The League of Extraordinary Statisticians: The Trophies
by Bettman's Nightmare on Dec 7, 2010 8:00 AM EST
Email
PrintThe League of Extraordinary Statisticians (LOES) is a weekly forum bringing together the top analytical minds in the hockey world to answer a variety of questions that straddle the line between stats analysis and something you might hear floating around section 304. They have agreed to answer these questions in a few paragraphs or less, and with minimal formulae. Because this is a forum, we'd encourage you to use the comments section to answer the questions yourselves, or to discuss or debate the answers given.
The LOES is not meant to represent the entire of the hockey stats community. There are a number of people that either were too busy or too difficult to contact for the purposes of the forum.
After spending some time thinking about "underrated" players, it's time to get to the ones we need little time to recognize as the best.
You will see quite a bit more consensus here, not many feathers being ruffled. I'll see what I can do...
This week's question: If you had to choose one all-time NHL player apiece for a "lifetime" Hart, Norris, Vezina, Selke, and/or Masterton Trophy, who would you choose? If need be, please explain.
Hart Trophy - Wayne Gretzky. He is the best player in history who had the highest peak value.
Norris Trophy - Bobby Orr. Best defenceman ever and had highest peak value. Nobody likely thinks this is a questionable pick even though his peak was clearly not as long as some more recent defencemen.
Vezina Trophy - Dominik Hasek. Best goalie ever and had highest peak value. I think some people might argue this pick given that his NHL peak was not as long as some other goalies. Which is a bit strange when contrasted with defencemen.
Selke Trophy - Craig Ramsay. I think I made my case earlier when discussing an underrated historical player.
Masterton Trophy - Mario Lemieux. Nobody else comes back from cancer and wins the Hart Trophy and scoring title.
- Greg Ballentine, The Puck Stops Here at Kukla's Korner
The MVP in the WHA was named after Gordie Howe. I think that it's the players, not the executives, that should be given that honor. I would give you the obvious names (Howe, Orr, Plante), but let me pull a Palin and tell you about something else that we've talked about in our blog: have a team legend present the Stanley Cup. Why is Gary Bettman involved? He gets booed every time. It's embarrassing. Wouldn't it have been better to have Bobby Hull or Tony Esposito present the Cup to the Hawks?
- Tom Tango, tangotiger.net and author of The Book: Playing the Percentages in Baseball
Norris is easy: Bobby Orr. (I trust that doesn't need explanation)
Masterton: PASS
Hart is tougher, but I'll go Gretzky. (That probably doesn't need explanation either)
Vezina is also tough; goalies like Hasek and Parent were absolutely dominant, but not for nearly as long as someone like Patrick Roy, so I guess I have to go with Roy.
Selke: I'd need to study this. My first thought is Gainey, but I should probably study this before opining.
- Rob Vollman, Hockey Prospectus
The question depends on if we consider a "lifetime" trophy to be the peak level that a player achieved over several years, or do we give extra points for longevity. For the Hart, the answer is Wayne Gretzky either way, although if we go by peak performance Dominik Hasek gives him a run for his money; by lifetime accomplishments Gordie Howe would be #2. For the Norris, if we go by peak performance, the answer is Bobby Orr; this needs no further explanation. If we are going by total career achievements, then Raymond Bourque gets the nod, with Nicklas Lidstrom second. For the Vezina, by peak performance Hasek runs away with it, but if we go by career achievements Patrick Roy wins.
By the way, you'll notice I restricted myself to players from the last 60 years; this is because the game was so different before then that comparisons are more or less impossible.
- Tom Awad, Hockey Prospectus
All right, this is going to be brief, mostly. I'm leaning on all-time Goals Versus Threshold (GVT) to back me up here. Lifetime awards:
Hart Trophy - Wayne Gretzky
Norris Trophy - Bobby Orr (short career, but incomparable peak)
Vezina Trophy - Patrick Roy
That leaves the lifetime Selke Trophy. Echoing Greg Ballentine's under-appreciated player from last week, my pick is former Sabres left wing and current Thrashers head coach Craig Ramsay. Ramsay won the Selke only once, in 1984-85 -- ironically, his final season -- but rates at 96 defensive GVT over his 14-season career, better overall and per-season than multiple Selke winners Bob Gainey, Guy Carbonneau, Jere Lehtinen, Michael Peca, Rod Brind'Amour and Pavel Datsyuk.
- Timo Seppa, Hockey Prospectus
Hart Trophy - This one drives me nuts. In fact, I can't stand the way this one is awarded each season. From the league's own page on the Hart:
"The Hart Memorial Trophy is an annual award given to the player judged to be the most valuable to his team."
The award should go to the player most valuable to his team, it's a great award. Valuable players are worth recognizing. So why does the award so rarely go to the player most valuable to his team? Ah, well there it is, right on the NHL site:
"The winner is selected in a poll of the Professional Hockey Writers' Association in all NHL cities at the end of the regular season."
Now it makes sense. Look, either award the Hart to the best player and call it the League MVP or change the wording to the most outstanding player. Stop giving the award and not following the definition of the award. I abstain until I can get a ruling on this. Force me to make a selection and it's Wayne Gretzky based on the way the PHWA votes and it's Dominik Hasek based on the wording of the actual award.
Norris Trophy - Bobby Orr.
Vezina Trophy - The Contrarian Goaltender has picked up the Dominik Hasek cause and run with it and I can't say I disagree with him. Hasek was so much better than any other goalie in the league at the time, including Patrick Roy, that he should be discussed as the greatest goaltender of all time, not just of the 90s. I could make a fairly convincing argument that he's one of the greatest players ever to set foot on NHL ice.
Selke Trophy - Doug Gilmour came into the league as a plus player at age 20 and was taking tough assignments not long after that.
- Derek Zona, The Copper & Blue
So it's nearly unanimous that Gretzky holds the "lifetime" Hart, and the same for Orr. It is really hard to argue with these two, and I think Tom Awad raises a very good point: do we evaluate a player's career by long-term performance or the intensity of the peak years? Awad uses Hasek as an illustrative point; Hasek's seasons from 1993-94 through 1998-99 contained some of the best and most important performances in league history. The Buffalo Sabres would not have even dreamed of getting to the Cup Finals without him; his backups' save percentage was about 25 points worse than Hasek's. Honestly, if you include his career in the Czech leagues, his peak is only muddied by forces beyond his control (which, incidentally, makes Gretzky lucky).
Mario Lemieux only gets a mention in the Masterton conversation, but his per-year GVT was actually higher than Gretzky's.
The Roy-Hasek debate burns brightly, as much the result of the difference in 1980s/early-1990s and mid- to late-1990s league performance as anything else.
By the way, I absolutely love Tom Tango's suggestion, although I shudder to think at how hysterical Roenick would have been had he been the guy selected to give the Cup to Jonathan Toews. On the bright side, we could have been saved from the awkward, non-comforting Milbury gesture that followed.
No poll this go-around, as the responses are so close, but let's play a little Devil's advocate: who else can we put into the conversation for these trophies? In what ways would Gretzky not be deserving of the Hart, likewise for Orr and the others? Who are we leaving out (Hakan Loob Fan Club, you have the floor)? Anybody else frustrated like Derek Zona about the Hart Trophy, or any of the others?
29 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
If you want to make the case against gretz for Hart you have to look at Zona’s argument that the award is only comparable on a team by team basis instead of a league wide one really good player. Gretzky was obviously the great one but he wasn’t playing with soupcans backing him up either.
For Bobby Orr if you were trying to disprove him of the Norris you can make the arguement that he was the Mike Green of his time period. The playing style is so much more advanced today as well that if you took any good well rounded defenseman from today and sent him back in time is he gonna be better, the same, or worse than Orr? If you took Time Machine Pronger and stuck him back in the 60s/70s does it play out to him becoming the greatest player ever?
He raged at the world, at his family, at his life. But mostly he just raged.
Jay McClement for Selke in 2011. Justice will be served. Penalties will be killed.
Tough call on Orr; his possession skills were so transcendent in that era that it made him a solid defenseman. I would be extremely interested if there were any data on takeaways for him. But I think comparisons across eras is really problematic; if Orr had access to the kinds of training that a Mike Green had, would they be equivalent? Or, if Mike Green had the kinds of training Bobby Orr had, same question..comparisons need to run both ways. Even so, I think it is safer to keep them within their eras so that you can compare them with other players that had similar conditions and opportunities.
I actually really like the Hart debate, because it exists in all of the major sports. I honestly think you can make a case for Lemieux or Hasek…
Does he call it Luongo underwear?
Co-Manager at Behind the Net
by Bettman's Nightmare on Dec 7, 2010 2:34 PM EST up reply actions
Time Machine's are a silly point in player comparison.
Can’t find the link for it, but some tool tried to argue that the 2007 Ducks were the greatest hockey team of all time, because the 1970’s habs smoked between periods and they didn’t have the training regimen that players have today.
Of course if they played today, they would. And perhaps Guy LaFleur would be better than Crosby and Ovechkin. Point is, the Canadiens of the 70’s were the most dominant team of all time. 6 cups in 8 years.
