Your Wildly Outrageous (History of) Hockey Opinions...

[Yozhik v tumane]

That said, their defense wasn't great. They had Staal and Girardi... meh.

It wasn't great but it was one of the better groups in the league back then. McDonagh, Staal, Girardi, Del Zotto, Stralman is pretty damn good

Yeah, at the time it was considered very deep. Strålman I believe sort of emerged out of obscurity and received high praise (and a fat contract iirc) based on that finals run. McDonagh I remember as the clear MVP among their skaters.

 

[norrisnick]

He doesn't have 1 peak season that jumps off the page, but can you name a goalie from his generation who was more consistently excellent?

And in all honesty that's far more valuable from a goaltender than one that can be more spectacular at times but also suffering from dips in performance.

 

[JackSlater]

I kind of go the other way - I think a lot of "eye test" stuff is hooey. We're obviously speaking about this a bit in the Lidros/St. Louis thread, but especially for these offensive players, they should be judged on their production instead of how good they looked doing it. Context is fine, but certain playstyles are more visually distinctive without resulting in better production and I think that's an error in how we watch rather than something that sets them apart.

Eh, I don't think it's just about flashy playstyles most times (I fully concede that Gilbert Perreault exists though). It helps to know how a team played, how a player was used, and what people generally thought at the time. Points don't just happen in a vacuum. It's a very arrogant HOH view, held by some that not all, that people who never saw the players but have access to stats and award results know as much or more more about a player than people who watched and experienced a player and had access to the same stats and awards.

I'll give an example based on some of my watching in the last few months, where I've been trying t watch the 1960 Leafs. Is Keon as good as Toronto fandom implies? Of course not, but he's a hell of a lot better than his stats and awards indicate. I can also imagine people soon suggesting that Chara was thought of as better than Pronger (better awards results generally) or that Matthews was regarded as a legit rival to McDavid based on some award results. I don't want to go down the rabbit hole but I again think that Esposito is a poster child for this.

 

[MS]

The early 80s was complete trash. Gretzky's point totals are the biggest proof of this. Unless you think him scoring less points as he entered his prime means the early 80s was somehow less pathetic?

The early 80s sucked, too, but they were substantially better than the mid/late 1970s.

More talent, more fewer jobs. This is pretty indisputable.

And as someone who watches a lot of full classic games, the eye test on regular season games from the 1970s is absolutely horrific. It's bad in 1982, but it's much much worse in 1976.

 

[JackSlater]

The contemporary opinion is still available and super super valuable.

I can go and read about the defensive prowess of George Hay in 1922 in a 500 word description and play-by-play of the game. I know the condition of the ice, who backchecked, good saves, good passes, who did what, what the crowd cheered for, who screwed up. Better yet, if you get two reporters' description of a game you can compare and contrast.

To me, that is worth tons. It's the best we have. And it is so much more than just scoring finishes.

For guys 1955 onwards, we have enough tape. I can see Bobby Hull and Bobby Orr fly over dozens of games.

But for Russell Bowie and Eddie Shore, the newspaper is all we have.

I question how much anyone can really gleam from it, especially the further back we go. If we just went by media reports Toews for example would be much higher. There is also value in considering Toews' media reputation vs his tangible results.

I also know that it's going to get people's backs up because they feel very confident in their opinions they have researched for hours on end. I certainly agree that for some players it's the best we have and it has value. Something is better than nothing. I didn't say otherwise so I don't even quite get the point of the last three paragraphs. I just do not think it's quite the something that many believe it is.

As for Orr and Hull and similar payers of the tape era, it would be great if everyone who wanted to discuss them actually tried to watch the players. It would give a much fuller picture in my opinion. And yes, I'm aware that some do watch when possible.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Eh, I don't think it's just about flashy playstyles most times (I fully concede that Gilbert Perreault exists though). It helps to know how a team played, how a player was used, and what people generally thought at the time. Points don't just happen in a vacuum. It's a very arrogant HOH view, held by some that not all, that people who never saw the players but have access to stats and award results know as much or more more about a player than people who watched and experienced a player and had access to the same stats and awards.

I'll give an example based on some of my watching in the last few months, where I've been trying t watch the 1960 Leafs. Is Keon as good as Toronto fandom implies? Of course not, but he's a hell of a lot better than his stats and awards indicate. I can also imagine people soon suggesting that Chara was thought of as better than Pronger (better awards results generally) or that Matthews was regarded as a legit rival to McDavid based on some award results. I don't want to go down the rabbit hole but I again think that Esposito is a poster child for this.

