Quote: Originally posted by damag on 4/14/2010First of all, I believe last season was the first one in which WIS re-did the defensive ratings to their own revised formula.  I know because I sent in a ticket when I saw them.  There are a TON of useful defencemen in 08-09.  Dennis Wideman has a freakin' 95, okay?Second, here's how I think it works - this is a theory I've had for a long time:Player + Team defence relative to the rest of the league + PIM + icetime = something like defence rating.Obviously, players on teams with the best defence each season have the best defence ratings.  You will also see that historically the extreme defence ratings show up on teams which far outperformed the worst teams in the league that season.  Like the 44-45 Habs, or the Habs of the 70s.  Extreme defence ratings actually seem to reflect the presence of terrible teams, in a way.  That also looks like why, in the 50s, no players have extreme ratings.  The best teams in the 50s gave up 2 goals a game, and the worst gave up 3.So you take Alex Smith's 93.  In 25-26 the Senators gave up 42 goals in 36 games.  The worst teams, the Habs and the St. Pats, gave up 108 and 114.  Almost 3 times as many goals.  Alex Smith was one of only 4 defencemen on the Senators, and the only one who did no scoring.The 25-26 Sens' D ratings - 95, 95, 95, 95, 95, 93, 91, 90, 89, 85.  The last three players, Georges Boucher, Hooley Smith and King Clancy, appear to be docked points only for PIM. 

I like it. I was thinking of updating the entire DB, not just changing the formula for the most recent season.

When I asked about it last season, mwelch said they were going to see how 08-09 played out, maybe look at the new formula and play with it later.

Speaking of which, 09-10 players come out any day now!

Thanks for the feedback on my theory guys. I'd gladly be proven wrong, but that's just the way things look to me. It was actually the lesser ratings of the 50s players that made me start digging into why.

Remember, the ultimate goal of all of it is to make players playable against each other throughout different eras.

Ya, if only there was an easy way to make the real defensive players stand-out on their own team.
Was the goalie good but not great and the team defense made the difference? It would be like a case-by-case basis for each individual player...

I think they did well with 08-09.

Quote: Originally Posted By sikboy21 on 4/14/2010Ya, if only there was an easy way to make the real defensive players stand-out on their own team.
Was the goalie good but not great and the team defense made the difference? It would be like a case-by-case basis for each individual player...

I think they did well with 08-09

For example: Chris Osgoods entire career

I look forward to the new blood

I love, Love, LOVE, LOVE the idea of adding WHA stats.

1) Philosophically, it helps to answer the question "What If". On this level, there is no space to entertain the idea of NOT adding the WHA.

2) Game-play wise, I personally like the idea of owners who have pet templates that consistenly win having their worlds turned upside down.

3) This is a wonderful opportunity to fix the defensive rating. Two main things need to be done here,

First: take PIM out of Def rating.

Have PIM influence how often a player takes penalties.

Have Def rating reflect how good of a defender a player was.

"And never the twain shall meet"!!! (Look at Bobby Clarke as a player who was an awesome defender yet took lots of penalties (at least in some seasons).)

The Selke Trophy winner should earn the highest Def rating a forward gets in a given season. In Montreal, in the 70's, I don't think you would find any hockey analysts who would claim that Steve Shutt and/or Guy Lafleur were better defensively than Bob Gainey. They shouldn't have higher Def ratings.

Second: stop having Def reflect how good of a season a team had**.

Seriously. What is up with the 1974-75 Kings? Is someone trying to tell me that Sheldon Kanegeisser, Larry Brown, Terry Harper, and Bob Murdoch EACH had better seasons defensively than ANY season Rod Langway ever had, including Langway's 2 Norris Trophy seasons? That is just crazy.

Or that Doug Harvey's 68-69 season was worth a 96, when so many of his Norris seasons earn ratings in the low 60's?

Or that Borje Salming's 76-77 season, in which he was the runner-up for the Norris Trophy, was a First Team All-Star, had a +45 plus/minus, and finished fourth in Hart Trophy voting (with 40 points, behind Lafleur, Clarke, and Vachon) is worth only a 69 Def? This season should be worth a 90, imho.

**Some teams, like the 76-77 Montreal Canadiens, would be expected to dominate Defensive ratings for a certain season. I just suggest that the 74-75 Kings and the 68-69 Blues are not 2 such teams.

