and have never seen a good argument against it.

 

[WarriorofTime]

No scout watches every shift of every player in their draft year...that's not a requirement. In fact, I think it's actually a detriment.

It is "tougher" and folks that undertake this tougher route need to understand how the game and positions within the game have evolved over time. But it's a wholly worthwhile venture. More valuable than trying to perfect a math formula, certainly...

Scouting is about projection, if looking at a more historical sense, you're looking more at performance. Someone says "Malkin is better, I watched them both", what you're saying is "I don't need anything empirical, I have what I need with my eyes", ok, then unless you saw every shift, you may have missed something with those eyes.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Scouting is about projection, if looking at a more historical sense, you're looking more at performance. Someone says "Malkin is better, I watched them both", what you're saying is "I don't need anything empirical, I have what I need with my eyes", ok, then unless you saw every shift, you may have missed something with those eyes.

Amateur scouting is about projection. This would qualify as pro scouting. Those are different animals.

I'm not saying "I don't need anything empirical"...nor would that require "every shift" anyhow - a fake barrier that you might refer to as "defecting" haha

What I'm saying is: The perfect adjusted score, a perfect scoring of various award voting, etc. doesn't split the atom...we don't win anything. We add some context to some data, and that's fine...that's good. But that won't produce a definitive list, it doesn't settle anything...it's just re-purposing what we already have. It will still need to be combined with proper talent evaluation.

 

[Michael Farkas]

There is an impulsive need to denigrate the present.

Can't we have time to allow it to digest before we throw a parade for everyone that gets 100 points? Like, the HHOF requires a waiting period before anyone is inducted because people tend to be rash and littered with recency bias.

There are 500 million places on the internet where people go, "This is the best thing ever..." and "this is worst thing ever" and "is this the biggest choke job in history?" and all the other dimly-lit, self-serving nonsense...can't the history board get a chance to chew on things for a bit before declaring everything that has happened in the last two weeks "special"?

What happens if we have seven 200 point scorers next season? That's silly, I know, but do we have to all be compelled to potentially overrate the thing that isn't even finished yet (this NHL season) here too? And if some choose not to immediately submit to that, then we're luddites and we have "bias" and we're "denigrating"...?

It's just like the Ovechkin fanatic who constantly brings up how few players from this era are on the top 100 players list...it's like, "yeah, their careers are still going on...and in some cases, had just started" of course they aren't gonna be there yet. Not being in a rush is one of the features of this subforum, it's not a bug.

These seasons that are being referenced are really nice...I think they're happening with superstar level talents in quite possibly the best league we've ever seen. I don't think it's a requirement - nor do I think it's wise - that we rush to judge these incomplete seasons historically because we don't have what the next step is for improved context.

 

[MadLuke]

Scouting is about projection, if looking at a more historical sense, you're looking more at performance. Someone says "Malkin is better, I watched them both", what you're saying is "I don't need anything empirical, I have what I need with my eyes", ok, then unless you saw every shift, you may have missed something with those eyes.

There such a strong prediction that can be made from what one seen for what happened when they were not looking too.. (to take an extreme example, you do not need to have seen that many Usain Bolt race to know he was bost faster than every one else and better to deliver the day of the big races).

Long season sport and more complex sport like Hockey would be more complex and would need more than 6x12 seconds videos, but the same idea apply.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

If a player scores 60 goals in a scoring environment of about eight goals per game and another scores 55 goals in a scoring environment of about six goals per game, the latter player's goal scoring is more valuable in the sense that he probably helped his team win more games and pick up more points with his scoring.

But did he play better? That's not necessarily the same thing. That's where things like efficiency of scoring, opportunities given, teammate and linemate quality, all-around play come into the question.

I don't think HR's adjusted totals are meant to try to determine if a player played better than another. They just give relative value to goals and points. Like currency, these things do not have a fixed value. 50 goals in one season isn't the same thing as 50 goals in another.

I think the main issue is most people (myself included) try to use adjusted scoring in a much broader way than it's intended.