How do you control for biases? That's the biggest issue with the "just watch them play" crowd.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

How do you control for biases? That's the biggest issue with the "just watch them play" crowd.

Exactly. Eyes lie, numbers dont

 

[JackSlater]

How do you control for biases? That's the biggest issue with the "just watch them play" crowd.

Do people have a lot of biases about players they never even watched? I don't know, maybe. The more information you have though, whether a ton of opinions or as much video watched as possible, the less bias should creep in. Just consider the whole picture as much as possible. I also doubt that anyone is saying "just watch them play" but rather "at least watch them play when you can". That's a position I have anyway. From the 1960s on we can see games of pretty much any great player we want, and that's great.

I concede that player comparison is never going to be perfect. It's all subjective.

Exactly. Eyes lie, numbers dont

Everyone has had numbers for over a century. Eyes and numbers are superior to numbers. That should be obvious.

 

[DitchMarner]

When it comes to the eye test, can certain people's observations, judgements and conclusions really be considered that credible?

I mean, there are certainly experts, but I'm sure there are also many who notice a few flashy plays and big hits and miss or misunderstand a lot of what's going on as well. They'd be the equivalents of the people who just look at hockey cards and say, "I know Gretzky is the best ever; look at how many times he had over 200 points*."


*This isn't to suggest calling Gretzky the best ever is silly, merely that reaching that conclusion in such a way is rather shallow.

 

[jigglysquishy]

When it comes to the eye test, can certain people's observations, judgements and conclusions really be considered that credible?

I mean, there are certainly experts, but I'm sure there are also many who notice a few flashy plays and big hits and miss or misunderstand a lot of what's going on as well. They'd be the equivalents of the people who just look at hockey cards and say, "I know Gretzky is the best ever; look at how many times he had over 200 points*."


*This isn't to suggest calling Gretzky the best ever is silly, merely that reaching that conclusion in such a way is rather shallow.

If you are just relying on one person's account of one game, no it's not that credible.

When you get to multiple reporters covering dozens of games, then it starts to really build credibility. If ten reporters and five players over a fifteen year period note that Frank Nighbor was peerless defensively, I mean, doesn't that actually mean something?

 

[DitchMarner]

If you are just relying on one person's account of one game, no it's not that credible.

When you get to multiple reporters covering dozens of games, then it starts to really build credibility. If ten reporters and five players over a fifteen year period note that Frank Nighbor was peerless defensively, I mean, doesn't that actually mean something?

Oh, definitely.

I just mean that as much as people on a forum can look at stats and claim to be experts, people can claim, "ummm... I watched (Clarke or Neely or Forsberg or whoever) in my last year of middle school and he was a beast and way better than (some player with better stats/awards results)."

 

[jigglysquishy]

Oh, definitely.

I just mean that as much as people on a forum can look at stats and claim to be experts, people can claim, "ummm... I watched (Clarke or Neely or Forsberg or whoever) in my last year of middle school and he was a beast and way better than (some player with better stats/awards results).

That's why I think you have to stress contemporary. A newspaper report from the day after a game was played is worth a lot. A memory of 30 years ago is not.

 

[DitchMarner]

That's why I think you have to stress contemporary. A newspaper report from the day after a game was played is worth a lot. A memory of 30 years ago is not.

I agree.

I'm with JackSlater's assertion that the more information one takes in, the better. Get as many credible opinions as possible if you can't watch something. If you can watch something, do so and see if you can reconcile your existing opinions based on data/reputation etc with your observations. If not, maybe it's time to develop a new stance.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Scouting/talent evaluation is a skill. It's a skill that exists on spectrum like everything else. So..."just watch" isn't necessarily going to do it, of course. In the same way that no one should tell someone to just "go play" in the NHL to get the experience...

It's tough to understand the "numbers don't lie" people because we've been shown thousands of examples where they do not accurately represent the player or team or scenario. And the numbers that they choose to weight or adjust or whatever is also bias...so it's not like that's a principled path of any note. Go draft the highest scoring QMJHL and Minnesota High School player every year and let me know haha

The concept of bias in the "eye test" process can happen, but I personally don't get why...now, of course, I'm coming at this from an Entry Draft perspective first...but, if I was biased (for who and why, I don't know) and I fluff up the wrong players and they don't play...then I'm wrong. My track record is bad. And then no one would want me to do it anymore...I'd be quite sad...