-------------------

Please add the WHA stats! Of course, the Def for most of these players should be (quite a bit) lower than their NHL counterparts (but not all the players would be less than 10 I don't think). But there would be some players who were defensively responsible, like Gordie Howe.

Look at Blaine Stoughton and Mike Rogers...they didn't explode offensively until they escaped the WHA and made it to the NHL...so it is not like the WHA was entirely lacking defensively...but overall I agree its Def should be lower

Sorry to ramble, it's late...

Have the WHA players been added? I don't see them yet.

Quote: Originally Posted By the_jsa on 4/16/2010
**Some teams, like the 76-77 Montreal Canadiens, would be expected to dominate Defensive ratings for a certain season. I just suggest that the 74-75 Kings and the 68-69 Blues are not 2 such teams.

These are perfect examples of why my theory works, as far as I can see.

The 68-69 Blues gave up 157 goals in 76 games. That was 39 goals less than the next best team - half a goal per game better. Why? They played the majority of their games against the Western Conference - the other expansion teams - and the Blues built around old experienced players who could play defence, unlike the other expansion teams.

The 74-75 Kings were second in the league in goals against. They gave up only four goals less than the Philadelphia Flyers, who "everybody knows" was an "awesome" defensive team. No one questions the Flyers D ratings. the Kings were also league average defensively in 73-74 and 75-76, just for some reason they were really good in 74-75. Also, note that in 74-75 the Washington Capitals and Kansas City Scouts entered the league, adding the presence of two terrible teams and thereby making everyone else in the league's ratings look better by comparison.

Not saying this is how it should work, but this is how it does work. These teams established statistical dominance.

Quote: Originally Posted By damag on 4/17/2010

These are perfect examples of why my theory works, as far as I can see.

The 68-69 Blues gave up 157 goals in 76 games. That was 39 goals less than the next best team - half a goal per game better..... Not saying this is how it should work, but this is how it does work. These teams established statistical dominance.

I have snipped your post, but it is all there right above for reference.

I agree with what you say, to a point. Certainly, the GA data for the two teams I called out supports their strong defensive nature. But I don't think the def rating is as accurate as it could be.

Problem #1. As I already cited, was 68-69 Doug Harvey's best ever defensive effort? The WIS data base would say it is, and by a very large margin.

I don't think this is accurate.

Problem #2. I think these team Def ratings (for all teams, not just the 74-75 Kings and 68-69 Blues) are too homogeneous.

G A P +/-

1	Bob Nevin	RW	6-0	185	36	80	31	41	72	36
2	Mike Murphy	RW	6-0	190	24	78	30	38	68	32
3	Dan Maloney	LW	6-2	195	24	80	27	39	66	29
4	Butch Goring	C	5-9	170	25	60	27	33	60	26
5	Juha Widing	C	6-0	180	27	80	26	34	60	18
6	Frank St. Marseille	RW	5-11	180	35	80	17	36	53	12
7	Bob Berry	LW	6-0	185	31	80	25	23	48	21
8	Tom Williams	LW	5-11	187	23	74	24	22	46	14
9	Bob Murdoch	D	6-0	200	28	80	13	29	42	39
10	Gene Carr	C	5-11	185	23	80	7	32	39	19
11	Mike Corrigan	LW	5-10	175	29	80	13	21	34	9
12	Don Kozak	RW	5-11	190	22	77	16	15	31	5
13	Terry Harper	D	6-1	200	35	80	5	21	26	38
14	Sheldon Kannegiesser	D	6-0	198	27	74	2	23	25	41
15	Neil Komadoski	D	6-2	200	23	75	4	12	16	10
16	Larry Brown	D	6-2	210	27	78	1	15	16	31
17	Dave Hutchison	D	6-3	205	22	68	0	6	6	5
18	Vic Venasky	C	5-11	185	23	17	1	2	3	3
19	Rogie Vachon	G	5-7	170	29	54	0	1	1	0
20	Gary Edwards	G	5-9	165	27	27	0	0	0	0
21	Phil Hoene	LW	5-9	175	25	2	0	0	0	0
22	Jimmy Peters	C	6-2	185	30	3	0	0	0	0
	Team Total					80	269	443	712	388

The plus minus data for this team is very good. I am mostly looking at defensemen, as they are the players for whom def is their WIS bread-and-butter.

Player +/- WIS DEF

Kanneg. +41 95

Harper +38 88

Brown +31 92

Murdoch +39 88

Komadoski +10 84

Hutchison +5 68

My feeling for the 74-75 Kings is that yes, they played well defensively, but that it was a "lunch-box" kind of success. No stars, but few weak links. I think that the def ratings should be lower overall, but still good. I would probably lower all of the defencement by 10 def points.