As for Orr vs. Green, how many Art Ross trophies has Mike Green won? Or even come close to winning? Bobby Orr was as transcendental as Gretzky, and had he played longer, probably would be in our collective memories a little more. Bobby Orr is responsible for Mike Green’s existance as an NHL hockey player. He defined a new model that was quickly picked up by the Paul Coffee’s, Brian Leetch’s, etc.
Certainly he played on a dominant team in a weak era, but Phil Esposito is the only other player close to a legend on those bruins (And frankly, look where he went without Orr setting him up) . Orr defined that team the way Lemieux defined the Pens, or Clarke the Flyers.
SCHIENDER FOR VEZNA!
Certainly he played on a dominant team in a weak era, but Phil Esposito is the only other player close to a legend on those bruins (And frankly, look where he went without Orr setting him up) . Orr defined that team the way Lemieux defined the Pens, or Clarke the Flyers.
Not disputing the value of Orr, but why no love for the Chief? At his retirement, he was 4th in career goals, assists, and points. That’s setting a pretty high threshold if he’s not a legend.
It is a high threshhold...
Espo was one of the dominant forwards of his era, like Clarke, LaFleur, Bossy, etc.
Orr is one of the top ten (five? three? one?) players of all time. Comparing him and Orr is like comparing Lidstrom to Lindros. Brilliant player, certainly elite, but not in Orr, Gretzky, Richard or Howe’s territory.
Espo didn’t carry the Bruins. His “poor play” (ppg) in new york shows that. Clarke had
Parent in net, but Parent wasn’t leading that team on the ice. And let’s be frank, Clarke is no Bobby Orr.
SCHIENDER FOR VEZNA!
For Bobby Orr if you were trying to disprove him of the Norris you can make the arguement that he was the Mike Green of his time period. The playing style is so much more advanced today as well that if you took any good well rounded defenseman from today and sent him back in time is he gonna be better, the same, or worse than Orr? If you took Time Machine Pronger and stuck him back in the 60s/70s does it play out to him becoming the greatest player ever?
I’m curious what you mean by being the Mike Green of his time period. Orr was far more dominant than Green – and not just offensively.
Orr led the NHL in +/- 6 times. 4 times by the time he was 25. Green hasn’t led the NHL in +/- once. Green hasn’t even led his team in +/- once.
I don’t know where to get the more advanced statistics for older time periods, but Orr’s 70-71 season has to be one of the most dominant seasons ever – 124 +/- to lead the league. Second in the NHL was his defense partner, Dallas Smith, with +94. 3rd in the NHL were Espo and Ken Hodge with 71. Think about those numbers for a second … he led the NHL in +/- by more than 30% of the second place total. He had a +/- 75% higher than the 3rd place total.
Doing only very quick research, the other seasons that seem comparable to that are:
- Gretzky’s 84-85 (98 to Kurri (76) and Krushelnyski (56))
- Orr’s 73-74 (84 to Sims (64) and Ashbee (52))
- Orr’s 71-72 (86 to Park (62) and Ratelle (61))
- Konstantinov’s 95-96 (60 to Federov (49) and Fetisov (37))
I only listed Orr in 71-72 because he had so little help from his teammates. Espo was the highest Bruin that year at +55. So Orr had a 55% higher +/- than his highest teammate.
Green also doesn’t seem to be nearly as physical as Orr was in his day. I don’t think they counted hits back then, but Orr definitely fit in with the Bruins of those years – the closest proxy I can think of is that in three of his first four years he was top 10 in the league in PIMs (not that it’s a good thing, just saying that his total game was different than offensive comparables like Green and Coffey). The year he wasn’t in the top 10 of those first 4, Orr was injured for 28 games.
And by the way, am I the only one that was completely stunned to see Konstantinov on that list?
I’m also surprised to see Konstantinov, in part because that entire Detroit team was really good that year…so what the hell would be be doing differently? That being said, he was a good, defensive player.
At least according to GVT, Bobby Orr’s ‘70-’71, ‘74-’75, ‘69-’70, and ‘71-’72 rank as the four highest single-season GVT’s among skaters in NHL history, in that order.
Does he call it Luongo underwear?
Co-Manager at Behind the Net
by Bettman's Nightmare on Dec 9, 2010 11:04 AM EST up reply actions
Anybody else frustrated like Derek Zona about the Hart Trophy, or any of the others?
You have no idea how much this irks me. If it’s about most valuable player to his team Chris Pronger is a finalist.
Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.
Stamkos would be up there, too.