Sticking with your example - it's literally true that 55 goals in a 6.0 GPG scoring environment is 22% more valuable than 60 goals in an 8.0 GPG scoring environment. It's simply a mathematical calculation.

The challenge is, most people here are interested in the performances of the league's best players. It's literally true that a goal in a 6.0 GPG league is 33% more valuable than a goal in an 8.0 GPG league. But that's based on everyone's collective output - superstars in their prime, middle-six forwards, goons and grinders, stay-at-home defensemen, and offensive defensemen. Everyone wants to know how Ovechkin, Crosby, and McDavid stack up against Hull, Beliveau and Jagr. Not many people really care about how Niklas Hjalmarsson's offensive production compares to Adam Foote's, or Craig Ludwig's, or Bob Goldham's.

In other words - adjusting based on the league average, strictly in a mathematical sense, is perfectly accurate. However, it can be outright misleading to focus on the results of star players, because how much a star forward (or offensive defenseman) produces depends on many factors. The past few seasons haven't been particularly high-scoring by historical standards (measured by goals per game), but top players are scoring a lot due to more PP opportunities, more teams have good puck-moving defensemen, the existence of 3v3 overtime, and teams pulling their goalies earlier and more often. Each of these factors favours top scorers. Your stay-at-home defenseman playing 15 minutes a game on the third pair isn't going to benefit from any of those changes, but McDavid, MacKinnon and Kucherov will. That's why this season only features about 2% more GPG than 1965-66, but there are 12 players scoring 1.20+ PPG this year, compared to just one in 1965-66.

There are issues with VsX (which I've written about in other threads), but it's primarily focused on how the league's best players perform. That makes it better suited for the cross-generational Karlsson vs Coffey type of discussions. VsX is probably less accurate if we're comparing the offensive production of Doug Jarvis vs Stephane Yelle, but in my experience, nobody is overly interested in that.

 

[MadLuke]

But that won't produce a definitive list, it doesn't settle anything...it's just re-purposing what we already have.

That not something I suppose anyone ever suggested, no one ever thought hum Mike Green adjusted points are higher than Chelios, thus Green > Chelios.

 

[MadLuke]

It's literally true that a goal in a 6.0 GPG league is 33% more valuable than a goal in an 8.0 GPG league.

To put it in a very crude way, a prevented goal has the same value than a goal scored.

The goaltender that prevented 22 of them was not necessarly more valuable than the player that scored 2. Yes if you remove both of the game, the team without a goaltender would have been in big trouble obviously but they could have easily replaced him by someone else.

It is obviously the output over easy replacement (AHL if we talk about average nhler or average top player if we talk alltimer) that give a player value.

Someone that win the Rocket scoring 60 goal in a 6 gpg league, where every team has a first liner that scored 45-55, did not necessarily give the same edge to his team to be better than the other team than the guy scoring 70goals in a 8gpg where first liner scored 45-55.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Amateur scouting is about projection. This would qualify as pro scouting. Those are different animals.

I'm not saying "I don't need anything empirical"...nor would that require "every shift" anyhow - a fake barrier that you might refer to as "defecting" haha

What I'm saying is: The perfect adjusted score, a perfect scoring of various award voting, etc. doesn't split the atom...we don't win anything. We add some context to some data, and that's fine...that's good. But that won't produce a definitive list, it doesn't settle anything...it's just re-purposing what we already have. It will still need to be combined with proper talent evaluation.

Well of course there is no such thing as a definitive list, regardless of any hyperbole we throw out from time to time.

Can't we have time to allow it to digest before we throw a parade for everyone that gets 100 points? Like, the HHOF requires a waiting period before anyone is inducted because people tend to be rash and littered with recency bias.

There are 500 million places on the internet where people go, "This is the best thing ever..." and "this is worst thing ever" and "is this the biggest choke job in history?" and all the other dimly-lit, self-serving nonsense...can't the history board get a chance to chew on things for a bit before declaring everything that has happened in the last two weeks "special"?

