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
Notices

The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Guy Carbonneau HOF

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-29-2013, 03:40 PM
  #176
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,842
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by reckoning View Post
For what it's worth, on Scotty Bowman's top 100 Canadian players of all-time list that was discussed here a few months ago, he had Carbonneau at #90 and Gilmour at #92.

That doesn't mean that his opinion is the indisputable last word, but if someone with his knowledge and credentials feels that Carbonneau deserves to be rated among other Hall of Famers, then the idea of Carbonneau in the Hall isn't as crazy as some here think.
His list was.. interesting.. to put it mildly.

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-29-2013, 03:57 PM
  #177
Killion
Registered User
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Village
Country: Wales
Posts: 29,904
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
His list was.. interesting.. to put it mildly.
Most "lists" do in fact rank Carbo in the top 3 All Time behind Gainey & Dastyuk, ahead of such players as Gilmour, Trottier, Clarke, Fedorov, Nighbor & countless others. Older archived threads here on hf included. Id say case closed, give Guy his due, HHOF.

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-29-2013, 04:45 PM
  #178
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 13,774
vCash: 500
Very Interesting Point

Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
Being a vastly superior offensive player does make Gilmour a better defensive player as well.. not in the strict sense but still.. when the puck is in the other end it is hard for Gilmour's team to get scored on.

So if we're arguing semantics here, yes, Carbonneau was a bit better in the strictly defensive sense but Gilmour (obviously) was a much superior all around player.
Bolded, you raise a very interesting issue. Let's examine it in the light of the 1993 playoffs focusing on the Canadiens and the Leafs.

Background - both teams finished the season 3rd in their division, Montreal with 102 points, Toronto with 99 points. Both started the playoffs on the road. Toronto was eliminated in the semi-final.Their three series each went seven games. Leafs were 11-10 in this stretch.
Montreal won the SC in four series but required only 20 games, going 16-4 over the four series.

Some of the numbers;
Leafs in 1328 playoff minutes allowed 643 shots and 63 goals. In the same time they took 718 shots scoring 69 goals.

Canadiens in 1311 playoff minutes allowed 656 shots and 48 goals. In the same time they took 653 shots scoring 66 goals.

This brings us to the quantity,quality,efficiency issue and the impact on value.

The S/SA numbers are very close indicating that the offensive time in zone for each team should be close. The GA are not and the GF/GA differential favours the Canadiens. Also you cannot overlook the the very favourable W-L results including closing out the opposition in four or five games after a bad stumble in the first two games in Quebec.

As for the Gilmour / Carbonneau part of the discussion, the regular season and playoff scoring gives Doug Gilmour a big numerical edge but to what benefit? Perhaps a slight edge in the offensive zone times producing +3 goals over 21 vs 20 games yet a lower GPG, but a major difference when the puck leaves the offensive zone and enters the defensive zone. Better scoring opportunities and results for the opposition. The value difference between offense and defense is made up very quickly when results are considered fully.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-29-2013, 05:28 PM
  #179
blogofmike
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,035
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Thank you for the link which features a unique blend of season and playoff to season comparables.

Effectively using your numbers, without fact checking or endorsing them, you have shown that over 66 games against Tikkanen in a defined period, Gretzky generated 1.5606 PPG level of performance while against the league Gretzky generated a 1.5617 PPG level of performance. Tikkanen impacted Gretzky's performance by 0.0011 PPG. Tikkanen was mainly a winger.
You really don't want to admit that someone had a better playoff series than Carbonneau.

Let's take the long view with Guy.

Given the fact that we're all supposed to be impressed by Guy Carbonneau's ES scoring, we should note that he was a career +3 in the playoffs as a Canadiens player. Given his lack of PP time and 6 SH goals, that makes it look like this defensive dominator (who is apparently completely neutralized in road games...wait, is that half of all games?) and ES point producing machine was outscored by the opposition at even strength, though he played on a great defensive team that was great defensively even without him.

Quote:
In 1993 playing to win a short series, Gretzky scored at a 1.4285 PPG pace against Toronto and a 1.4 PPG pace against Toronto. So in the two series the prime defensive centers Gilmour and Carbonneau were more effective than Tikkanen.
Definitely not over the course of a playoff series. Tikkanen kept Gretzky under 1.4 PPG in three consecutive years, including a 1991 series that is much more impressive than either Carbonneau or Gilmour in 1993 (strictly from a goal prevention viewpoint. Gilmour also produced goals.)

Gretzky scored 1.44 PPG vs an average team in 1993. Keeping him to 1.43 and 1.40 is a negligible difference given the natural drop going from season to playoffs.

Quote:
Back to Esa Tikkanen, his HHOF attributes should be considered in the light of similar wingers who have been honoured - Dick Duff, Bob Pulford, George Armstrong. This was stated in the link by GBC. Very easy to live with Esa Tikkanen in the HHOF.
This is probably the difference for us. I don't like the standard that says you get in just for playing on the Leafs dynasty. I wouldn't vote for Duff. 10 HHOFers on the 1964 Leafs. And they only finished 3rd in the season and went to seven in each series.

By that standard Tikkanen has a shot for playing on a dynasty and winning 5 Cups. Carbo doesn't even qualify by that standard.

Quote:
BTW trying to create the impression of dissension between Carbonneau and Roy does not credit the discussion.
I'm not trying to create dissension. Guy would never say something silly that would denigrate one of the greatest goaltending performances of all time. He'd look foolish.

If the 3 faces of Roy average out to .929 save percentage in 1993, I would gladly take them all over just about any other goaltender in history. I found someone who outdid Carbo in a playoff series vs Gretzky. Multiple times. Care to find a Cup winning goalie who outdid Roy's 1993?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Bolded, you raise a very interesting issue. Let's examine it in the light of the 1993 playoffs focusing on the Canadiens and the Leafs.

Background - both teams finished the season 3rd in their division, Montreal with 102 points, Toronto with 99 points. Both started the playoffs on the road. Toronto was eliminated in the semi-final.Their three series each went seven games. Leafs were 11-10 in this stretch.
Montreal won the SC in four series but required only 20 games, going 16-4 over the four series.

Some of the numbers;
Leafs in 1328 playoff minutes allowed 643 shots and 63 goals. In the same time they took 718 shots scoring 69 goals.

Canadiens in 1311 playoff minutes allowed 656 shots and 48 goals. In the same time they took 653 shots scoring 66 goals.

This brings us to the quantity,quality,efficiency issue and the impact on value.

The S/SA numbers are very close indicating that the offensive time in zone for each team should be close. The GA are not and the GF/GA differential favours the Canadiens. Also you cannot overlook the the very favourable W-L results including closing out the opposition in four or five games after a bad stumble in the first two games in Quebec.

As for the Gilmour / Carbonneau part of the discussion, the regular season and playoff scoring gives Doug Gilmour a big numerical edge but to what benefit? Perhaps a slight edge in the offensive zone times producing +3 goals over 21 vs 20 games yet a lower GPG, but a major difference when the puck leaves the offensive zone and enters the defensive zone. Better scoring opportunities and results for the opposition. The value difference between offense and defense is made up very quickly when results are considered fully.
It sounds like you're giving credit to Carbonneau for playing with better performing teammates. As an individual, Gilmour is up there with Roy, Gretzky, and CuJo in terms of value to his team in the 1993 playoffs.

Carbonneau is a healthy distance behind Damphousse and Muller.


Last edited by blogofmike: 07-29-2013 at 06:39 PM.
blogofmike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-29-2013, 05:58 PM
  #180
vadim sharifijanov
TRUMP-BENNING 2016
 
vadim sharifijanov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,710
vCash: 500
among the signature defensive forwards or role players of their generations, tikkanen and lehtinen fell well short of 1,000 games (neither hit 900). contrast with gainey, carbonneau, and claude lemieux, who all played well over 1,000 games (each played at least 1,150 and carbo and pepi each played much more than that).

i'll grant you that i can't imagine a post-expansion role player making the HHOF without at the bare minimum hitting 1,000 games and playing a key part in multiple deep playoff runs. part of the designation i want to get at here isn't just excellent defensive play, nor cup counting, but the kind of player who could always find a job on a contending team, the kind of guy who could adapt his game to different kinds of teams, a guy who had character and intangibles and leadership abilities over a long, full career that make him worth remembering and telling our kids about, over guys who doubled his points totals like gartner or turgeon or whatever other HOVG scorer you want to name.

so a guy like tikkanen, if he'd had more longevity, and if he'd been able to hang around deep into his thirties and find new ways to contribute (like older carbonneau in dallas) would absolutely be a HHOF candidate in my books. on his prime, he almost makes the cut anyway; that guy was awesome.

vadim sharifijanov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-29-2013, 07:25 PM
  #181
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 13,774
vCash: 500
The Issues

Quote:
Originally Posted by blogofmike View Post
You really don't want to admit that someone had a better playoff series than Carbonneau.

Let's take the long view with Guy.

Given the fact that we're all supposed to be impressed by Guy Carbonneau's ES scoring, we should note that he was a career +3 in the playoffs as a Canadiens player. Given his lack of PP time and 6 SH goals, that makes it look like this defensive dominator (who is apparently completely neutralized in road games...wait, is that half of all games?) and ES point producing machine was outscored by the opposition at even strength, though he played on a great defensive team that was great defensively even without him.



Definitely not over the course of a playoff series. Tikkanen kept Gretzky under 1.4 PPG in three consecutive years, including a 1991 series that is much more impressive than either Carbonneau or Gilmour in 1993 (strictly from a goal prevention viewpoint. Gilmour also produced goals.)

Gretzky scored 1.44 PPG vs an average team in 1993. Keeping him to 1.43 and 1.40 is a negligible difference given the natural drop going from season to playoffs.



This is probably the difference for us. I don't like the standard that says you get in just for playing on the Leafs dynasty. I wouldn't vote for Duff. 10 HHOFers on the 1964 Leafs. And they only finished 3rd in the season and went to seven in each series.

By that standard Tikkanen has a shot for playing on a dynasty and winning 5 Cups. Carbo doesn't even qualify by that standard.



I'm not trying to create dissension. Guy would never say something silly that would denigrate one of the greatest goaltending performances of all time. He'd look foolish.

If the 3 faces of Roy average out to .929 save percentage in 1993, I would gladly take them all over just about any other goaltender in history. I found someone who outdid Carbo in a playoff series vs Gretzky. Multiple times. Care to find a Cup winning goalie who outdid Roy's 1993?



It sounds like you're giving credit to Carbonneau for playing with better performing teammates. As an individual, Gilmour is up there with Roy, Gretzky, and CuJo in terms of value to his team in the 1993 playoffs.

Carbonneau is a healthy distance behind Damphousse and Muller.
A number of issues are clear.

HHOF consideration is about the merits of a players career as opposed to individual biases that someone has about a specific type of player. As such we are not comparing players for the sake of determining who was better or who had the best playoff series in the 1993 playoffs. We are determining the merit of a player in the series they played. The HHOF worthiness is what matters.

Roy's 1993 pales in comparison to Jacques Plante in the playoffs for five consecutive seasons, 1956-1960.On five SC winning teams, Jacques Plante had a 0.931 SV%, 40-9 W/L, never was part of a team that let a 2 or 3 goal lead slip away, never pulled.

Side note. Dick Duff was not a member of the 1964 SC Champion Leafs team. Interestingly, you criticize the 1964 Leafs for finishing third, same as the 1993 Leafs. Going to game 7 in each series, same as the 1993 Leafs.1964 Leafs won the SC, 1993 Leafs did not. Logical coherence is lacking.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-29-2013, 08:05 PM
  #182
Killion
Registered User
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Village
Country: Wales
Posts: 29,904
vCash: 500
Sawchuk in 52. In 8 games had 4 SO's with a 0.63GAA.
Clint Benedict, Dave Kerr... quite a few of them actually.

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-29-2013, 08:09 PM
  #183
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,883
vCash: 500
There certainly are reasons you can induct him. He did everything he needed to do. He won Selkes, he won Cups, he captained a Cup champ, he shut down Gretzky in 1993 and he was a contributor in these championships. Plus he played a long time.

However, where does it end? BrindAmour is a guy I don't personally think should get in, but if we are going down the route of Carboneau it may open up some unworthy doors. Just saying.

Big Phil is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-29-2013, 09:28 PM
  #184
Preisst
Registered User
 
Preisst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Western Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,225
vCash: 500
HHOF is becoming more and more of a joke. But when a one dimensional player like Bure gets in it makes for a compelling case for a guy like Carbonneau.


Last edited by Preisst: 07-29-2013 at 09:59 PM. Reason: grammar
Preisst is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-29-2013, 10:30 PM
  #185
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,558
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Preisst View Post
HHOF is becoming more and more of a joke. But when a one dimensional player like Bure gets in it makes for a compelling case for a guy like Carbonneau.
Scoring goals at the rate that Bure did isn't just another dimension, its' possibly the most important dimension in all of hockey for a forward.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-29-2013, 11:22 PM
  #186
Evincar
I have found the way
 
Evincar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 4,332
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Preisst View Post
HHOF is becoming more and more of a joke. But when a one dimensional player like Bure gets in it makes for a compelling case for a guy like Carbonneau.
Of all the players in the HOF you single out Bure?

Evincar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-29-2013, 11:57 PM
  #187
blogofmike
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,035
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
A number of issues are clear.

HHOF consideration is about the merits of a players career as opposed to individual biases that someone has about a specific type of player. As such we are not comparing players for the sake of determining who was better or who had the best playoff series in the 1993 playoffs. We are determining the merit of a player in the series they played. The HHOF worthiness is what matters.

Roy's 1993 pales in comparison to Jacques Plante in the playoffs for five consecutive seasons, 1956-1960.On five SC winning teams, Jacques Plante had a 0.931 SV%, 40-9 W/L, never was part of a team that let a 2 or 3 goal lead slip away, never pulled.

Side note. Dick Duff was not a member of the 1964 SC Champion Leafs team. Interestingly, you criticize the 1964 Leafs for finishing third, same as the 1993 Leafs. Going to game 7 in each series, same as the 1993 Leafs.1964 Leafs won the SC, 1993 Leafs did not. Logical coherence is lacking.
Your bias towards defensive forwards is clear. Just because Carbonneau was one-dimensional doesn't mean he was supposed to be. His overall value must be below Selke winners who were prolific scorers. That's why Doug Gilmour got Hart votes and AS votes. They could play exceptionally well at both ends of the ice. Given Carbonneau's lack of offensive output, he needs to be far ahead of Gilmour in that part of the game he played well. And if he's got a number of players who aren't in and deserve it more than he does, then he shouldn't get in.

So Roy was the best performance of his era. The best in three decades as opposed to Carbo's who was the best since the previous week. A once-in-a-decade performance vs limiting a man to scoring at the rate he scored at against average competition during the seaason.if Roy and Hrudey switch teams, the Cup goes to LA. If Carbo and Carson switch teams the Cup stays in Montreal.

You're right Duff wasn't on the 64 Leafs. He was traded and the Cup was won because his role was easily replaceable. It doesn't change the fact that he's one of many O6 guys in the HHOF who are there by virtue of Cup counting. If half your team is in the hall, I would hope you dominated like the 52 Wings. Not the case in Toronto.

And if you remember the goalposts discussion, you'll see I've set them clearly. Can you answer the Bill James questions? Was Carbonneau ever consideered the best at his position? If he was the best player on a team, would they have a shot at a title?

blogofmike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2013, 12:09 AM
  #188
Morgoth Bauglir
Master Of The Fates
 
Morgoth Bauglir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Angband via Utumno
Posts: 3,599
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blogofmike View Post
Your bias towards defensive forwards is clear. Just because Carbonneau was one-dimensional doesn't mean he was supposed to be. His overall value must be below Selke winners who were prolific scorers. That's why Doug Gilmour got Hart votes and AS votes. They could play exceptionally well at both ends of the ice. Given Carbonneau's lack of offensive output, he needs to be far ahead of Gilmour in that part of the game he played well. And if he's got a number of players who aren't in and deserve it more than he does, then he shouldn't get in.

So Roy was the best performance of his era. The best in three decades as opposed to Carbo's who was the best since the previous week. A once-in-a-decade performance vs limiting a man to scoring at the rate he scored at against average competition during the seaason.if Roy and Hrudey switch teams, the Cup goes to LA. If Carbo and Carson switch teams the Cup stays in Montreal.

You're right Duff wasn't on the 64 Leafs. He was traded and the Cup was won because his role was easily replaceable. It doesn't change the fact that he's one of many O6 guys in the HHOF who are there by virtue of Cup counting. If half your team is in the hall, I would hope you dominated like the 52 Wings. Not the case in Toronto.

And if you remember the goalposts discussion, you'll see I've set them clearly. Can you answer the Bill James questions? Was Carbonneau ever consideered the best at his position? If he was the best player on a team, would they have a shot at a title?
If you're going to use the "Bill James Questions" as the standard you should look at ALL the questions and not just a cherrypicked couple:


1. Was he ever regarded as the best player in baseball? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in baseball?

2. Was he the best player on his team?

3. Was he the best player in baseball at his position? Was he the best player in the league at his position?

4. Did he have an impact on a number of pennant races?

5. Was he a good enough player that he could continue to play regularly after passing his prime?

6. Is he the very best player in baseball history who is not in the Hall of Fame?

7. Are most players who have comparable career statistics in the Hall of Fame?

8. Do the player's numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?

9. Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics?

10. Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame but not in?

11. How many MVP-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an MVP award? If not, how many times was he close?

12. How many All-Star-type seasons did he have? How many All-Star games did he play in? Did most of the other players who played in this many go to the Hall of Fame?

13. If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win the pennant?

14. What impact did the player have on baseball history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he introduce any new equipment? Did he change the game in any way?

15. Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider?

Morgoth Bauglir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2013, 12:36 AM
  #189
blogofmike
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,035
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
If you're going to use the "Bill James Questions" as the standard you should look at ALL the questions and not just a cherrypicked couple:
Go ahead and answer them. He doesn't do very well.

blogofmike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2013, 06:11 AM
  #190
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 13,774
vCash: 500
The Data That Matters

Quote:
Originally Posted by blogofmike View Post
Your bias towards defensive forwards is clear. Just because Carbonneau was one-dimensional doesn't mean he was supposed to be. His overall value must be below Selke winners who were prolific scorers. That's why Doug Gilmour got Hart votes and AS votes. They could play exceptionally well at both ends of the ice. Given Carbonneau's lack of offensive output, he needs to be far ahead of Gilmour in that part of the game he played well. And if he's got a number of players who aren't in and deserve it more than he does, then he shouldn't get in.

So Roy was the best performance of his era. The best in three decades as opposed to Carbo's who was the best since the previous week. A once-in-a-decade performance vs limiting a man to scoring at the rate he scored at against average competition during the seaason.if Roy and Hrudey switch teams, the Cup goes to LA. If Carbo and Carson switch teams the Cup stays in Montreal.

You're right Duff wasn't on the 64 Leafs. He was traded and the Cup was won because his role was easily replaceable. It doesn't change the fact that he's one of many O6 guys in the HHOF who are there by virtue of Cup counting. If half your team is in the hall, I would hope you dominated like the 52 Wings. Not the case in Toronto.

And if you remember the goalposts discussion, you'll see I've set them clearly. Can you answer the Bill James questions? Was Carbonneau ever consideered the best at his position? If he was the best player on a team, would they have a shot at a title?
If you are going to accuse me of a bias, kindly get it right. Winning or understanding what it takes to win.

Roy's performance was not even the best of the era. Ed Belfour in 1999 and 2000 outperformed Roy in 1993. Stars lost the SC final in 2000 and took longer to win in 1999 because their offense was lacking. Career, Roy was a much better goalie than Belfour but ironically with an aging Carbonneau, Belfour put together two consecutive playoff runs that were superior to Roy in terms of consistency.

Carson for Carbonneau is a horrific trade for Montreal. Carson was a very poor skater who could not integrate a team(teams and linemates had to fit around or compensate for his limits). You seem to be numbers only oriented and that is not how hockey teams are built. See below.

Yet after the Canadiens acquired Dick Duff in the fall of 1964 they won four of the next five SCs, losing once in the 1967 final to the Leafs.Dick Duff was an excellent defensive LW who easily integrated a team. Would adjust to the LW role on each line whether centered by Beliveau, Henri Richard or Ralph Backstrom. Took the classic wide arc to the net, creating open ice for his linemates, equally comfortable as a lead or trailing winger on the rush yet defensively responsible in each role so he could be trusted to cover elite RWs like Howe.

Back to Guy Carbonneau. After he left neither the Canadiens or Stars made it to the SC finals let alone won. Gretzky for all his offensive skills never won the SC after leaving Edmonton with solid defensive forwards supporting him.

As for the Bill James questions, as illustrated previously the other sports with a clear distinction between offense and defense do not translate to hockey.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2013, 08:07 AM
  #191
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,842
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Bolded, you raise a very interesting issue. Let's examine it in the light of the 1993 playoffs focusing on the Canadiens and the Leafs.
.
.
.

As for the Gilmour / Carbonneau part of the discussion, the regular season and playoff scoring gives Doug Gilmour a big numerical edge but to what benefit? Perhaps a slight edge in the offensive zone times producing +3 goals over 21 vs 20 games yet a lower GPG, but a major difference when the puck leaves the offensive zone and enters the defensive zone. Better scoring opportunities and results for the opposition. The value difference between offense and defense is made up very quickly when results are considered fully.
You can't be seriously saying that, when you take a look at their respective supporting casts, Carbonneau closes a lot of this gap in their individual play:

Gilmour 21GP 10G 25A 35Pts +16
Carbonneau 20GP 3G 3A 6Pts +2

You're not actually trying to say that, are you?

I have no problem with Carbonneau making it to the Hall ala Bob Gainey if they want to start recognizing great defensive forwards but some of the comparisons in this thread are bonkers crazy.

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2013, 08:39 AM
  #192
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,558
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blogofmike View Post
Go ahead and answer them. He doesn't do very well.
Basically this.

For a post that was supposed to help Carbo that one sure didn't help his case very much.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2013, 08:46 AM
  #193
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 13,774
vCash: 500
Benefit

Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
You can't be seriously saying that, when you take a look at their respective supporting casts, Carbonneau closes a lot of this gap in their individual play:

Gilmour 21GP 10G 25A 35Pts +16
Carbonneau 20GP 3G 3A 6Pts +2

You're not actually trying to say that, are you?

I have no problem with Carbonneau making it to the Hall ala Bob Gainey if they want to start recognizing great defensive forwards but some of the comparisons in this thread are bonkers crazy.
The benefit part of the statistics have to be considered whether you are looking at a series, a playoff collection of up to four series or a career.

1967 Dave Keon would be a prime example. By all the proposed measures in this thread, except mine and other traditionalists, he is closer to being benched then winning the SC and the Conn Smythe.

Supporting cast is an fluid concept that is not limited to the attributes of the top scorer on a team. It is about recognizing that the drink is usually stirred by a few players with distinct attributes.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2013, 09:29 AM
  #194
Morgoth Bauglir
Master Of The Fates
 
Morgoth Bauglir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Angband via Utumno
Posts: 3,599
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Basically this.

For a post that was supposed to help Carbo that one sure didn't help his case very much.
I'm not trying to help or hinder Carbonneau as I don't feel strongly one way or another about whether he gets in or not. I just find it disingenuous to cherrypick two questions off a fifteen question list and try to pass them off as the be-all and end-all.

Morgoth Bauglir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2013, 10:07 AM
  #195
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,842
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
The benefit part of the statistics have to be considered whether you are looking at a series, a playoff collection of up to four series or a career.
Just so we're clear about this... you're seriously trying to tell me that 1993 Guy Carbonneau was a more effective hockey player than 1993 Gilmour because Carbonneau's team won?

This is all beside the point of the thread but, frankly, pretty amazing to me.

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2013, 10:08 AM
  #196
blogofmike
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,035
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
If you are going to accuse me of a bias, kindly get it right. Winning or understanding what it takes to win.

Roy's performance was not even the best of the era. Ed Belfour in 1999 and 2000 outperformed Roy in 1993. Stars lost the SC final in 2000 and took longer to win in 1999 because their offense was lacking. Career, Roy was a much better goalie than Belfour but ironically with an aging Carbonneau, Belfour put together two consecutive playoff runs that were superior to Roy in terms of consistency.

Carson for Carbonneau is a horrific trade for Montreal. Carson was a very poor skater who could not integrate a team(teams and linemates had to fit around or compensate for his limits). You seem to be numbers only oriented and that is not how hockey teams are built. See below.

Yet after the Canadiens acquired Dick Duff in the fall of 1964 they won four of the next five SCs, losing once in the 1967 final to the Leafs.Dick Duff was an excellent defensive LW who easily integrated a team. Would adjust to the LW role on each line whether centered by Beliveau, Henri Richard or Ralph Backstrom. Took the classic wide arc to the net, creating open ice for his linemates, equally comfortable as a lead or trailing winger on the rush yet defensively responsible in each role so he could be trusted to cover elite RWs like Howe.

Back to Guy Carbonneau. After he left neither the Canadiens or Stars made it to the SC finals let alone won. Gretzky for all his offensive skills never won the SC after leaving Edmonton with solid defensive forwards supporting him.

As for the Bill James questions, as illustrated previously the other sports with a clear distinction between offense and defense do not translate to hockey.
That sounds like Cup counting.You've conflated team and individual accomplishments. Carbonneau played for winners, but that doesn't mean he had some innate sense of knowing how to win (or he had half as much as Kevin Lowe.)

I want to be glib and say Carbo could only win with generational goaltending behind him, but I'm sure you'd infer causality between Carbo and great goaltending. Given that the 99 Stars allowed ES goals at a lower rate when Carbonneau was off the ice, he can't really take credit. Also, Roy and Belfour had almost identical raw save percentages even though the average save percentage was better in 1999 and 2000. In terms of value, Roy is easily better than Belfour.

Forget Carbo for Carson. How about giving Carbo to the Kings straight up? For free. I still don't see LA beating Montreal. They'd be better off, and might win Game 4 without Carbo smothering the puck in the crease. But they wouldn't improve to the point where they'd win the Cup.

You overstate Carbonneau's value to Dallas in 1999. The Stars PK was just as good in the playoffs with Modano on the ice (it's better if you account for SHG). He had limited PP time, so Dallas not scoring in 3:41 of Carbo PP time isn't a big deal. In his 13.8 minutes of ES ice time per game, Dallas was less effective, dropping from 1.51 GF/GA (41:27) to a 0.875 GF/GA (7:8), giving Carbo and r-on/r-off of 0.576. Even in terms of goal prevention alone, Dallas allowed ES goals at a lower rate when Carbonneau was off the ice. His only value was as a penalty killer, and he wasn't better than the other top PK centre. Knowing Mike Modano should be on your team is not knowing how to win.

None of this is to say Carbonneau had no value. There just isn't enough to warrant HHOF induction. Plenty of players have made a positive contrbution to winning teams. Not all of them get in.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
You can't be seriously saying that, when you take a look at their respective supporting casts, Carbonneau closes a lot of this gap in their individual play:

Gilmour 21GP 10G 25A 35Pts +16
Carbonneau 20GP 3G 3A 6Pts +2

You're not actually trying to say that, are you?

I have no problem with Carbonneau making it to the Hall ala Bob Gainey if they want to start recognizing great defensive forwards but some of the comparisons in this thread are bonkers crazy.
Well clearly. C58 showed that the Stanley Cup Champions were better than a conference finalist, ergo, every Canadiens player is better than every Leafs player. Duh.

Don't worry BC. I think peak Gilmour was almost as good as peak Trottier, even if he didn't maintain that peak for as long.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
I'm not trying to help or hinder Carbonneau as I don't feel strongly one way or another about whether he gets in or not. I just find it disingenuous to cherrypick two questions off a fifteen question list and try to pass them off as the be-all and end-all.
I saw little point in seeing how often he was an MVP or All-Star, or if he introduced new equipment, but I see your point. Given the fact that some believe he was a Gilmour equivalent I really think the two I asked should be answered though.


Last edited by blogofmike: 07-30-2013 at 10:18 AM. Reason: Forgot to subtract Carbo from GA/GF. Don't worry it went down with edit.
blogofmike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2013, 10:26 AM
  #197
Pat Paeplow
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 187
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
If you're going to use the "Bill James Questions" as the standard you should look at ALL the questions and not just a cherrypicked couple:


1. Was he ever regarded as the best player in baseball? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in baseball?

2. Was he the best player on his team?

3. Was he the best player in baseball at his position? Was he the best player in the league at his position?

4. Did he have an impact on a number of pennant races?

5. Was he a good enough player that he could continue to play regularly after passing his prime?

6. Is he the very best player in baseball history who is not in the Hall of Fame?

7. Are most players who have comparable career statistics in the Hall of Fame?

8. Do the player's numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?

9. Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics?

10. Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame but not in?

11. How many MVP-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an MVP award? If not, how many times was he close?

12. How many All-Star-type seasons did he have? How many All-Star games did he play in? Did most of the other players who played in this many go to the Hall of Fame?

13. If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win the pennant?

14. What impact did the player have on baseball history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he introduce any new equipment? Did he change the game in any way?

15. Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider?

I like these guidelines. If the Hockey Hall of Fame limited induction to players of this calibre, I certainly wouldn't run my mouth about Guy Carbonneau.

However, the HHOF is nowhere near this selective. My guess would be that less than 15% of the current HHOF could withstand this level of scrutiny.

Pat Paeplow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2013, 10:46 AM
  #198
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 13,774
vCash: 500
Benefit or Effectiveness

Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
Just so we're clear about this... you're seriously trying to tell me that 1993 Guy Carbonneau was a more effective hockey player than 1993 Gilmour because Carbonneau's team won?

This is all beside the point of the thread but, frankly, pretty amazing to me.
No. You raised effectiveness. But the point still stands. Both benefit and effectiveness have to be considered.

Consider public school education in Canada. The marks that a student achieves may vary but the effectiveness and benefit each student retains is not a function of his ranking either within a class, a school or however the group is defined. Nor is the student's benefit to the group or effectiveness within the group measured by the mark. Nor is the student's benefit to or effectiveness within society measured by the marks.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2013, 10:57 AM
  #199
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,842
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
No. You raised effectiveness. But the point still stands. Both benefit and effectiveness have to be considered.

Consider public school education in Canada. The marks that a student achieves may vary but the effectiveness and benefit each student retains is not a function of his ranking either within a class, a school or however the group is defined. Nor is the student's benefit to the group or effectiveness within the group measured by the mark. Nor is the student's benefit to or effectiveness within society measured by the marks.
So then what, exactly, are you trying to assert?

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-30-2013, 11:07 AM
  #200
struckbyaparkedcar
Zemgus Da Gawd
 
struckbyaparkedcar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Upstate NY
Country: Cote DIvoire
Posts: 13,784
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Most "lists" do in fact rank Carbo in the top 3 All Time behind Gainey & Dastyuk, ahead of such players as Gilmour, Trottier, Clarke, Fedorov, Nighbor & countless others. Older archived threads here on hf included. Id say case closed, give Guy his due, HHOF.
Is there an argument for Datsyuk as the second greatest defensive forward ever that doesn't largely rely on Selke counting?

Especially considering more people thought Richards/Kesler were the best defensive forwards in the league in 09 and 10 and Zetterberg has been repeatedly deployed as Detroit's actual checking center in playoff shutdown situations.

struckbyaparkedcar 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 05:09 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2016 All Rights Reserved.