View Single Post
05-17-2011, 10:44 AM
BillyShoe1721's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 17,250
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to BillyShoe1721
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
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.
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.
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.
I disagree with the bolded part. You can offer the same criticism of Smith that you offer for Duff. Both played on dynasty teams, Duff spanning two different teams and Smith playing on those great Silver Seven Senators teams. I'll use the exact method that you prefer, the goals/game(in Smith's case) to compare them. In all Cup Challenge games, Smith's GPG is 1.63. Removing easy finishes, it's 1 GPG. Where should his true GPG in cup challenge games lie, considering the removing of easy finishes against bad teams, I'd say somewhere in the middle, about 1.3(and I think I'm being generous here). In the regular season(in seasons with the playoffs), he had 52 goals in 33 games for a GPG of 1.57. So, he was .27GPG worse in the playoffs than in the regular season if we use a nice round 1.3 as the middle road.

Now look at Dick Duff. Taking his entire regular season PPG in seasons where his team made the playoffs(.58PPG) and comparing it to the playoffs(.69PPG), I'd call that significantly better. By your own metric, that indicates that Duff is not only good in the playoffs, but that Smith is bad in the playoffs, making the gap between them fairly big.

I also find it interesting that you said Smith is significantly better than Duff, which I disagree with. Smith is definitely a better player, but I would not call it a significant gap. As I illustrated, Duff is better in the playoffs. Both provide two-way play, toughness(Smith provides more, admittedly), and corner ability.

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".
Fair enough.

Last edited by BillyShoe1721: 05-17-2011 at 11:00 AM.
BillyShoe1721 is offline   Reply With Quote