What happens if we have seven 200 point scorers next season? That's silly, I know, but do we have to all be compelled to potentially overrate the thing that isn't even finished yet (this NHL season) here too? And if some choose not to immediately submit to that, then we're luddites and we have "bias" and we're "denigrating"...?

It's just like the Ovechkin fanatic who constantly brings up how few players from this era are on the top 100 players list...it's like, "yeah, their careers are still going on...and in some cases, had just started" of course they aren't gonna be there yet. Not being in a rush is one of the features of this subforum, it's not a bug.

These seasons that are being referenced are really nice...I think they're happening with superstar level talents in quite possibly the best league we've ever seen. I don't think it's a requirement - nor do I think it's wise - that we rush to judge these incomplete seasons historically because we don't have what the next step is for improved context.

True, but nobody is forced to participate in this particular topic that was brought up in this particular sub-forum and fine to say "I will wait until his career is five years over before I make assessments"

 

[WarriorofTime]

In other words - adjusting based on the league average, strictly in a mathematical sense, is perfectly accurate. However, it can be outright misleading to focus on the results of star players, because how much a star forward (or offensive defenseman) produces depends on many factors. The past few seasons haven't been particularly high-scoring by historical standards (measured by goals per game), but top players are scoring a lot due to more PP opportunities, more teams have good puck-moving defensemen, the existence of 3v3 overtime, and teams pulling their goalies earlier and more often. Each of these factors favours top scorers. Your stay-at-home defenseman playing 15 minutes a game on the third pair isn't going to benefit from any of those changes, but McDavid, MacKinnon and Kucherov will. That's why this season only features about 2% more GPG than 1965-66, but there are 12 players scoring 1.20+ PPG this year, compared to just one in 1965-66.

But then also ask yourselves, what are the factors that are keeping scoring from really exploding in a countervailing fashion? Why do we live in a world where Kucherov scores 140 points but nobody on mid-ranking scoring teams like Ottawa and Winnipeg even goes point per game, considering anything related to factors in bold apply in games featuring those teams as well?

By the way, one other guy goes 1.2 PPG in 1965-66 and we're at about the same proportion. 12 guys in 1965-66 would be two per team if distributed equally across the League. That's the equivalent of 64 today.

 

[daver]

Not sure I can agree with this. Take for example, a comparison between 1948-49 and 1981-82. Sid Abel's 28 goals led the league in the former, yet I have a hard time believing that it was equivalent to Mike Bossy's 64 in the latter, let alone Wayne Gretzky's 92. That's equivalent to trophy counting, imo, which is rightfully derided by many. One first-place performance being the same as another is an oversimplification. Sometimes the league is stronger than other times or the stars are just stronger. Some individual seasons are simply better than others even if they hold the same rank, or even if the better season is lower in the ranks for that particular year.

Let's put it this way:

Adjusting points using league GPG is close to a useless endeavor, most notably from before 96/97.

If you want to measure the domimance of a goalscoring season, compare its relative dominance to other great goalscoring seasons.

 

[Professor What]

Let's put it this way:

Adjusting points using league GPG is close to a useless endeavor.

I'm not in complete agreement. It's flawed, but not useless for some eras. I think it can penalize some of the guys from the 80s too much, and it without question overestimates early eras, but it can add some context to things. Like, I don't care that one guy gets 70 adjusted goals and another guy gets 69. That's well within any margin of error. But for the times that it works (a debatable period, I acknowledge -- I don't like it for WW2 and earlier, to be honest), a number of 70 probably does show something significant over a number of 55 or 60. Comparing Cooney Weiland's standout season to Gretzky's best years doesn't work because of the limited scope of the process, but can we compare say, Phil Esposito to Auston Matthews? Yeah, I think we can get a rough estimation there. Note that I'm saying rough, as in it's not perfect. But neither is VsX which I do think has wider range, and raw points certainly don't tell the story. They're all tools. Use them as such, but not as gospel. I think there's a middle ground between ignoring them and worshipping them that's the correct way to go.

