HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Is Alfie a HOF'er?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-19-2011, 05:39 PM
  #51
pappyline
Registered User
 
pappyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Mass/formerly Ont
Country: United States
Posts: 4,162
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post

Lastly, there is the eye test. Perreault passes this with flying colours. Alfredsson does fine in that department too, but if you were physically watching a game that consisted of a prime Perreault vs. Alfredsson then you probably wouldn't even need to ask who the better player was.
I am with you on this one Big Phil. A lot of posters here pooh pooh the eye test but to me it is much more meaningful than adjusted stats.

pappyline is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2011, 05:50 PM
  #53
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 22,241
vCash: 500
First face of a franchise (sorry dear co-citizens, but those Sens aren't the Old-Time Sens, not matter what the franchise says) + beyond reproach character + stats worthy of a low-end HHOF'er = In.

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-19-2011, 06:35 PM
  #54
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,952
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
I have never liked "adjusted stats" because it always goes against the player who played in a higher scoring era almost all the time. Comparing them to their peers in the scoring race is a better indication of things.
You can do it however you want, as long as it is done fairly. The way you're doing it isn't fair. Of course it is relevant that there were excellent soviets not in the NHL; we all know that.

The nice thing about adjusted stats is that they can't lie about how frequently goals are scored in the league. and that is the most important adjustment they make. You brush it off, but in reality the most important thing is winning hockey games, and changes in league offense levels mean that the number of goals required to have a better than average chance of winning hockey games has fluctuated wildly. It's easily arguable that Alfredsson has contributed to more wins with his offense than Perreault did.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-20-2011, 02:10 AM
  #55
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,459
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pappyline View Post
I am with you on this one Big Phil. A lot of posters here pooh pooh the eye test but to me it is much more meaningful than adjusted stats.
When you and I agree on something then that's telling

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
You can do it however you want, as long as it is done fairly. The way you're doing it isn't fair. Of course it is relevant that there were excellent soviets not in the NHL; we all know that.

The nice thing about adjusted stats is that they can't lie about how frequently goals are scored in the league. and that is the most important adjustment they make. You brush it off, but in reality the most important thing is winning hockey games, and changes in league offense levels mean that the number of goals required to have a better than average chance of winning hockey games has fluctuated wildly. It's easily arguable that Alfredsson has contributed to more wins with his offense than Perreault did.
Where you finish in the scoring race stays parallel with league averages too. Perreault beats Alfredsson in this department. He beats him as a goal scorer, a playmaker, an overall offensive force. He was more feared when he was on the ice compared to Alfredsson. He certainly wasn't worse in the postseason. If you watched both of them play you would be drafting Perreault on your team over Alfredsson. Defensively, fine, you can give the edge to Alfie. However his best finishes for the Selke are: 4, 10, 11, 15, 22. That's alright, but not great.

But in order to squash the idea that Perreault faced any weaker of competition at the top level in his best years, why don't we take a look ourselves?

Top 10 scorers
1975 - Orr, Esposito, Dionne, Lafleur, Mahovlich, Clarke, Robert, Gilbert, Perreault, Martin
1976 - Lafleur, Clarke, Perreault, Barber, Larouche, Mahovlich, Ratelle, Pronovost, Sittler, Apps
1977 - Lafleur, Dionne, Shutt, MacLeish, Perreault, Young, Ratelle, Sittler, Clarke, McDonald
1978 - Lafleur, Trottier, Sittler, Lemaire, Potvin, Bossy, O'Reilly, Clarke, Perreault, McDonald
1980 - Dionne, Gretzky, Lafleur, Perreault, Rogers, Trottier, Simmer, Stoughton, Sittler, Federko

Top 10 scorers
2004 - St. Louis, Kovalchuk, Sakic, Naslund, Hossa, Elias, Stillman, Alfredsson, Tanguay, Lang
2006 - Thornton, Jagr, Ovechkin, Heatley, Alfredsson, Crosby, Staal, Kovalchuk, Savard, Cheechoo
2008 - Ovechkin, Malkin, Iginla, Datsyuk, Thornton, Lecavalier, Spezza, Zetterberg, Alfredsson, Kovalchuk


So since you are clinging to the idea that Alfredsson should benefit because he played in an NHL with Russians, I think these charts clearly show something in Perreault's favour. One, he finished at the top end more often and closer to the top. Two, overall Perreault probably had a more difficult time acheiving it when you look at his contemporaries.