There are limits to this logic, though: a good player on a bad team might be just as important as a great player to a middling team. So team performance has to slot in there to a degree, unless it’s completely overtaken by the fact that the player is a top scorer in the league regardless. Thus, Mark Streit = No Hart.
Does he call it Luongo underwear?
Co-Manager at Behind the Net
by Bettman's Nightmare on Dec 7, 2010 5:17 PM EST up reply actions
I’d honestly prefer if they just changed the award to Most Valuable Forward.
by Corey Pronman on Dec 7, 2010 6:00 PM EST up reply actions
I think instead of Hart it should be Hitman Hart and be awarded to the player who was most screwed in Montreal.
by Rob Vollman on Dec 7, 2010 6:04 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
No, not “most valuable”. The same problem exists.
Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.
Why? As long as intelligent people are voting it should accomplish the ultimate goal.
by Corey Pronman on Dec 7, 2010 11:19 PM EST up reply actions
As long as intelligent people
My blog and Twitter, featuring coverage of the most unpredictable team in the NHL and where we defend Mike Green, Alex Ovechkin, and Alexander Semin until the bitter end. That is to say, when someone tries to call BS on the Corsi numbers.
If you don't know how to use Timeonice, read this.
"Numbers don't lie, they just don't agree with you"--George E. Ays
by red army line on Dec 7, 2010 11:22 PM EST up reply actions
Here's a curveball:
Where would you put Tretiak in the all-time Goalies mix?
He lines up behind Gretzky on the IIHF’s all-time allstar team. He certainly played on a dominant team against mostly weaker opposition, but he was the top goaltender not playing in the NHL for nearly 15 years, and of the era, probably Parent and Esposito are the only two who spring to mind as rivals for top of that era.
Thoughts?
SCHIENDER FOR VEZNA!
Fun trivia also:
He was also Belfour and Hasek’s (you know, 2 of the five best goalies of the 90’s) goalie coach on the Hawks.
SCHIENDER FOR VEZNA!
Let me chew on that a bit. It’s very likely that Dryden is the appropriate parallel, though.
Does he call it Luongo underwear?
Co-Manager at Behind the Net
by Bettman's Nightmare on Dec 7, 2010 11:14 PM EST up reply actions
The Contrarian Goaltender did a piece about the team effect of the 70’s Canadiens, which brings his .921 a little down to earth.
I don’t doubt Dryden was great, I’m a little more on the Parent, Esposito side of the fence in the “best of the era” conversation due to who they were playing with, but I can see the “elite goaltender on an elite squad” argument, for sure.
Speaking of Dryden, his career .921 puts him right in Hasek’s rink, in a MUCH poorer goaltending era. So there’s some more fuel to an all time Vezina fire. I’m also quite surprised the Plante and Sawchuk didn’t enter the equation, Plante especially:
Despite playing with a dynasty team, the guy, at age 40, posted 3 shutouts in 10 games with St. Louis in the playoffs, with a GAA of 1.43. They were destroyed by montreal afterwards and Hall got half the final series, but that kind of a run has to be considered against Hasek’s glory runs with Buffalo and Detroit.
In fact, after a brief look at the 69 playoffs at the hockey summary project, Plante posts 264 saves in 279 shots, or a .946 sv %. At age 40.
Now, perhaps sv % were higher post expansion than they were during the height of deadpuck, but I’m skeptical. Plante probably deserves some love in the all time goalies discussion. Possibly more than Hasek, if only for longevity’s sake.
SCHIENDER FOR VEZNA!
Probably stating the obvious, but you’re always going to see a weighting toward more recent players – because the memories are fresher, the “game” looks more “comparable”, and, if you’re a “stats” person, you’ve got more to play with. Helps when making “intra-era” comparisons (Lemieux v. Gretzky?) and “inter-era” ones (Hasek to Dryden?).
Glen Sather is a Hockey Genius.
http://twitter.com/ThGeneralissimo
http://twitter.com/poplosertwit
Completely true.
This whole exercise is really just fun bullshitting, but with some of the data becoming available about sv % in the earlier eras, one can now start comparing the Drydens and the Plantes to the Haseks and Roys the same way we could compare the Crosbys and Gretzkys to the Richards and Howes.
It’s also fun to look at era and reputation. Gretzky is the all time forward, because his boxcars are through the roof. He also played 75% 20 years in the highest scoring era the NHL has ever seen, while guys like Jagr, Lindros and Howe all played during defense first eras that saw goalies like Hasek, Roy, Plante and Sawchuk cement themselves as “All-time goalies”. Bobby Orr is another supreme talent that also was in the right place at the right time. It’s why the Lidstrom discussion, when his career ends, is going to be so interesting, for me at least.
