View Single Post
04-14-2012, 11:27 AM
BillyShoe1721's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 17,249
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to BillyShoe1721
I had the entire first PP units done and then erased everything. I really don't want to run all those numbers again so I'll paraphrase and run the numbers if there are objections to what I'm saying.


Kariya-Nieuwendyk-Howe-Salming-Larson vs. Olmstead-Malone-Fleury-Conacher-Housley

Kariya>Olmstead, Malone>Nieuwendyk, Howe>Fleury. The Philadelphia forwards have more offensive firepower than their Winnipeg counterparts.

The defensemen are definitely closer. I had a Vs2 comparison between Salming and Conacher, and it ended up Conacher had like 721 total and Salming around 675 I think. In a study like that that is biased towards Conacher's era because of competition and league size, the fact that Salming was close to him shows that Salming as the better offensive player. I also adjusted Conacher's adjusted PPG for games played, and he came out to .547 over 900 games, and Salming was at .577 over 1,148 games. Advantage Salming.

Housley is a better offensive player than Larson. But, one thing to consider is that Larson outscored Housley at ES at their respective peaks. But, Larson's PP offense was significantly worse. I think this was because Larson was able to use his rushing ability to catch teams off guard at ES. But on the PP, he was far and away Detroit's best(and really only) weapon. PK units then keyed on him to take away his booming shot from the point, and Detroit didn't have the skill to pick apart the PK at other spots. Larson has the best point shot of any of these pointmen.

Overall, Philadelphia has an advantage on the first PP units because of superior firepower at forward.

Moore-Primeau-Dye vs. Bailey-Kennedy-Tocchet-Shore-Bondra


Moore-63, 68, 105, 105, 80, 77, 53, 62 (Total 613)
Bailey-78, 110, 69, 88 (Total 345)

Advantage to Moore.

Primeau-85, 100, 73, 100, 64 (Total 422)
Kennedy-64, 74, 85, 77, 59, 64, 92, 75, 52, 57, 70 (Total 769)

Primeau peaked higher with the first, second, and tied for 4th best seasons, but Kennedy's longevity gets the advantage here. One thing to remember is that Kennedy did all of this during and right after WWII, which makes the numbers look less impressive than they actually are.

I'm not going to waste my time doing a Vs2 between Dye and Tocchet because they played in such vastly different areas. Dye is significantly better offensively.

Goodfellow and Shore isn't a contest, Shore is the better defenseman offensively. Ebbie is a solid 2nd pairing PPQB, but Shore is better. Stanfield and Bondra will require closer examination because they are both forwards playing point on the power play. I know for sure Stanfield had a great deal of success doing this, but I don't see anything in Bondra's bio indicating that he played point on the power play. Stanfield averaged 20.9 PPP per 82 games over his career. Bondra averaged 21.32 per 82 games over his career. Considering Stanfield had an arsenal of weapons at his disposal on the Bruins' PP, Bondra definitely gets the advantage as the better "PP producer". But, I'm going to reserve judgement as to who is a better pointman on the PP until I see proof that Bondra actually did it.

Philadelphia has the advantage in forwards, and Winnipeg is likely going to have the advantage in pointmen. Even if Bondra never played the point, the gap between Shore and Goodfellow is much larger, tipping the pointmen in favor of Winnipeg on the 2nd PP units. I'm not sure how to call this one. I think if there is proof that Bondra played the point on the PP, then a slight advantage will go to Winnipeg. If it's found that he isn't, then I think Stanfield will be the better PP pointman considering he actually did it, giving Philadelphia an advantage.

BillyShoe1721 is offline   Reply With Quote