 

[daver]

I'm not in complete agreement. It's flawed, but not useless for some eras. I think it can penalize some of the guys from the 80s too much, and it without question overestimates early eras, but it can add some context to things. Like, I don't care that one guy gets 70 adjusted goals and another guy gets 69. That's well within any margin of error. But for the times that it works (a debatable period, I acknowledge -- I don't like it for WW2 and earlier, to be honest), a number of 70 probably does show something significant over a number of 55 or 60. Comparing Cooney Weiland's standout season to Gretzky's best years doesn't work because of the limited scope of the process, but can we compare say, Phil Esposito to Auston Matthews? Yeah, I think we can get a rough estimation there. Note that I'm saying rough, as in it's not perfect. But neither is VsX which I do think has wider range, and raw points certainly don't tell the story. They're all tools. Use them as such, but not as gospel. I think there's a middle ground between ignoring them and worshipping them that's the correct way to go.

The tool doesn't literally change point totals is the much superior tool.

I think that most objective observers can judge that players stood out from their peers in a way that places them in the GOAT discussions.

We can trace the careers of the current superstars back through the superstars they replaced to get a decent sense that McDavid would be as dominant in Crosby's peak years but not as high scoring as he his today. You can then move McDavid and Crosby into Jagr's peak and get a decent sense that they too would likely be challenging Jagr for Art Rosses.

You can keep doing this as far back as you want. I personally feel the league matured in the '50s after growing pains and league uncertainty up until the war. I trust the other HOH posters to judge the pre-War players.

 

[Michael Farkas]

That not something I suppose anyone ever suggested, no one ever thought hum Mike Green adjusted points are higher than Chelios, thus Green > Chelios.

We have people doing that kind of stuff with award voting and top-10 scoring finishes...of course we'd have that with adjusted points too. There's a lot of "I want a shortcut, at any cost" overtones in these kind of threads...

 

[WarriorofTime]

The tool doesn't literally change point totals is the much superior tool.

I think that most objective observers can judge that players stood out from their peers in a way that places them in the GOAT discussions.

We can trace the careers of the current superstars back through the superstars they replaced to get a decent sense that McDavid would be as dominant in Crosby's peak years but not as high scoring as he his today. You can then move McDavid and Crosby into Jagr's peak and get a decent sense that they too would likely be challenging Jagr for Art Rosses.

You can keep doing this as far back as you want. I personally feel the league matured in the '50s after growing pains and league uncertainty up until the war. I trust the other HOH posters to judge the pre-War players.

All roads, no matter the thread (where does Kucherov rank among Russians?) lead back to trying to jam McDavid into being Crosby's equal....

 

[Professor What]

We have people doing that kind of stuff with award voting and top-10 scoring finishes...of course we'd have that with adjusted points too. There's a lot of "I want a shortcut, at any cost" overtones in these kind of threads...

Hopefully it's not as easy to do that here. (It'll be done anyway, of course.) There are guys who never even played in the NHL who have to be considered if the discussion here is going to be done right.

All roads, no matter the thread (where does Kucherov rank among Russians?) lead back to trying to jam McDavid into being Crosby's equal....

All roads lead to Crosby being #5 all time.

 

[Gorskyontario]

That's not even remotely true and silly to suggest. Jamie Benn's 87 point season in 2014-15 is not the equivalent of McDavid's 153 point season in 2022-23 even though both result in Art Rosses. VsX can never properly capture this because 1 is 1. What VsX assumes is that 5, 10, 20, etc. is the automatic equivalent in every single season. What league scoring assumes is that individual players cannot impact league scoring much (at least post Original Six , in the O6, one player's team's games accounted for 33.3 % of total games played, as opposed to 1/16th in a 32 team league). It does a better job controlling for factors like some teams having a clear go to guy that they throw everything at, some teams scoring "by committee", injuries/down years for particular players, distribution of dominant talent across time and space. McDavid born a few years earlier and goes in Taylor Hall's spot, he goes out and posts a big season, wins Art Ross, Crosby doesn't get hurt, Ovechkin doesn't play a trap, Kane doesn't have a wrist injury and plays out of position. Now VsX looks very different for 2011-12 but league scoring only moves a smidge.