There is not a weak year among Perreault's high finishes. Very difficult to win a scoring title in an NHL with Lafleur, Dionne, Clarke, Trottier, Gretzky and Orr, yet he held his own just fine.

Alfredsson had 2004, a relatively weak year for forwards for some reason. 2006 and 2008 are difficult years for sure, but were just as seemingly difficult to make an impact in 1975 or 1976 or 1980 for Perreault, and he still seemed to do it better.

By the way I hate degrading a player by talking about his era having weaker competition. I say the NHL is the NHL regardless of era. But there are somewhat weaker years over the course of history, unfortunately Perreault's prime didn't hit those easy times while Alfie seemed to have.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-20-2011, 02:32 AM
  #56
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,952
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Where you finish in the scoring race stays parallel with league averages too. Perreault beats Alfredsson in this department. He beats him as a goal scorer, a playmaker, an overall offensive force. He was more feared when he was on the ice compared to Alfredsson. He certainly wasn't worse in the postseason. If you watched both of them play you would be drafting Perreault on your team over Alfredsson. Defensively, fine, you can give the edge to Alfie. However his best finishes for the Selke are: 4, 10, 11, 15, 22. That's alright, but not great.

But in order to squash the idea that Perreault faced any weaker of competition at the top level in his best years, why don't we take a look ourselves?

Top 10 scorers
1975 - Orr, Esposito, Dionne, Lafleur, Mahovlich, Clarke, Robert, Gilbert, Perreault, Martin
1976 - Lafleur, Clarke, Perreault, Barber, Larouche, Mahovlich, Ratelle, Pronovost, Sittler, Apps
1977 - Lafleur, Dionne, Shutt, MacLeish, Perreault, Young, Ratelle, Sittler, Clarke, McDonald
1978 - Lafleur, Trottier, Sittler, Lemaire, Potvin, Bossy, O'Reilly, Clarke, Perreault, McDonald
1980 - Dionne, Gretzky, Lafleur, Perreault, Rogers, Trottier, Simmer, Stoughton, Sittler, Federko

Top 10 scorers
2004 - St. Louis, Kovalchuk, Sakic, Naslund, Hossa, Elias, Stillman, Alfredsson, Tanguay, Lang
2006 - Thornton, Jagr, Ovechkin, Heatley, Alfredsson, Crosby, Staal, Kovalchuk, Savard, Cheechoo
2008 - Ovechkin, Malkin, Iginla, Datsyuk, Thornton, Lecavalier, Spezza, Zetterberg, Alfredsson, Kovalchuk


So since you are clinging to the idea that Alfredsson should benefit because he played in an NHL with Russians, I think these charts clearly show something in Perreault's favour. One, he finished at the top end more often and closer to the top. Two, overall Perreault probably had a more difficult time acheiving it when you look at his contemporaries.

There is not a weak year among Perreault's high finishes. Very difficult to win a scoring title in an NHL with Lafleur, Dionne, Clarke, Trottier, Gretzky and Orr, yet he held his own just fine.

Alfredsson had 2004, a relatively weak year for forwards for some reason. 2006 and 2008 are difficult years for sure, but were just as seemingly difficult to make an impact in 1975 or 1976 or 1980 for Perreault, and he still seemed to do it better.

By the way I hate degrading a player by talking about his era having weaker competition. I say the NHL is the NHL regardless of era. But there are somewhat weaker years over the course of history, unfortunately Perreault's prime didn't hit those easy times while Alfie seemed to have.
That you've spent this much time on this shows you've missed the point. I'm not even here arguing that Alfredsson is better, I have simply demonstrated that it is not an absurd notion for people like you to scoff at. There is merit to it.

Briefly:

- It's widely acknowledged that the weak 1970s, when rapid expansion, the WHA and the lack of European stars conspired against the NHL, is the weakest period the league has seen, probably since the years immediately following WW2.

- the percentage of the league that was Canadian in 1989 compared to now, should give you a good idea of what pre-1989 scoring finishes need to be multiplied by in order to be more comparable to post-1993 finishes. (It's somewhere between 1.5 and 2 most likely.)

