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.

Lafontaine vs, Hawerchuk

View Poll Results: Who was better in their primes?
Dale Hawerchuk 32 58.18%
Pat Lafontaine 23 41.82%
Voters: 55. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-14-2011, 12:45 AM
  #26
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 26,226
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vecens24 View Post
puck possession?
initial puck possession, obviously. but the puck changes possession so often that the faceoff itself ends up not having a measurable impact on shots or goals.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2011, 01:58 AM
  #27
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 43,481
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
initial puck possession, obviously. but the puck changes possession so often that the faceoff itself ends up not having a measurable impact on shots or goals.
Has anyone done the research on only offensive/defensive zone draws?

I can imagine that neutral zone faceoffs would have a negligible effect, but I can't believe that direct offensive/defensive zone draws wouldn't.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2011, 06:44 AM
  #28
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,518
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
there has been very little demonstrated correlation between winning faceoffs and.... well, anything.
I find that highly unlikely.

It may not be a strong correlation but I know we can all think of tons of cases where a faceoff is won in the offensive zone and results in a goal shortly thereafter.

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2011, 07:20 AM
  #29
MadLuke
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,389
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
I find that highly unlikely.

It may not be a strong correlation but I know we can all think of tons of cases where a faceoff is won in the offensive zone and results in a goal shortly thereafter.
Obvisouly, but you also need to have more goal scored after a offensive faceoff won than after a offensive faceoff lost or draw to conclude anything.

I also find that unlikely, I think on power play / pk, face off should be automatiquely a factor, because in those case the puck possesion is more solid and less volatyle, and in all the some seconds before the end of periods/games also, the puck possesion should be solid, as you will have the puck for the 100% of the rest of the game on your faceoff won cleanly.

http://jesgolbez.blogspot.com/2006/0...h-winning.html
http://www.kuklaskorner.com/index.ph...e_of_faceoffs/

The extreme case of one player who takes and wins the maximum number of offensive and defensive faceoffs of any player currently in the league (this player does not exist), that player is likely worth about 3 (or at most 4) goals to his team from his faceoff wins. That is why faceoffs do not correlate well with winning.

I think it should correlate well with winning, if you have 3 very good center at faceoff it should translate at the end of the season a +10-12 GA/GF ration, a +50 GA/GF is a very very good ratio for a team, if 20% of you goal advantage over competition is du to faceoff winning it is very good, it is probably the same weight factor in your Gf/GA edge over direct competition that your better goaltending over competition and your better defence and your better offence and your better special team.

Seem to have the same correlation in winning and faceoff that in winning and hitting, that seem pretty good.

I think it is more than no team have dominated enough in the faceoff on a long run to see and advantage to it (all team are very near 50% on the faceoff) but if a team would be 90% at the faceoff circle in a series it should translate in a advantage at least for special team over the exact same team loosing 90% of the faceoff.


Last edited by MadLuke: 09-14-2011 at 07:29 AM.
MadLuke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2011, 07:39 AM
  #30
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 MadLuke View Post
I think it is more than no team have dominated enough in the faceoff on a long run to see and advantage to it (all team are very near 50% on the faceoff) but if a team would be 90% at the faceoff circle in a series it should translate in a advantage at least for special team over the exact same team loosing 90% of the faceoff.
I think this is key. With the best faceoff players in the league being just slightly above 60% win (Dave Steckel and Manny Malhotra) the effect in the grand scheme of things is very small. There are players who are better and players who are worse. Against the vast majority of the league Steckel is just slightly favoured to win any given faceoff.

I don't know about the historical aspect of players very skilled at faceoffs, but I don't think there is a player in the league today who's sensationally good at faceoffs. Malhotra and Steckel are better than most, sure. But 60% win percentage isn't really that trustoworthy, they still lose 4 out of 10 draws. Has there ever been players approaching win percentages of 70% and upwards?

Der Kaiser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2011, 07:57 AM
  #31
MadLuke
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,389
vCash: 500
Searching for it, just saw that Lindros was a 60% best in the league faceoff man in the 90's, this guy was a lot of tangible with is intangible.

Yannick perrault was pretty good at this, 65% some season, and some specialist like him do not just win faceoff, that win clearly faceoff and pass the puck at the same time a at very special pre defined spot.

MadLuke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2011, 08:48 AM
  #32
begbeee
Registered User
 
begbeee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Slovakia
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 4,124
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Der Kaiser View Post
I think this is key. With the best faceoff players in the league being just slightly above 60% win (Dave Steckel and Manny Malhotra) the effect in the grand scheme of things is very small. There are players who are better and players who are worse. Against the vast majority of the league Steckel is just slightly favoured to win any given faceoff.

I don't know about the historical aspect of players very skilled at faceoffs, but I don't think there is a player in the league today who's sensationally good at faceoffs. Malhotra and Steckel are better than most, sure. But 60% win percentage isn't really that trustoworthy, they still lose 4 out of 10 draws. Has there ever been players approaching win percentages of 70% and upwards?
60% is really high percentage. For some specific reasons I like this stat so I check it time to time. It's very hard to keep 60% during 80 games span.

begbeee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2011, 09:04 AM
  #33
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 begbeee View Post
60% is really high percentage. For some specific reasons I like this stat so I check it time to time. It's very hard to keep 60% during 80 games span.
Relative to the league it's super. But compared to all possible outcomes it's just slightly better than random. I can't fathom how faceoffs can be so random that a player cannot be skilled enough to beat the opposition in over 70% of the faceoffs taken. I'm not sure if I've ever seen a player completely dominate the faceoff circle.

Shouldn't it be possible to be better in the faceoff circle than the best currently are right now? It is one of the few moments in a hockey game when it really comes down to an individual duel that is easily quantifiable.

But we're off on a real tangent here. Might be worthy of its own thread. Let's end the discussion in this thread.

Der Kaiser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2011, 10:03 AM
  #34
tjcurrie
Registered User
 
tjcurrie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Gibbons, Alberta
Posts: 3,963
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Infinite Vision View Post
No he didn't, Lemieux got the puck to Gretzky before Gretzky set him up for that iconic goal. The three of them were not even a regular line throughout the tournament.

Hawerchuk actually tripped the back checking Russian on that play. Shoulda been a penalty really. Had he not tripped him there's a decent chance that goal doesn't happen. Has nothing to do with the discussion, I'm just sayin.

tjcurrie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2011, 06:54 PM
  #35
Preisst
Party On!!
 
Preisst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Western Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,707
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Infinite Vision* View Post
I watched each of them play their entire careers, and I think Hawerchuk's defensive game is extremely overrated. It's not that he didn't put defensive effort into his game, I just don't think he was exceptionally good at it, main reason being we wasn't exactly the fastest player. Faceoffs are a non factor for me, how much do they really matter in the grand scheme of things? I don't know what each of their faceoff percentages were anyway, I haven't looked into it.
If I remember correctly Lafontaines defensive game was pretty weak, maybe some other posters can comment on it to confirm/refute.

I do not agree that Hawerchuks defensive game was over-rated. He was very good, certainly better than Lafontaine.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Infinite Vision* View Post
Both are legitimate arguments and correspond with each other. Thus it makes sense that Lafontaine finished higher in points per game relative to his peers in his 9 year prime compared to Hawerchuk's (the 9 consecutive years I selected for each are right from the beginning of their primes til the year before they declined)
I disagree. But even if it was a legitimate argument you really think that .04% is clear cut validation that Lafontaine was better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Infinite Vision* View Post
As for assuming the numbers I've provided are accurate, all you have to do is click on the links I've provided.
Actually when I click on the links they don't work for me but in any event I'm sure they are accurate so don't worry about it to much.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Infinite Vision* View Post
I stand by my opinon that Hawerchuk's overall game is overrated. Lafontaine had more overall impact as a player in his prime, and I'd easily take him on my team over Hawerchuk, I have no bias towards either player, and am actually equally a fan of both. Other than 85 and 96, where he had a +/- of 22 (85), and 15 (96), his next best +/- were +10, +3, and +2. The rest of the seasons he was a minus player a lot of times by quite a bit. Does a lot of it have to to with the teams he was on? I would say that was certainly a big factor, however there have been more than enough players throughout the history of the game who have been placed on crappy teams, who weren't even considered to be good at defense at all and didn't have bad +/- numbers.
You are entitled to your opinion, no problem there but you clearly put more stock in plus/minus then I do. To me that is a stat that is almost 100% useless. You seem to rank plus/minus as being more important then faceoffs, I suspect you're in the minority on that one. We obviously have different ideas on what is important.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Infinite Vision* View Post
Lafontaine played 6 years before and after his prime. Hawerchuk played 6 years after his prime. Hawerchuk played his entire prime in a higher scoring era. As I've already displayed.
Doesn't matter when they played Hawerchuk was a complete two way player, Lafontaine was not.

Preisst is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-10-2012, 10:38 AM
  #36
Brooklanders*
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 6,309
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Infinite Vision* View Post
In their primes, who would you say was the better player?
Pat and not close

Brooklanders* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-10-2012, 12:53 PM
  #37
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,352
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooklanders View Post
Pat and not close
I can agree that perhaps the best individual season belongs to Lafontaine (1993) between the two but I don't think it was miles ahead of Hawerchuk's best in 1985. When evaluating each player's best 5 seasons I would give it to Hawerchuk without much hesitation

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-10-2012, 01:01 PM
  #38
Stephen
Registered User
 
Stephen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 35,752
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Other than that, Both had measley talent around them early in their career.
I'm not sure how Lafontaine had measly talent to work with early in his career when he started the Islanders dynasty squad one year removed from their last Stanley Cup...

Stephen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-10-2012, 02:05 PM
  #39
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,642
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Infinite Vision* View Post
I watched each of them play their entire careers, and I think Hawerchuk's defensive game is extremely overrated. It's not that he didn't put defensive effort into his game, I just don't think he was exceptionally good at it, main reason being we wasn't exactly the fastest player. Faceoffs are a non factor for me, how much do they really matter in the grand scheme of things? I don't know what each of their faceoff percentages were anyway, I haven't looked into it.
Actually, this poster wasn't alive for most of Hawerchuk and Lafontaine's careers.

As for the topic of the thread, Hawerchuk. Did a lot with less help from his teammates than Lafontaine had.

overpass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-11-2012, 03:56 AM
  #40
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,352
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen View Post
I'm not sure how Lafontaine had measly talent to work with early in his career when he started the Islanders dynasty squad one year removed from their last Stanley Cup...
That team very quickly disbanded. Lafontaine was a rookie in 1984. Then Bossy had a couple great years before retiring. Potvin was good but not great and Trottier started a decline. Lafontaine was forced to carry a lot of the load after, say, 1986. Trottier wasn't as effective anymore. And by the late 1980s that was a very different Islander team with just one name on their team. A good example is 1989-'90 when Lafontaine had his 105 point year. The next best Islander was Brent Sutter at 68 points. It wasn't until his trade to Buffalo that Lafontaine had some prime talent to work with in Mogilny and then some support with an older Hawerchuk. But then even by 1995-'96 he was on his own again. He had 91 points, the next best Sabre was Randy Burridge at 58.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-11-2012, 11:23 AM
  #41
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 9,556
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
Actually, this poster wasn't alive for most of Hawerchuk and Lafontaine's careers.

As for the topic of the thread, Hawerchuk. Did a lot with less help from his teammates than Lafontaine had.
If this is true, he should not be welcomed here.

He can come back when (if) he becomes a grownup.

Dennis Bonvie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-11-2012, 11:27 AM
  #42
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 9,556
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooklanders View Post
Pat and not close
Dale, and it is close.

Dennis Bonvie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-11-2012, 01:16 PM
  #43
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,509
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
Actually, this poster wasn't alive for most of Hawerchuk and Lafontaine's careers.

As for the topic of the thread, Hawerchuk. Did a lot with less help from his teammates than Lafontaine had.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Bonvie View Post
If this is true, he should not be welcomed here.

He can come back when (if) he becomes a grownup.
Whats with this post? Seriously who even cares?

Can't we judge a persons argument and not sorry about their age?

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-11-2012, 01:41 PM
  #44
vadim sharifijanov
#bryantreevesbad
 
vadim sharifijanov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 11,763
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Whats with this post? Seriously who even cares?

Can't we judge a persons argument and not sorry about their age?
but that argument suffers from a significant lack of credibility when that poster's argument hinges on "trust me, i saw both guys' entire careers" when in fact it turns out to be a lie. (if what overpass says is correct, that is.)

vadim sharifijanov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-11-2012, 02:13 PM
  #45
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,642
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vadim sharifijanov View Post
but that argument suffers from a significant lack of credibility when that poster's argument hinges on "trust me, i saw both guys' entire careers" when in fact it turns out to be a lie. (if what overpass says is correct, that is.)
The poster originally posted as Chrono Trigger and presented himself as a fan who had watched the 80s.

It later turned out he was the same person as the poster Infinite Vision, who by his previous posts was not born in the 80s.

I thought it was worth mentioning since the thread was bumped.

overpass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-11-2012, 02:18 PM
  #46
Brooklanders*
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 6,309
vCash: 500
Pat was the more dominant player at his peak and it's not even close

Brooklanders* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-11-2012, 06:55 PM
  #47
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,352
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooklanders View Post
Pat was the more dominant player at his peak and it's not even close
You're going to have to explain the "not close" thing a little bit more. This is the second time you've said it without elaborating. Hawerchuk was 2nd in Hart voting to Gretzky in 1985. Lafontaine was 2nd in scoring to Lemieux in 1993. Outside of those two players each guy was probably the best player that season so it is relatively close. However I would like to hear how it isn't from your end

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-12-2012, 08:46 AM
  #48
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 26,226
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
The poster originally posted as Chrono Trigger and presented himself as a fan who had watched the 80s.

It later turned out he was the same person as the poster Infinite Vision, who by his previous posts was not born in the 80s.

I thought it was worth mentioning since the thread was bumped.
Absolutely it is worth mentioning!

seventieslord 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 02:53 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.