View Single Post
Old
08-18-2011, 06:26 PM
  #69
BillyShoe1721
Terriers
 
BillyShoe1721's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 17,234
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to BillyShoe1721
Quote:
Originally Posted by vecens24 View Post
Pronovost is an equal skater to Krushelnyski in my view (check out the Our Canadiens site, he was cited as a strong skater who had strength despite his compact frame). Both were among the better skaters in the NHL in their times. Also, Pronovost is a much better defender than Krush. Krush was known as a solid contributer on a third checking line, whereas Pronovost "Effectively stifling superstars on opposing teams, Pronovost played a key role in the Habsí success," and was a "defensive specialist" for the Canadiens playing with Provost and Goyette. Also, I think Pronovost is a lot more physical as well as he was known for a "heavy hip check he consistently brought to the rink every night."
No doubt, Pronovost is definitely a few pegs higher in terms of defensive play over Krush.

Quote:
As far as offense, I think the comparison is closer than it is made out to be here. Pronovost wasn't a scoring line player in his career (mostly because of who he was playing behind), but he still brought enough to be a threat, as evidenced by his 16 goals in '58, which was 27th in the NHL which isn't bad for a guy who was a defensive specialist. He's also got a few 35-43 ranks in goals as well. He was in my opinion, every bit as good of a goal scorer as a guy like Eric Nesterenko. While he's not as good as Krushelnyski offensively, I think the picture is closer than the one painted here. If you go by adjusted goals per game instead of points, and take out Krush's Gretzky season (don't feel like doing the math), then I think that it will paint a much closer picture in offensive value.
Color me unimpressed by being 27th in a 6 team league, let alone 35-43. Okay, he wasn't playing in a role that gave him a lot of opportunities to score goals because he was playing behind a bunch of better players. But just because of that, we can't add hypothetical offense to his resume just because he didn't get the opportunity. There is no indication that his offense would have been better had he been playing on a worse team and getting better minutes. You can make the same argument that Krushelnyski suffered from the same thing, being buried on the Edmonton depth chart.(I'm not going to support this because I don't agree with its logic.) Why goals? We're looking at the player as a whole offensively, and points certainly gives a better indication of that. A goals comparison punishes Krushelnyski for being a better playmaker than goalscorer. I don't think it's fair to remove Krushelnyski's best season considering he didn't play exclusively with Gretzky the entire year. Discount it sure, but unless we know exactly how much he played with Gretzky, we don't know how much it should be discounted. But for comparisons sake, let's do what you say and remove that entire season.

Adjusted goals/game

Krushelnyski: .20
Pronovost: .16

Okay, they're closer. But Krushelnyski is still clearly better. Here are their adjusted PPG with Pronovost's number of games thing being factored in:

Adjusted PPG

Krushelnyski: .5229
Pronovost: .3486

That's a significant advantage offensively, especially considering the fact that they were both playing in the same role during the majority of their careers, the 3rd line. If Krushelnyski was a 1st liner and Pronovost a 3rd liner this would be different, but considering they were playing in the same role most of the time, yet Krushelnyski was that much better, the difference is significant.

BillyShoe1721 is offline   Reply With Quote