The challenge, and the fun, is to look at who were the tops of the era, and how much better they were than the rest, and how long they were the best. Dryden beats his league’s average by .028. Hasek probably only beats his by .015 or so. But Dryden played less time on a better team than some of Haseks, though Hasek never really played for a bad team. All fun fodder, really.
SCHIENDER FOR VEZNA!
I believe there’s no intelligent way to compare them. While it’s certain Tretiak was phenomenal, they just never played against the same competition long enough to compare.
But for what it’s worth, I’ve done GVT for international tournaments, and Tretiak’s normalized GVT over the 72 & 74 summit series and the 76 and 81 Canada Cups is 18.0 over 26 games, or about 0.7 GVT per game. Hasek’s is 0.52 (0.66 over his peak years of 94-02).
True, as I said above, this whole thing is really just fun BSing, so I figured I’d toss out the greatest never to play in the NHL.
Interesting stats on Tretiak, though. Thanks Tom.
SCHIENDER FOR VEZNA!
I’m messing around with some CSKA stats, to see if I can drum up an information on Tretiak’s performance. There’s a funny gap in the data that I’m trying to sort out. At best, I can get us a range on his save percentage, but it’s still pretty big (~90.6 to ~91.7).
Does he call it Luongo underwear?
Co-Manager at Behind the Net
by Bettman's Nightmare on Dec 8, 2010 10:55 PM EST up reply actions
But for what it’s worth, I’ve done GVT for international tournaments, and Tretiak’s normalized GVT over the 72 & 74 summit series and the 76 and 81 Canada Cups is 18.0 over 26 games, or about 0.7 GVT per game. Hasek’s is 0.52 (0.66 over his peak years of 94-02).
How did Kharlamov do in that? He’s always identified as the best skater that never made the NHL and his injury / Clarke’s attack is always pointed to as a turning point in the 72 series.
but let me pull a Palin and tell you about something else that we’ve talked about in our blog: have a team legend present the Stanley Cup. Why is Gary Bettman involved? He gets booed every time. It’s embarrassing. Wouldn’t it have been better to have Bobby Hull or Tony Esposito present the Cup to the Hawks?
Amen. This is even better than my pet idea – get the captain of the previous team to “hand over” the cup to the new winner. In any case it amazes me that the NHL hasn’t tried to come up with an interesting way to “deliver” the Cup, and to get Bettman out of the process. The NHL should be doing everything it can to put Bettman behind the scenes, and focusing on the players.
[Also pet peeve – give the players 15 minutes on the ice, alone, with the cup, before the family and suits come out and clog it up].
Glen Sather is a Hockey Genius.
http://twitter.com/ThGeneralissimo
http://twitter.com/poplosertwit
I brought him up in another thread a week or so ago, obviously never saw him play, and stats of his time are limited, but Eddie Shore gets discounted in the Norris Trophy discussion too quickly I think.
He was the first person ever to win 4 Hart trophies, the only defenceman to win that many, and only trails Gretzky and Howe in total Hart trophies.
He retired with the most points ever for a defencemen and 21st overall.
He was named to 8 NHL all-star teams, which only started being awarded when he was 28. This was a record total for defencemen that lasted until the end of the 59-60 season (Harvey).
He didn’t win the Norris, but they didn’t have it then – since he won the Hart, it’s probably fair to assume he would have also won the Norris in at least 4 out of 6 seasons – Harvey, Orr, Bourque, and Lidstrom are the only ones that have also done that.
On the darker side, he’s also the reason that the NHL started having all-star games and retired with the 2nd most career PIMs. However, in the era of Smythe’s saying of “if you can’t beat ’em in the rink, beat ’em in the alley” that type of play may have actually accounted for some value as intimidation may have played more of a factor in the game.
I’m not making the case that Shore was better than Orr, but Shore probably belongs in that next discussion of, “Well, if we had to choose someone that could maybe challenge Orr, who would it be?” – sort of like how Lidstrom seems to be getting brought up.
I do think he should be in the top 10, but he gets bitten by the same bug as guys like Morenz, Denneny, Lalonde: far different era, and shorter career. His numbers, directly translated, are in the ballpark of a Pronger-type, but they don’t hold quite as long as Pronger’s have. The Harts are interesting; perhaps they were better judge’s of defense back then? Tiny Thompson certainly had phenomenal numbers…
Does he call it Luongo underwear?
Co-Manager at Behind the Net
by Bettman's Nightmare on Dec 8, 2010 11:22 PM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Arctic Ice Hockey
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