I don't know what I'd have to gain by going back and watching Moose Vasko and coming back to this little corner of the internet and going, "P U! That guy stinks!" when I actually think he's a top pair defenseman...so I don't get the angle there. I don't know if it's slipping away as we have member attrition and turnover here, but I view this forum as half library/half locker room...I'm acutely interested in learning more about the game and its evolution and its players and where it's been, and where it's at, and where it might go...and that's my motive.

Now, if the whole bias thing is for "flashy" players or whatever, I'm not sure about that, I'd have to hear more about the intent...I mean, I get how folks can get duped by those type of players...but this is why I talk about the "process" in which players achieve what they do. If the process is scalable, they'll succeed in other places and other situations. But I'll admit, I'm not sure what folks are exactly thinking here...so I won't go too far into it without the intent.

But this is also why I put together shift by shift videos of players from the past...I don't want to watch these games alone haha -- so when I can (rare as it is), I try to make it approachable... @Theokritos does those "Let's Watch" threads...those are really cool...

 

[WarriorofTime]

In Draft context, it's often more confirmation bias, you decide "Guy A > Guy B" so now you are looking for good things from Guy A and bad things from Guy B even if you don't mean to. Of course this is the least relevant form of bias, because presumably you want to draft the right player.

In the contemporary context, hard to remove emotion from it, a Pens fans that hates the Flyers may see Pens player good, Flyer player bad. Of course that's not only bias. Sometimes people are even biased against players on their own team.

In the historical context, there's also the bias of what we think we're supposed to think. If you know from your lessons that Sakic good, Turgeon bad, you'll watch an old game and see Sakic as good and Turgeon as bad to validate what you already know you're supposed to think.

 

[Gorskyontario]

And as someone who watches a lot of full classic games, the eye test on regular season games from the 1970s is absolutely horrific. It's bad in 1982, but it's much much worse in 1976.

Maybe between the dregs of the league.

 

[Michael Farkas]

In Draft context, it's often more confirmation bias, you decide "Guy A > Guy B" so now you are looking for good things from Guy A and bad things from Guy B even if you don't mean to. Of course this is the least relevant form of bias, because presumably you want to draft the right player.

In the contemporary context, hard to remove emotion from it, a Pens fans that hates the Flyers may see Pens player good, Flyer player bad. Of course that's not only bias. Sometimes people are even biased against players on their own team.

In the historical context, there's also the bias of what we think we're supposed to think. If you know from your lessons that Sakic good, Turgeon bad, you'll watch an old game and see Sakic as good and Turgeon as bad to validate what you already know you're supposed to think.

First paragraph - I can't relate to that. Maybe when I was a teenager and in my early 20's and I looked at public lists first and then watched video...sure. But now that I don't consume that and my evaluation process continues to improve, my track record is much better. And like, I don't want to carry the mail for every NHL scout - quite frankly, a lot of them aren't very good, their process is bad. But I don't think this one is very legitimate...you'd have to aspire to be wrong and put your job on the line for that wrongness. This seems like something people might do on the Prospects board here haha - I'll buy that in a second. That's one of the stranger places on earth...

Second paragraph - Ok, I'll buy this one. Like you said though, it can swing both ways. Players get over-scouted. I'll use my own fanbase as an example...a lot of Penguins fans have really wacky opinions on Kristopher Letang, and while he isn't perfect, he's an outstanding two-way defenseman in this league...but he gets a lot of discredit from people who (presumably) see him 82x more than, say, Alex Pietrangelo. But all right...this is fair enough. It's easily dealt with if one recuses one's self from the couple of teams that they may hold "bias" towards...

Because I used to write for Hockey's Future back in the day, my name is all over this place. So, I don't want my name associated with a bunch of wrong and a bunch of stuff that I can't meticulously back. That's bad business. And I've been told as much by hockey execs...when I started doing YouTube videos and doing breakdowns of prospects way back when, the first player I did was Flyers first round pick Samuel Morin. Why? I'd know right away if I had an unconscious problem. And if I did, I wouldn't continue because the results would be tainted.

Third paragraph - This one isn't bad either. I did a couple of "blind" evaluations here with European players...numbers that I didn't recognize, announcers that I couldn't understand, no nameplates...and just went

CZE 17 - Blah blah blah
SOV 5 - A, a, a, a
SOV 11 - B, b, b, b

That turned out pretty good in a very short order, informal way. But again, and just speaking for me here, I don't hold any regard for the canon of any of this...I try to pull down the players that I don't think are very good versus their reputation and I try to prop up the players that I think are underrated by numbers/award counts/etc.

