View Single Post
05-17-2011, 01:06 AM
Registered User
Dreakmur's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,519
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by BiLLY_ShOE1721 View Post
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.

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.
It's not about how many times they made the play-offs. It's about the number of times their teams made it to the finals. If you play the most games, you are going to have more points than everyone else.

All 3 of your first liners benefited greatly from being on dynasty teams. You can't just ignore the context in which those top-10s were accumulated.

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.
Bathgate did play for crappy teams for most of his career. He did finally get a chance, later in his career, to play for good teams, and he excelled. Even the best teams Bathgat played for are nothing close to the teams Duff, Kurri, and Beliveau got to play on.

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.
I'm not discounting them because they made the play-offs a lot of times. I'm placing their listed accomplishments into context. They aren't nearly as meaningful as you want them to be.

My first line is significantly better in the playoffs, regardless of opportunity.
If we are just looking at play-off performances:
Smith is better than Duff, though Duff is still good.
Beliveau is bette than Ullman, but Ullman is still a beast.
Kurri is better than Bathgate.

If we're accounting for entire careers, and shifting them into a play-off series:
Smith is significantly better than Duff.
Beliveau is significantly better than Ullman.
Bathgate is narrowly better than Kurri.

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.
The first thing to do is go on a per game basis. That eliminates the advantage that players get simply by playing more games.

I look at a players regular season PPG and compare that to their play-off PPG. I then take into account that most eras are lower scoring than the regular season.
-if they score at the same rate or slightly below, then I view that as them just playing like they always did.
-if they score at a significantly lower pace, then I view that as them perfroming poorly.
-if they score significantly more, then I view that as them performing well.

In a series like this, I look at what the player was in the regular season, then figure out if he's better, worse, or about the same.

Jari Kurri is better in the play-offs than regular season. Andy Bathgate is about the same as regular season. Since I have Bathgate clearly ahead in regular season, Kurri closes the gap a little bit in the play-offs, and the difference becomes "narrow".

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote