View Single Post
Old
05-16-2011, 11:27 PM
  #17
BillyShoe1721
Terriers
 
BillyShoe1721's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,685
vCash: 8400
Send a message via AIM to BillyShoe1721
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
Simply using play-off top 10s is both lazy and misleading. Many factors impact those play-off top 10s, and very few of them are related to the player.





The fact that Alf Smith only played in 4 play-off seasons hurts the number of top-10s he can rack up. I suppose 4 for 4 is decent enough. Just like the regular season, Smith's playmaking skills were not accounted for, so his true offensive production is actually quite a bit better than the goal totals indicate.

Dick Duff took advantage of many other factors that I talked about above. He played for a lot of great teams, where he got to play a lot of play-off games. He went to the finals 9 times, and he was most often a complimentry player on those teams. While Duff is a good play-off player, his top-10s are overly flaterring.

Both Smith and Duff are strong play-off performers, and since Smith is clearly the better regular season, he remains the better player in this match-up.
I stand by the statement that Duff is a better playoff performer. You can't discount what Duff did just because he made in the playoffs a bunch of times and Smith didn't.

Quote:
Again, top 10s flatter Beliveau. He went to the finals a dozen times, often with a high scoring dynasty, so it's not surprising that he was top 10 as many times as he was.

Ullman, on the other hand, only made the finals a handful of times, and he was never a Cup winner.
My point stands that Beliveau is definitely a better playoff performer. As I said with Duff, you can't punish Beliveau for being in the playoffs a bunch of times. It's like punishing longevity, it makes no sense. Beliveau is still easily a better playoff performer.

Quote:
Again, Kurri is flatterred by his mutilple long play-off runs. He is further boosted by playing for the highest scoring dynastly of all time.

Bathgate is in the exact opposite boat.

Kurri is a slightly better play-off performer, but it doesn't close the gap from Bathgate's overall lead. Bathgate is still better in this series.
A slightly better playoff performer? Even if Kurri played with Gretzky and a great team, he led the playoffs in goals four times. Bathgate has just two top 10s in points in a shallower era in terms of talent pool. Okay, Bathgate played on crappy teams. Just because of that doesn't mean you take away what Kurri did because he was on good teams. As I said with the first two, you can't discount them because they played in the playoffs a bunch of times. I'll re-iterate what I said in my first post because I don't think you got what I was saying. I was saying, we don't discount your guys because they didn't go deep into the playoff a bunch of times, and at the same time we don't discount my guys because they played on good teams. It's like cutting off longevity, which makes no sense. My first line is significantly better in the playoffs, regardless of opportunity. If you don't want to use top 10s, how would you prefer to measure playoff performance? Vs2? That would be even more misleading because guys are so close together.

BillyShoe1721 is offline   Reply With Quote