I think I made that quite clear in one of the projects where - with a Jean Beliveau avatar - went after Maurice Richard for some of the flaws in his game, for instance. Same with Ted Lindsay. I have a lot of respect for the history of the game, but I don't have deference for its tale. So, I'm interested in getting it "right" - and my definition of "right" is my definition, but it's not a secret...I don't just post the grades on the wall:

Jean Beliveau: A+
Bobby Hull: A
Maurice Richard: B+
Eddie Shore: B

I'll go into whatever detail you can stomach...and if you (royal you) don't like it, tell me why- maybe I'm missing something.

But at the end of the day, this one is like the first paragraph...I'd only be scared of that, if I was that. Ya know? The goal is to find the best players...I'm not deterred if a kid I'm watching is 19 when everyone else is 17 - I have to make that adjustment for where he's at on his respective development arcs and the level of competition and all that - but I'm not deterred by that. If a player isn't one of Central Scouting's 400 whatever player watchlist...ok, too bad, I guess they missed one. It happens...

In short, I'm not worried about ego lifting at the gym because I'm just worried about my form.

 

[jigglysquishy]

Jean Beliveau: A+
Bobby Hull: A
Maurice Richard: B+
Eddie Shore: B

Ooooooo.

I would love more of this. I think it's more of a logical way to look at players than a numerical ranking.

I loved the old HF way of doing prospects as like 10A, 9C, or whatever.

I think it's important for all of us to check our biases. It's important to question long-held beliefs. It's why I love our process here.

The pre-merger project was great for that. A lot of the players hadn't been discussed in depth here and it required fresh takes, new sources, throwing out your old lists, and starting over again. I learned so much and most of it came from me or others calling out my own BS.

 

[Michael Farkas]

My "shorthand" is: hockey sense, compete, skill, skating, phys/misc., floor, ceiling. On a 3 to 9 scale, like a lot of NHL teams use.

Not for the purposes of generating a "score" but just to provide some "logical way" (as you said) of looking at it. You don't want to have to read - possibly - a couple years of game reports over and over again...

Minus floor and ceiling, probably, it's directly applicable to the historic players too...

 

[Nick Hansen]

I can’t remember ever thinking Lundqvist was a particularly impressive goaltender. Like he was ok, but always very overrated.

I'm a Swede, so I'm grateful for what he did for Tre Kronor, but man, I never liked his style. Always seemed to be too deep into the goal for me and his rebound control always irked me. He obviously got it done either way and his winning mentality was very evident but... not my type of goalie.

 

[The Panther]

I just wanna know more about Dick Paradise.

 

[Plural]

My take is they should get rid of the Draft Lotto and just let teams draft in reverse order of where they finished. Rather than discourage tanking, it just encourages a general melancholy sense of everything being tied to ping pong balls in the right year.

I'm with you on this one.

Or better yet, have a mini-tournament for bottom-4 teams and winner drafts #1 2nd place #2 etc...

 

[Michael Farkas]

"Come see players on expiring contracts vie for their team's right to draft their own replacements!"

 

[WarriorofTime]

I’d just give it to the team that finishes last. No flashy gimmick attached.

 

[sr edler]

Eyes lie, numbers dont

Of course numbers can lie or be misleading, depending on context and how you interpret and/or present them. I'm not even that big into maths, but even I know there are rudimentary math classes on how to not get duped by statistics and how statistics can be used manipulatively or just used in a poor way.

In sports there's also the human element in how numbers are tallied or counted for, such as shots, hits, assists, even goals. You don't even have to score a goal with your stick anymore you can score it with your ass or the back heel of your skate not even knowing it happened. We also have that classic Kasparaitis episode where he complained about people (scorekeepers) in Florida propping up their guy (Svehla) overcounting hits.

I also agree with @JackSlater's assessment up thread that you can't take 1890s–1910s newspaper accounts as church gospel while simultaneously complaining about today's media loving Toews and Niedermayer too much. It just doesn't make any sense. These newspaper accounts are valuable information (I'm someone who's actually read tons of them), but there can be all kinds of human traits hiding behind the text (bias, resentment, irony, et cetera). This is standard historical research procedure.