- What were Perreault's selke finishes? (you don't have to answer that)

- Your clinginess with the whole "rankings" thing is amateurish. There's more to it than just that. I think you know that but it's convenient for you to ignore it right now.

- Can you please explain how, with both players playing 1100-1200 games as first line scorers and the catalysts of their respective lines, Alfredsson earned a much better GF/GA ratio (1.26 to 1.08) despite having a worse team on average (his teams were 1.04 with him off the ice, Perreault's 1.12 without him)

- For emphasis. Yes, I did just say that Perreault's Sabres' goal differential got worse when he was not on the ice. How many post-expansion 800+ point scorers show up worse here?

- Garry Unger, Ivan Boldirev. Both known to be poor defensively.
- Trevor Linden, Butch Goring, Rod Brind'Amour, Kirk Muller. Played defensive roles often.
- That's all.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-20-2011, 09:04 AM
  #58
GuineaPig
Registered User
 
GuineaPig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Montréal
Posts: 2,136
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cursednumber6 View Post
Pearrrault over Alfredsson via the eye-test all day and twice on Sundays again. Perreault was a generational talent who sometimes went through the motions imo.(He is credited with first uttering the saying "backcheck, forecheck, paycheck" after all.....)He really was a generational talent though and I think playing losing Martin, really hurt him. (duh).
So looking better is preferable to playing better?

GuineaPig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-20-2011, 09:56 AM
  #59
Der Kaiser
Registered User
 
Der Kaiser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Gothenburg, SWE
Country: Sweden
Posts: 800
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Top 10 scorers
1975 - Orr, Esposito, Dionne, Lafleur, Mahovlich, Clarke, Robert, Gilbert, Perreault, Martin
1976 - Lafleur, Clarke, Perreault, Barber, Larouche, Mahovlich, Ratelle, Pronovost, Sittler, Apps
1977 - Lafleur, Dionne, Shutt, MacLeish, Perreault, Young, Ratelle, Sittler, Clarke, McDonald
1978 - Lafleur, Trottier, Sittler, Lemaire, Potvin, Bossy, O'Reilly, Clarke, Perreault, McDonald
1980 - Dionne, Gretzky, Lafleur, Perreault, Rogers, Trottier, Simmer, Stoughton, Sittler, Federko
It's not unreasonable that some of e.g. Petrov, Mikhailov, Maltsev, Kharlamov, Yakushev, Balderis, Martinec or Nedomansky would place on these lists. Perreault's era was probably the strongest era of European hockey in relation to the NHL.

Der Kaiser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-20-2011, 10:12 AM
  #60
pepty
Registered User
 
pepty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 10,782
vCash: 400
He should be in but probably not on the first go round.

pepty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-20-2011, 01:10 PM
  #61
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,459
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Der Kaiser View Post
It's not unreasonable that some of e.g. Petrov, Mikhailov, Maltsev, Kharlamov, Yakushev, Balderis, Martinec or Nedomansky would place on these lists. Perreault's era was probably the strongest era of European hockey in relation to the NHL.
No it isn't unreasonable. However my chart showed one thing, that despite the Russians not in the NHL at the time, Perreault had just as much - if not more - top end talent to compete against for major awards and the scoring race. He just fared better than Alfredsson in that department, clearly. So bringing up the "Russians weren't there yet" argument is void. Perreault had plenty of elite competition to face.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GuineaPig View Post
So looking better is preferable to playing better?
No, that isn't what the eye test is all about. A player will never lose marks for style points, but on a personal level I would take Alfredsson over Bure. Why is that? Alfredsson was more effective as a player although less flashy. When you saw Bure you were amazed by his talent but he wasn't the entire package offensively. He would cherrypick. Perreault was a player you would notice on the ice more often, the feel you would get watching the game is that he was a more all around dangerous player than Bure. He was a wonderful playmaker and goal scorer. Bure was not both.

You would have more difficulty maintaining Perreault than Bure. When you watch a game you can see this for sure. So for me, the eye test is how they PLAY the game vs. their contemporaries.

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
That you've spent this much time on this shows you've missed the point. I'm not even here arguing that Alfredsson is better, I have simply demonstrated that it is not an absurd notion for people like you to scoff at. There is merit to it.

Briefly:

- It's widely acknowledged that the weak 1970s, when rapid expansion, the WHA and the lack of European stars conspired against the NHL, is the weakest period the league has seen, probably since the years immediately following WW2.

- the percentage of the league that was Canadian in 1989 compared to now, should give you a good idea of what pre-1989 scoring finishes need to be multiplied by in order to be more comparable to post-1993 finishes. (It's somewhere between 1.5 and 2 most likely.)

- What were Perreault's selke finishes? (you don't have to answer that)

- Your clinginess with the whole "rankings" thing is amateurish. There's more to it than just that. I think you know that but it's convenient for you to ignore it right now.

- Can you please explain how, with both players playing 1100-1200 games as first line scorers and the catalysts of their respective lines, Alfredsson earned a much better GF/GA ratio (1.26 to 1.08) despite having a worse team on average (his teams were 1.04 with him off the ice, Perreault's 1.12 without him)

- For emphasis. Yes, I did just say that Perreault's Sabres' goal differential got worse when he was not on the ice. How many post-expansion 800+ point scorers show up worse here?

- Garry Unger, Ivan Boldirev. Both known to be poor defensively.
- Trevor Linden, Butch Goring, Rod Brind'Amour, Kirk Muller. Played defensive roles often.
- That's all.
I do understand some of your points, I am glad however that you do not seem to want to rank Alfredsson over Perreault. I am not here to "scoff" at it, but with all we know about hockey on these boards we should probably come to a pretty clean consensus that Alfredsson was definitely a notch below Perreault.

Season in and season out for close to a decade Alfredsson was a very good player. At the end of the day you have to start examining his HHOF worth because he gradually put up numbers that gave him notice but he didn't have that "wow" season either. Perreault had those seasons and Alfredsson can't match him for that. If this is 1976 you would think you are witnessing a future HHOFer in Perreault. If this is 2004, you probably don't think that about Alfredsson. He has gradually gotten to that level. Nothing wrong with that, but I still know who I want on my team.

Wer have both thrown stats each other's way until the cows come home but I'll ask you a simple question here that I hope you answer. If you had a choice between Perreault or Alfredsson who do you take on your team?

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-20-2011, 02:16 PM
  #62
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,952
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
I'll ask you a simple question here that I hope you answer. If you had a choice between Perreault or Alfredsson who do you take on your team?
Having had a chance to review some of the factors involved, I find it difficult to see that Perreault had more impact as a player. Prior to this thread my gut would have had Perreault 50-100 spots ahead on an all-time list but I can't justify that right now.

If anyone else would like to demonstrate the opposite using something other than "I think Perreault looked better" I would definitely consider it.

It's really hard to overcome the fact that Alfie's sens were the weaker team, but much better with Alfie on the ice than the Sabres with perreault. And even more so, that the Sabres' fortunes got worse with Perreault on the ice. (both often had stacked first lines and played the same even strength role, with Alfie having more defensive responsibility thrown in)

There is a real sanctity attached to some of these players who played in that 1970-1995 period and a lot of times other players' careers surpass them quietly; we never pinpoint right when it happens, but it does. Martin St. Louis is clearly superior to Joe Mullen now. Sakic passed Yzerman. Lidstrom passed Robinson and then Potvin (and a lot of guys say Bourque too). Modano ended up with a career as good as or better than Hawerchuk and Savard. And so on. I've noticed it is hard for people who romanticize that era to accept in a lot of cases.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-20-2011, 03:14 PM
  #63
pappyline
Registered User
 
pappyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Mass/formerly Ont
Country: United States
Posts: 4,162
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Having had a chance to review some of the factors involved, I find it difficult to see that Perreault had more impact as a player. Prior to this thread my gut would have had Perreault 50-100 spots ahead on an all-time list but I can't justify that right now.

If anyone else would like to demonstrate the opposite using something other than "I think Perreault looked better" I would definitely consider it.

It's really hard to overcome the fact that Alfie's sens were the weaker team, but much better with Alfie on the ice than the Sabres with perreault. And even more so, that the Sabres' fortunes got worse with Perreault on the ice. (both often had stacked first lines and played the same even strength role, with Alfie having more defensive responsibility thrown in)

There is a real sanctity attached to some of these players who played in that 1970-1995 period and a lot of times other players' careers surpass them quietly; we never pinpoint right when it happens, but it does. Martin St. Louis is clearly superior to Joe Mullen now. Sakic passed Yzerman. Lidstrom passed Robinson and then Potvin (and a lot of guys say Bourque too). Modano ended up with a career as good as or better than Hawerchuk and Savard. And so on. I've noticed it is hard for people who romanticize that era to accept in a lot of cases.
Wow, you really would pick Alfredsson ahead of Perreault! I don't think you would find much support for that no matter how you slice and dice the stats. You probably would pick Sittler ahead of Perreault also. I remember a discussion we had a while back wheras you were saying Sittler was better. Sometimes the eyes tell more than the stats.

pappyline is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-20-2011, 07:50 PM
  #64
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,459
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Having had a chance to review some of the factors involved, I find it difficult to see that Perreault had more impact as a player. Prior to this thread my gut would have had Perreault 50-100 spots ahead on an all-time list but I can't justify that right now.
Trust your gut, I say. Besides, how did Alfredsson have more of an impact as a player than Perreault? There is no way Alfredsson stood out more against his peers than Perreault. Throw stats out the window, this is the classic eye test and the NHL culture at the time. Perreault would have religiously been a top 10 player in the game in his prime. Alfredsson, not so much

Quote:
If anyone else would like to demonstrate the opposite using something other than "I think Perreault looked better" I would definitely consider it.
I've thrown things together like Hart trophy finishes, scoring race finishes and even the competition at the top end. I threw in the eye test, the explosiveness of the player and the impact they made on the ice, Perreault wins every time. What more do you need?


Quote:
There is a real sanctity attached to some of these players who played in that 1970-1995 period and a lot of times other players' careers surpass them quietly; we never pinpoint right when it happens, but it does. Martin St. Louis is clearly superior to Joe Mullen now. Sakic passed Yzerman. Lidstrom passed Robinson and then Potvin (and a lot of guys say Bourque too). Modano ended up with a career as good as or better than Hawerchuk and Savard. And so on. I've noticed it is hard for people who romanticize that era to accept in a lot of cases
See I never romanticize about certain eras, I always try to look at it objectively. I agree with those choices above for the most part. Sakic and Yzerman are close however and you can almost do a coin flip for it. I don't think I would put Modano ahead of Hawerchuk or Savard though. They were both too much of an individual talent on their own, even compared to Modano. Not saying he's not close to them, because he is and it isn't the worst thing in the world to compare him to those players, but if I were to look at it objecitvely I take the former two. Do I take Sakic over Savard or Hawerchuk? Yes, you bet. But not Modano, not quite. There are some sentimental old fools that will always favour "their" generation but I am not one of them, and most of us on here aren't.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-20-2011, 07:59 PM
  #65
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 40,949
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
- Can you please explain how, with both players playing 1100-1200 games as first line scorers and the catalysts of their respective lines, Alfredsson earned a much better GF/GA ratio (1.26 to 1.08) despite having a worse team on average (his teams were 1.04 with him off the ice, Perreault's 1.12 without him)
That GF/GA ratio of Perreault's is certainly an anomoly that needs further explaining. One thing that I do disagree with though - while Alfredsson was often the offensive catalyst of his line, he wasn't always - he did have those very good years with Spezza and Heatley, who were at least as good offensively as he was.

Something definitely needs to be said for the fact that Perreault was the type of player who excelled on larger ice - he was a fantastic scorer in international tournaments, and is one of the only stars in history to put up more points on the road than at home (almost certainly due to the fact that Buffalo had a smaller rink than most teams).

Didn't Bobby Clarke say that Perreault was one of the players who was the hardest to shut down?


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 11-20-2011 at 08:05 PM.
TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-20-2011, 08:08 PM
  #66
Epsilon
#TeamHolland
 
Epsilon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Florence, SC
Posts: 36,754
vCash: 500
While Perreault vs. Alfredsson is something of an interesting topic (as the ongoing discussion shows) it seems a bit irrelevant for this thread to me, considering I don't view Perreault as anything even close to a marginal HOFer. A player can be considerably worse than Gilbert Perreault and still be HOF-worthy.

Epsilon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-20-2011, 10:48 PM
  #67
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,952
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pappyline View Post
Wow, you really would pick Alfredsson ahead of Perreault! I don't think you would find much support for that no matter how you slice and dice the stats. You probably would pick Sittler ahead of Perreault also. I remember a discussion we had a while back wheras you were saying Sittler was better. Sometimes the eyes tell more than the stats.
You keep saying that I thought Sittler was better. I corrected you on this once before.

The post you are thinking of is here:

http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=2...2&postcount=10

I put Sittler way down in the 4th category called "the debatables". After eliminating five of those names for various reasons, Hawerchuk and Sittler were the last two guys left who appeared to deliver comparable value relative to era.

This is not "saying Sittler was better".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Trust your gut, I say. Besides, how did Alfredsson have more of an impact as a player than Perreault? There is no way Alfredsson stood out more against his peers than Perreault. Throw stats out the window, this is the classic eye test and the NHL culture at the time. Perreault would have religiously been a top 10 player in the game in his prime. Alfredsson, not so much
Because he looked good doing it. I care about results, don't you?

Quote:
I've thrown things together like Hart trophy finishes, scoring race finishes and even the competition at the top end. I threw in the eye test, the explosiveness of the player and the impact they made on the ice, Perreault wins every time. What more do you need?
How are "the eye test, the explosiveness of the player and the impact they made on the ice" quantifiable in any way? Couldn't I just say the same for Alfredsson and be just as "right"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
That GF/GA ratio of Perreault's is certainly an anomoly that needs further explaining. One thing that I do disagree with though - while Alfredsson was often the offensive catalyst of his line, he wasn't always - he did have those very good years with Spezza and Heatley, who were at least as good offensively as he was.
I wouldn't say "at least as" - but yes, for four years Alfie had linemates who were about as strong as him offensively:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...rder_by=points

Perreault outscored his linemates by higher degrees in his prime. Alfredsson didn't exactly have the best linemates before 2006 or after 2009; overall, this may still be a wash.

Quote:
Something definitely needs to be said for the fact that Perreault was the type of player who excelled on larger ice - he was a fantastic scorer in international tournaments, and is one of the only stars in history to put up more points on the road than at home (almost certainly due to the fact that Buffalo had a smaller rink than most teams).
I agree, that is good for him, but also, that's a rather small sample size compared to his NHL career.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-20-2011, 11:24 PM
  #68
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,618
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
That GF/GA ratio of Perreault's is certainly an anomoly that needs further explaining. One thing that I do disagree with though - while Alfredsson was often the offensive catalyst of his line, he wasn't always - he did have those very good years with Spezza and Heatley, who were at least as good offensively as he was.

Something definitely needs to be said for the fact that Perreault was the type of player who excelled on larger ice - he was a fantastic scorer in international tournaments, and is one of the only stars in history to put up more points on the road than at home (almost certainly due to the fact that Buffalo had a smaller rink than most teams).

Didn't Bobby Clarke say that Perreault was one of the players who was the hardest to shut down?
There's no data available, but I expect Perreault's GF/GA ratio was also better on the road than at home, probably because of the rink. And the Ramsay-Luce-Gare line's GF/GA ratio was probably a lot better at home, as they scored a lot more points at home.

It was at even strength in particular that Perreault and his linemates took a hit at home - they were fine on the PP.

overpass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-21-2011, 04:42 PM
  #69
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,459
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Because he looked good doing it. I care about results, don't you?
This isn't about how "good" Perreault looked doing it. We all know how beautiful he was to watch on the ice but this is not my point. When you watched the game you were more drawn to Perreault than you would be to Alfredsson. He had the puck more, the play revolved around him more when he was on the ice. He was more the central part of the play. He had more skill, talent, speed.

Put it this way. When you watch a shinny game there is always one of those kids that can just flat out play better than anyone else. It doesn't matter if his style is Phil Esposito's or Guy Lafleur's, you notice that guy more than the others. To me, that's the eye test. Perreault definitely played the game better and more efficiently than Alfredsson in relative to others on the ice against him.

Quote:
How are "the eye test, the explosiveness of the player and the impact they made on the ice" quantifiable in any way? Couldn't I just say the same for Alfredsson and be just as "right"?
Well, do you feel the same about Alfredsson? As for your question, if a player dominates the play on the ice better than another player, there is a very good case he is a better player

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2011, 01:23 AM
  #70
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,952
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
This isn't about how "good" Perreault looked doing it. We all know how beautiful he was to watch on the ice but this is not my point. When you watched the game you were more drawn to Perreault than you would be to Alfredsson. He had the puck more, the play revolved around him more when he was on the ice. He was more the central part of the play. He had more skill, talent, speed.

Put it this way. When you watch a shinny game there is always one of those kids that can just flat out play better than anyone else. It doesn't matter if his style is Phil Esposito's or Guy Lafleur's, you notice that guy more than the others. To me, that's the eye test. Perreault definitely played the game better and more efficiently than Alfredsson in relative to others on the ice against him.
Look, basically what I'm saying that you won't pick up on here is that there is sometimes a wide discrepancy between "talent" and "actual results". No doubt in my mind that Perreault was more talented than Alfredsson. but that's not how I judge players.

Quote:
Well, do you feel the same about Alfredsson? As for your question, if a player dominates the play on the ice better than another player, there is a very good case he is a better player
To answer those three things, Perreault was more pleasing to the eye and more explosive, and Alfredsson appears to have made more of an impact on the ice. The latter outweighs the former.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2011, 01:53 AM
  #71
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,459
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Look, basically what I'm saying that you won't pick up on here is that there is sometimes a wide discrepancy between "talent" and "actual results". No doubt in my mind that Perreault was more talented than Alfredsson. but that's not how I judge players.
I agree, it isn't solely how I judge players either, it is part of the entire package that most of us on this site use to judge how great a player was overall. Stats only tell part of the story. Denis Maruk would be better than John Tonelli if we never saw either of them play the game.

I am just saying that Perreault beats Alfredsson on the stat sheet and he beats him, not for his style, but how he performed on the ice when you watch it with your own eyes.

Quote:
To answer those three things, Perreault was more pleasing to the eye and more explosive, and Alfredsson appears to have made more of an impact on the ice. The latter outweighs the former.
Okay, that's your opinion then. I am pretty sure you are alone on this one though. You sure haven't gotten any support for Alfredsson > Perreault

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2011, 02:03 AM
  #72
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 40,949
vCash: 500
I suppose the gap is closer than a lot of people think, but I really don't see much of a case for Alfredsson over Perreault. Perreault finished 3rd, 4th, 5th, 8th, 9th in scoring as the catalyst for his line, while his home scoring totals were significantly hurt by rink size.

Alfreddson finished 4th, 7th, 9th, and while he wasn't a leach by any means, was only really the catalyst for his line the year he finished 7th (the weak 2003-04 season).

I get that Alfredsson was much better without the puck, but those offensive numbers are not close, especially when put into context.

I'm sure percentages make Alfy look better, but I'm not convinced of the utility of percentages when it comes to top 5 rankings.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2011, 11:13 AM
  #73
jkrx
Registered User
 
jkrx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,283
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I suppose the gap is closer than a lot of people think, but I really don't see much of a case for Alfredsson over Perreault. Perreault finished 3rd, 4th, 5th, 8th, 9th in scoring as the catalyst for his line, while his home scoring totals were significantly hurt by rink size.

Alfreddson finished 4th, 7th, 9th, and while he wasn't a leach by any means, was only really the catalyst for his line the year he finished 7th (the weak 2003-04 season).

I get that Alfredsson was much better without the puck, but those offensive numbers are not close, especially when put into context.

I'm sure percentages make Alfy look better, but I'm not convinced of the utility of percentages when it comes to top 5 rankings.
If it wasn't for alfredsson his linemates wouldn't have scored at all. I'm not sure if I would take Alfredsson above Perrault but the gap is not wide between them.

jkrx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2011, 01:23 PM
  #74
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 40,949
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkrx View Post
If it wasn't for alfredsson his linemates wouldn't have scored at all. I'm not sure if I would take Alfredsson above Perrault but the gap is not wide between them.
Heatley and Spezza wouldn't have scored at all without Alfredsson even though each of them outscored him once when they played together?

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-22-2011, 01:50 PM
  #75
jkrx
Registered User
 
jkrx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,283
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Heatley and Spezza wouldn't have scored at all without Alfredsson even though each of them outscored him once when they played together?
Spezza developed nicely into a two way player but without Alfredsson two-way play prior to that, that line would have been awful. They both are more gifted than him offensively but without him doing the hardwork they wont provide as much (at all was a hyperbole). Actually even with his hard work those other two melted down in the cup finals.

jkrx is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:44 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.