Komadoski is a problem, though. He is 20 to 30 "pluses" worse than most of his teammates. On a team stacked with defensively responsible forwards, he was only a +10. Given the overall strength of his team, he looks to me like a weak link. I'd give him a 65 rating. Hutchison a 60.

Compare this to the 1976-77 Toronto Maple Leafs

NAME POINTS +/-

McDonald..........90............ +12

Sittler...............90............. +8

D Turnbull........79.............. +47 ------ WIS DEF: 65

D Salming........78............... +45 ------ WIS DEF: 69 (1st Team All-Star)

Valiquette..........45.............+5

D McKenny........45............ -26

Williams..............43.......... +11

Ashby................42.......... -14

Hammarstrom....41........... +8

Thompson..........37.......... -10

Boutette.............36.......... +13

Neely.................33........... -17

Weir..................30............ +2

Garland..............29.............-18

Ferguson...........24........... 0

D Alexander.......13........... -4

D Glennie...........11........... -1

Boudreau............ 7 ........... +2

D Walker ..........5 ............. +5

D Carlyle...........5 ..............-19

(and other assorted scrubs)

This Leafs team scored 302 goals, allowed 285 goals, (the league average was 266 for GF and GA)

I would assert that Salming's +45 and Turnbulls +47 are far more impressive than the +41, +39, +38, and +31 put up by the big four D-Men from the 74-75 Kings.

To me, to be a +45 or a +47 on a team that is below average defensively, and scored only 17 more goals than it allowed, indicates the strong possibility of those 2 players having had an excellent defensive season. Yet it is Kannegeiser that gets a 95 D, while Salming gets a 69 D, and Turnbull a 65 D.



I'd like to see the end to great individual seasons being shafted in the Def Rating dept. just beacause those great seasons happened for average (or below average) teams.

I'd like to see the end of mediocre seasons getting big Def Rating boosts just because those mediocre seasons happened while the team had very good success.

And, I'd really like to see high PIM totals pushing Def Ratings down. Let players with high PIM take more penalties, and put their team on the PK.

I would like to have the DB revised for Def. Use statistical data, as well as All-Star, Norris voting, etc.

Those great +/- ratings could also mean that those guys were always out there with the 1st line on offense, and never out against the other teams 1st liners. +/- is a horrible stat to use to judge defense. I honestly had someone argue with me once that at one point in a season Hal Gill was a +12 and Nik Lidstrom was a +10, therefore Hal Gill was a better d-man. Look at Ray Bourque. In 1999-2000, he was -11 in 65 games with Boston and +9 in 14 games with Colorado. Did he suddenly remember how to play defense after the trade? +/- is a decent stat to use when it's put in the proper context, but you need more info. Just saying "Player X was a +42 and Player Y was a +17" doesn't mean anything. If Player Y was getting 30 minutes a game and Player X was getting 10 minutes a game, it makes a difference.

And using All-stars and Norris Voting to determine defense ratings? That is even worse! You want to use fan voting (all-stars) or media voting (Norris) to determine how good someone is on defense? Mike Green was a Norris finalist last year based strictly on his offensive stats. He was a liability in his own end.

I really have to point out that I am not arguing with the_jsa here, I have nothing against his viewpoint, but I disagree with it completely.

I consider +/- almost completely meaningless. It's dependent on icetime, and a coach's usage of players. Living in Ottawa, I've seen two recent magnificent examples when Andrei Meszaros and Tom Preissing both had great +/- seasons when the coach simply didn't put them on the ice except in the most favorable circumstances. And I could also care less about anything that's voted on by anyone.

This is the Joe Malone argument all over again. Joe Malone scored two goals per game. You can argue all you want about how much he played and who he played with and against, but he scored two goals per game. Those are stats.

The database is already littered with too much opinion IMO. Manufactured shot totals, imaginary save percentages. I'd rather not see more opinion added.

So to go back to the original argument, about the WHA players, I guess I am saying that if you were to admit them, let their stats stand with no "cleaning up." Funny.

I agree with you damag - but the second argument in this thread was how do we assign a Defensive Rating for those players.....I've been trying to figure out a formula based on stats - but can't come close....you seem to be on the right track with figuring out how it has traditionally been assigned.

so when can we expect the WHA players Mike?