This is barely comprehensible. Jamie Benn was the 2014-15 art ross winner as the best scorer in the league. You are simply trying to undermine his accomplishment by denying that league scoring levels change.

Bobby Hull won 3 art ross trophies in the 1960s with 81,87, 94 points. Playoff performance aside his scoring titles are no less valuable than Lafleurs in the 70s with 125,136, 132 points.

All roads, no matter the thread (where does Kucherov rank among Russians?) lead back to trying to jam McDavid into being Crosby's equal....

Connor Mcdavid is clearly a level above Crosby. With 5 art ross trophies to Crosby's 2. Mcdavid has not won the cup yet, his playoff numbers have been good and he is only 27.

 

[WarriorofTime]

This is barely comprehensible. Jamie Benn was the 2014-15 art ross winner as the best scorer in the league. You are simply trying to undermine his accomplishment by denying that league scoring levels change.

Bobby Hull won 3 art ross trophies in the 1960s with 81,87, 94 points. Playoff performance aside his scoring titles are no less valuable than Lafleurs in the 70s with 125,136, 132 points.

Awards matter, I don't disregard awards as snidely as others do with "trophy counting" derisions. That being said, it's of course silly to say every award in every season means the season was equal. Don't think anybody would say that in good faith..

 

[Professor What]

Awards matter, I don't disregard awards as snidely as others do with "trophy counting" derisions. That being said, it's of course silly to say every award in every season means the season was equal. Don't think anybody would say that in good faith..

I think it's dangerous to rely too much on awards. They don't always mean the same thing. Take this year for example. Auston Matthews is going to win the Rocket Richard and win it emphatically. Meanwhile, the Hart race should be a nailbiter. There are plenty of strong candidates for the Hart, but only one is going to win it. There being only one Rocket Richard Trophy this year works. There being only one Hart is going to end up with someone being vaulted in people's opinions over very comparable seasons. Since the thread is about Kucherov, let's assume he wins it. Does that cheapen what MacKinnon or McDavid did this year? It shouldn't, but people who harp on trophies too much (which is what I mean when I talk about trophy counting) will act as though there was a world of difference between them. In the Rocket race, there is. In the Hart race, there isn't.

 

[WarriorofTime]

I think it's dangerous to rely too much on awards. They don't always mean the same thing. Take this year for example. Auston Matthews is going to win the Rocket Richard and win it emphatically. Meanwhile, the Hart race should be a nailbiter. There are plenty of strong candidates for the Hart, but only one is going to win it. There being only one Rocket Richard Trophy this year works. There being only one Hart is going to end up with someone being vaulted in people's opinions over very comparable seasons. Since the thread is about Kucherov, let's assume he wins it. Does that cheapen what MacKinnon or McDavid did this year? It shouldn't, but people who harp on trophies too much (which is what I mean when I talk about trophy counting) will act as though there was a world of difference between them. In the Rocket race, there is. In the Hart race, there isn't.

Kucherov’s “zero Conn Smythes” is exhibit a as he has playoff performances better than many Conn Smythe winners. Or Crosby’s 09 being much better than his 16 “Conn Smythe” one.

 

[Gorskyontario]

Kucherov’s “zero Conn Smythes” is exhibit a as he has playoff performances better than many Conn Smythe winners. Or Crosby’s 09 being much better than his 16 “Conn Smythe” one.

Even if Kucherov hasn't won the conn smythe, anyone who watched those series knows how well he played and how valuable he was.

When it comes to award counting voters can make mistakes. This is of course all open to interpretation. There is 1 exception, the art ross. Now Jamie Benn wasn't exactly an offensive dynamo on the level of Crosby, Malkin, Ovechkin, the Sedins ect. That being said he still lead the NHL in points, whether he did that by injuries or happenstance no one can take that away from him.