View Single Post
05-25-2011, 12:51 PM
Student Of The Game
seventieslord's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 30,940
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
Cashman played with Esposito and Orr. That's the only reason he put up points.
Orr played half the game and the +/- discrepancies between he and Esposito have already proven in the past that the two were not joined at the hip - you're kidding yourself if you think he didn't spend a lot of time on the ice with Stanfield... and most importantly, he was on the ice with Stanfield for copious amounts of PP time and was on the ice every time Stanfield was part of a Boston PP goal... literally, every time, if he was in the lineup.

Odd that you said exactly the opposite when commenting on one of my earlier series. What's changed?
Do you and I have different definitions of being "thrown off one's game"? It doesn't have to mean agitating to the point of spazzing. It can also just mean being intimidated. There is no contradiction here. Better question is, why do I have to explain the same thing twice to you in two days?

He played twice as long when the average career length was twice as long....
A. he played over twice as long.
B. At no time in history was the average career length actually anywhere near twice as long as another time in history.
C. Careers were shorter at certain times, for some reasons other than, "that's just the way it was." It also hints at a weaker generation.

As Sturm brought up earlier, Egan's penchant for punching referees hurt his award and all-star voting.
There may or may not be truth to that. Regardless, that disgraceful behaviour couldn't have helped his teams, could it? Aside from the penalties and suspensions to Egan, it could have generated further penalty bias against him, or even to his team in general. This is very bad, not good!

There's a very fair argument to be made that Bourque is the 5th best player of all time. He's miles ahead of Clancy.

As Regina has already admitted, Hod Stuart is also better than Hap Day. That gives a substantial edge at the top end.

Our #3s are about equal. Ted Green having a better peak, and Jim Neilson having better longevity.

Our #4s are arguable.
You run into trouble here when you try to say Green was about as good as Neilson - he wasn't - and of course when you say the #4s are arguable. The latter is especially delusional.

The two best PP players in this series are Ray Bourque and Andy Bathgate.
They are both great, no doubt.

But let's talk about Bathgate, this unstoppable ATD PP weapon. Now generally, it is the player's actual PP numbers we use to determine their PP effectiveness, right? Here are his best 10 seasons for PPP in percentage of #2, no outliers removed:

100, 93, 91, 90, 87, 80, 69, 69, 62, 50.

And the same for Selanne, no outliers removed:

123, 89, 89, 84, 83, 82, 79, 77, 69, 68.

Why should anyone consider Bathgate to be a superior PP performer to Selanne, let alone one of the finest in the entire draft?

Outside of Clancy, your PP blueliners are pretty weak.
Doesn't sound like you know very much about Day's offensive capabilities. He once led all defensemen in points, and was 4th four more times. It's arguable that he's the era's 3rd-best offensive defenseman after Clancy and Shore. Pretty sure that the 3rd-best of an era can be a good 2nd pointman on a 1st unit with 40 teams.

Redden was one of the better PP point producers of the last decade from the blueline. He's fine as a #3.

Neilson is only average as a #4, but when he got PP time, he placed in the top-8 in points 4 times post-expansion.

Laprade and Mahovlich are the two best PK forwards, and Bourque and Stuart are the 2 best PK defensemen. I really doubt you've got a PK edge.
Laprade very well may be the best - he had to get in the hall somehow, right?

I'm quite curious why you would consider Mahovlich a better PKer than Messier or Nevin. Mahovlich was a major penalty killer for his team in just five seasons, other times not really at all. He had a great year in 1973 and led a poll one time as a result. Nevin was a major penalty killer in seven post-expansion seasons and most likely 7 more before that. He was universally regarded as an excellent penalty killer throughout his career. That cannot be said for Mahovlich, not even close.

Messier, including pre- and post-prime years, killed 41% of his team's penalties in his career, one of the highest percentages of all time despite being 2nd all-time in GP. In 20 seasons he was considered a major penalty killer for his team. His team's PK efficiency of 9% better than the league average during this time is also very impressive considering the length of time it covers and the personal contribution he made to it. There is simply no numerical reason that Pete Mahovlich should be considered a better PKer. It gets more absurd when you look at their skill sets. Messier is faster, a harder worker, just as good on faceoffs, just as strong, infinitely smarter, and much more fearless. he is far more cut out to be a top level penalty killer, it's not really close.

Defensemen: Yes, Bourque is the man. Why does Stuart get to be called the next-best PKer in the series? You have no idea how he killed penalties. I realize there has to be some guesswork involved with a player that old, but it can only take you so far.

- Leo Reise earned considerable all-star recognition solely for his defensive play.
- Jim Neilson killed 43% of penalties for his teams post-expansion and they were above average overall, despite that being tainted by 4 years for the Seals/Chiefs.
- Joe Watson killed 44% of penalties for his career and they were 15% better than the league average. Very narrowly behind Van Impe and Clarke, he was their 3rd-busiest PKer during their heyday, and they had the league's best PK over this time.
- Day was of course one of the smartest defenders of his time.

Andy Bathgate was a fine play-off performer, as I have shown numerous times. His goals per game average goes up in the play-offs, and when he was finally moved to teams that were good enough to advance in the play-offs, he was an very strong performer.
His goals per game goes up in the playoffs? Actually, you have to really fudge the numbers to get people to believe that. Yes, based on his career it does. But his career spanned 19 seasons and his playoff career spanned 11. During this 11 year period, his playoff GPG was the same (0.38) as his regular season GPG. By taking career numbers, you include the start and end of his career, when he had 65 goals in 318 games (0.20 GPG) - we don't know whether his GPG in the playoffs would have risen from that in those years, now, do we?

Regardless, it is his points per game that really counts, especially considering he was primarily a playmaker. Bathgate's career 0.65 playoff PPG average is 29% below his career regular season average. Even more damning, it is 39% below his regular season average during that 11-year period. As for producing once he was on teams with a chance to advance - in 1964-1966 Bathgate averaged 0.59 playoff PPG with Toronto and Detroit... a 32% drop from his regular season performance over that same three-season period. A fine playoff performer? Come again?

This whole "Bathgate was a fine playoff performer" spiel is nonsense; if he was a fine playoff performer, anyone can claim to be. Please explain what makes you think you can get away with making claims like this.

Edgar Laprade played for a team that only made the play-offs twice, but both times he played in the play-offs he was better than he was in the regular season.
yes, it appears that in that very miniscule sample size he performed offensively better than he did in the regular season. Good for him. Just curious, does this mean it should be extrapolated as though this is a full playoff resume? Should we give him the same credit we give a player with twice, five times, or ten times as much playoff experience, because his points per game average looks decent?

Last edited by seventieslord: 05-25-2011 at 12:57 PM.
seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote