HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Critiquing Carbonneau's 1992 Selke win with ESGA

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-29-2013, 11:51 PM
  #1
blogofmike
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 522
vCash: 500
Critiquing Carbonneau's 1992 Selke win with ESGA

(MOD: Moved these posts from the HOH Top 60 Centers of All-Time discussion thread - TDMM)

Using the fabled ESGA/GP metric (by which Fedorov's 1994 Selke should be "reviewed") we can see that Carbonneau's last Selke may have been reputation-based and need to be reviewed as well. Of the three players listed as 1992 Habs centres by hockeyreference who played full seasons:

Brent Gilchrist 79 games, 0.443 ESGA/game, .810 ESGF/game
Denis Savard 77 games, 0.597 ESGA/game, .675 ESGF/game
Guy Carbonneau 72 games, 0.653 ESGA/game, .681 ESGF/game

If anyone there wasn't actually a centre, the most likely alternate centre listed as a winger is Kirk Muller who also beats him at .551 ESGA/game and .744 ESGF/game.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 09-07-2013 at 02:23 PM.
blogofmike is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2013, 05:03 AM
  #2
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,755
vCash: 500
1991-92 Canadiens

Quote:
Originally Posted by blogofmike View Post
Using the fabled ESGA/GP metric (by which Fedorov's 1994 Selke should be "reviewed") we can see that Carbonneau's last Selke may have been reputation-based and need to be reviewed as well. Of the three players listed as 1992 Habs centres by hockeyreference who played full seasons:

Brent Gilchrist 79 games, 0.443 ESGA/game, .810 ESGF/game
Denis Savard 77 games, 0.597 ESGA/game, .675 ESGF/game
Guy Carbonneau 72 games, 0.653 ESGA/game, .681 ESGF/game

If anyone there wasn't actually a centre, the most likely alternate centre listed as a winger is Kirk Muller who also beats him at .551 ESGA/game and .744 ESGF/game.
Overlooking Stephan Lebeau who played center but is incorrectly listed at RW by H-R. Also Shayne Corson would flow thru at center depending on game circumstances and match-ups - need for a physical center. Corson is recognized on the boards as having played some center. The issue of H-R's accuracy at position listings has been covered lately.

Fact checking H-R, even briefly against the HSP yields evidence of the lines the 1991-92 Canadiens used. Including Brent Gilchrist playing on a line with Carbonneau as the center:

http://www.flyershistory.com/cgi-bin....cgi?H19910048

http://www.flyershistory.com/cgi-bin....cgi?H19910099

or Brent Gilchrist with Denis Savard as the center:

http://www.flyershistory.com/cgi-bin....cgi?H19910602

http://www.flyershistory.com/cgi-bin....cgi?H19910637

Stephan Lebeau was also the center in the PP rotation:

http://www.flyershistory.com/cgi-bin....cgi?H19910063

Also the various HSPs above show Muller playing LW. Suggest checking claims against at least two sources - H-R and the HSP data before proposing incomplete conclusions.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2013, 10:03 AM
  #3
blogofmike
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 522
vCash: 500
Perhaps it's simpler to throw out all the Habs forwards from 1992.

Player GP Points +/- Team GF Team PPGF Team GA Team PPGA ESGF/game ESGA/game
Jesse Belanger 4 0 -1 2 0 3 0 0.500 0.750
Shayne Corson 64 53 15 89 28 58 12 0.953 0.719
Guy Carbonneau 72 39 2 50 1 68 21 0.681 0.653
Denis Savard 77 70 6 92 40 51 5 0.675 0.597
Gilbert Dionne 39 34 7 48 18 23 0 0.769 0.590
Mike Keane 67 41 16 71 16 51 12 0.821 0.582
Kirk Muller 78 77 15 101 43 59 16 0.744 0.551
Michael Mcphee 78 31 6 47 1 47 7 0.590 0.513
Vladimir Vujtek 2 0 -1 0 0 1 0 0.000 0.500
Russ Courtnall 27 21 6 21 2 19 6 0.704 0.481
Brent Gilchrist 79 50 29 75 11 55 20 0.810 0.443
Brian Skrudland 42 6 -4 14 0 29 11 0.333 0.429
Stephan Lebeau 77 58 18 81 31 34 2 0.649 0.416
Chris Nilan 17 4 -1 6 0 7 0 0.353 0.412
Sylvain Turgeon 56 20 -4 42 26 21 1 0.286 0.357
John Leclair 59 19 5 26 4 17 0 0.373 0.288
Benoit Brunet 18 10 4 15 6 5 0 0.500 0.278
Paul Di Pietro 33 10 5 13 0 8 0 0.394 0.242
Todd Ewen 46 3 3 6 0 4 1 0.130 0.065
Mario Roberge 20 3 3 4 0 1 0 0.200 0.050
Edward Ronan 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Assigning defensive value by position out of /10 - goalie. 2 dmen/ 3 forwards. Doubtful that any forward makes the NHL if his value is lower than an 8/10, dman if it is lower than 9/10. Goalies would be 9+/10. Exclusive fighters not considered, so you would be looking at the 52/60 range for any given 6 man unit. That is low end defensively. Elite team, over 54/60, minimum 9/10 across the board.

On the other hand low end offensively skilled skaters - Hal Gill, Travis Moen manage to endure.

Even the amount of actual offense that is generated during a 60 minute game is a small percentage of game time. Total 70 shot, 10 goal game might have upwards of 10 minutes of offense. The rest of the time defense prevails.
As for what is captured by the available statistics the answer is twofold.

First what is captured and what is looked at or interpreted is a question of individual interest and inclination. What grabs the attention and sells.

Second aspect is doing the exhaustive research. Getting all the details and comparisons that allow the defensive nuances to surface. What makes the actual difference in performance.
Bolded would suggest offense is at a premium and therefore more valuable. If defense prevails by default, what's the marginal gain between Guy Carbonneau and Brian Skrudland?

blogofmike is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2013, 12:52 PM
  #4
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,755
vCash: 500
I See

Quote:
Originally Posted by blogofmike View Post

Bolded would suggest offense is at a premium and therefore more valuable. If defense prevails by default, what's the marginal gain between Guy Carbonneau and Brian Skrudland?
The reasoning finally surfaces.

Offense is more valuable because there is so little of it. This of course supports my point that players play defense an overwhelming majority of the time at least 80%, over 90% on elite teams.

As for marginal gain - threefold answer. One Guy Carbonneau and Brian Skrudland were not competing, rather they were part of an effort against the opposition. Two the defensive effort of a team aims to reduce the offensive efforts of a specific opponent not an abstract, an average or a benchmark. Three, the marginal gain is measured by the result, singular and cumulative vs the opponents.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2013, 01:38 PM
  #5
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,112
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blogofmike View Post
Perhaps it's simpler to throw out all the Habs forwards from 1992.

Player GP Points +/- Team GF Team PPGF Team GA Team PPGA ESGF/game ESGA/game
Jesse Belanger 4 0 -1 2 0 3 0 0.500 0.750
Shayne Corson 64 53 15 89 28 58 12 0.953 0.719
Guy Carbonneau 72 39 2 50 1 68 21 0.681 0.653
Denis Savard 77 70 6 92 40 51 5 0.675 0.597
Gilbert Dionne 39 34 7 48 18 23 0 0.769 0.590
Mike Keane 67 41 16 71 16 51 12 0.821 0.582
Kirk Muller 78 77 15 101 43 59 16 0.744 0.551
Michael Mcphee 78 31 6 47 1 47 7 0.590 0.513
Vladimir Vujtek 2 0 -1 0 0 1 0 0.000 0.500
Russ Courtnall 27 21 6 21 2 19 6 0.704 0.481
Brent Gilchrist 79 50 29 75 11 55 20 0.810 0.443
Brian Skrudland 42 6 -4 14 0 29 11 0.333 0.429
Stephan Lebeau 77 58 18 81 31 34 2 0.649 0.416
Chris Nilan 17 4 -1 6 0 7 0 0.353 0.412
Sylvain Turgeon 56 20 -4 42 26 21 1 0.286 0.357
John Leclair 59 19 5 26 4 17 0 0.373 0.288
Benoit Brunet 18 10 4 15 6 5 0 0.500 0.278
Paul Di Pietro 33 10 5 13 0 8 0 0.394 0.242
Todd Ewen 46 3 3 6 0 4 1 0.130 0.065
Mario Roberge 20 3 3 4 0 1 0 0.200 0.050
Edward Ronan 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000



Bolded would suggest offense is at a premium and therefore more valuable. If defense prevails by default, what's the marginal gain between Guy Carbonneau and Brian Skrudland?
I'm really not sure what your angle is here. Are you actually trying to show that Carbonneau's 1992 season wasn't as great as everyone thought it was? Or are you trying to show that looking at ESGA/game without context is a terrible way of judging anything?

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2013, 02:20 PM
  #6
blogofmike
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 522
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
The reasoning finally surfaces.

Offense is more valuable because there is so little of it. This of course supports my point that players play defense an overwhelming majority of the time at least 80%, over 90% on elite teams.

As for marginal gain - threefold answer. One Guy Carbonneau and Brian Skrudland were not competing, rather they were part of an effort against the opposition. Two the defensive effort of a team aims to reduce the offensive efforts of a specific opponent not an abstract, an average or a benchmark. Three, the marginal gain is measured by the result, singular and cumulative vs the opponents.
You'll have to define the criteria for the numbers. Obviously "playing defense" goes beyond opposition possessions of the puck and creeps heavily into when your team has the puck, or else both teams can't be at 80%. My view of offense being at a premium is based on the vast majority of scoring chances failing to yield a goal, unlike basketball which has the opposite paradigm.

As for Carbonneau in 1992 vs Fedorov in 1994, where is the impact on the scoreboard relative to Carbo's teammates? You earlier said that Bowman was happier with the later traded Keith Primeau because he was more valuable defensively than Fedorov, who was retained despite a walkout for a decade. If the ESGA/game-based assertion that Primeau's defensive play was better than Fedorov's is true, must you not also assert that Lebeau was better than Carbonneau? Because it seems like every full-time Canadiens forward was better than Carbonneau at preventing goals (except Corson) and every full-time Habs forward had a better GF/GA ratio. So where is the value?

The goal may not be to beat a defensive benchmark, but it's a good way to measure defensive success. Since the Canadiens allowed an NHL-low 207 GA that year, Carbo probably got the nod based on reputation as the best known defensive forward on the best defensive team. 207 GA is even good by today's standards, so the Habs were great defensively in the 40-45 mins when when Carbo was off the ice and we certainly can't say the team's performance improved when he was on the ice. In fact, it got better when he was off the ice. The fact that a guy like Gilchrist played with Carbonneau makes the numbers more baffling. Because Gilchrist has very good offensive and defensive numbers, the Habs must have played MUCH better when Gilchrist was paired with others than when Carbo was paired with others.

As an individual player, Carbonneau's overall value was not great. By defensive value, his success in goal prevention is questionable. He did benefit greatly from playing for great defensive teams, that remained great when he was off the ice. Carbo logged a lot of PK time and could deserve some credit for a great PK, but the surprising thing is that Montreal had an average PK unit finishing 10th out of 22 teams. In 1992 at least, it's doubtful Carbonneau would have won the Selke had he played on a merely above average defensive team and wasn't an established Selke-winner.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I'm really not sure what your angle is here. Are you actually trying to show that Carbonneau's 1992 season wasn't as great as everyone thought it was? Or are you trying to show that looking at ESGA/game without context is a terrible way of judging anything?
Mostly the second one. I dislike that stat.

The first one, only as far as the bolded statement above goes. Selke voting can be a strange thing sometimes.

blogofmike is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2013, 03:09 PM
  #7
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,755
vCash: 500
False Assumptions

Quote:
Originally Posted by blogofmike View Post
You'll have to define the criteria for the numbers. Obviously "playing defense" goes beyond opposition possessions of the puck and creeps heavily into when your team has the puck, or else both teams can't be at 80%. My view of offense being at a premium is based on the vast majority of scoring chances failing to yield a goal, unlike basketball which has the opposite paradigm.

As for Carbonneau in 1992 vs Fedorov in 1994, where is the impact on the scoreboard relative to Carbo's teammates? You earlier said that Bowman was happier with the later traded Keith Primeau because he was more valuable defensively than Fedorov, who was retained despite a walkout for a decade. If the ESGA/game-based assertion that Primeau's defensive play was better than Fedorov's is true, must you not also assert that Lebeau was better than Carbonneau? Because it seems like every full-time Canadiens forward was better than Carbonneau at preventing goals (except Corson) and every full-time Habs forward had a better GF/GA ratio. So where is the value?

The goal may not be to beat a defensive benchmark, but it's a good way to measure defensive success. Since the Canadiens allowed an NHL-low 207 GA that year, Carbo probably got the nod based on reputation as the best known defensive forward on the best defensive team. 207 GA is even good by today's standards, so the Habs were great defensively in the 40-45 mins when when Carbo was off the ice and we certainly can't say the team's performance improved when he was on the ice. In fact, it got better when he was off the ice. The fact that a guy like Gilchrist played with Carbonneau makes the numbers more baffling. Because Gilchrist has very good offensive and defensive numbers, the Habs must have played MUCH better when Gilchrist was paired with others than when Carbo was paired with others.

As an individual player, Carbonneau's overall value was not great. By defensive value, his success in goal prevention is questionable. He did benefit greatly from playing for great defensive teams, that remained great when he was off the ice. Carbo logged a lot of PK time and could deserve some credit for a great PK, but the surprising thing is that Montreal had an average PK unit finishing 10th out of 22 teams. In 1992 at least, it's doubtful Carbonneau would have won the Selke had he played on a merely above average defensive team and wasn't an established Selke-winner.



Mostly the second one. I dislike that stat.

The first one, only as far as the bolded statement above goes. Selke voting can be a strange thing sometimes.
False assumptions you make.

First both teams can be over 80%. Each is graded out of 100 not the game being graded out of 100.

NBA has the opposite paradigm. Check the NBA defensive stats for the 2012-13 season:

http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/te...oalPctOpponent

Looks like the majority of field goal attempts were defended successfully by each team.

1992 Carbonneau was on for 47 ESGA in 72 Games or 47/72. Over an 80 game season this is app 52 ESGA in 80 games. or 52/80.

Now the team allowed 207 goals, the lowest figure in the NHL. Factor out 60 PPGA and 5 SHGA = 142 ESGA over 80 games or 142/80 and this includes the time when Carbonneau was on the ice. So when Carbonneau was off the ice they were far from great contrary to your claim. This is Carbonneau's value. Gilchrist's numbers derive from Carbonneau.

If the team was able to sustain Carbonneau's ESGA level of 52/80 then instead of 207 they allow 52 + 60 + 6 =117 GA/80 instead of 207/80. Looks like a big difference. 90 ESGA over 80 games is a very big difference.

I am not comparing Carbonneau 1992 to Fedorov 1994. You are. If you wish to compare the Red Wings 1994 ESGA to Primeau's and run the complete numbers as I did you will see the impact. Once Fedorov and Yzerman improved post 1994, trading Primeau in a deal for a key piece became viable.

As for the 1992 Selke, seems like the correct choice was made. The best defensive forward on the best defensive team.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2013, 04:02 PM
  #8
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,112
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blogofmike View Post

Mostly the second one. I dislike that stat.
Well yes, I really don't see why anyone would use ESGA/game when ESGA/60 is a superior metric that is also available. At least then you take the ice time variable out of the equation. Of course, there are still the variables of linemates, strength of opposition, and offensive/defensive zone starts. And it is still just a measure of even strength, while Guy was a fantastic penalty killer.

Quote:
The first one, only as far as the bolded statement above goes. Selke voting can be a strange thing sometimes.
Selke is definitely largely a reputation award, and it's pretty common that a veteran player would get more recognition than he necessarily "deserves." But wouldn't the same player then have gotten less recognition than he deserved as a younger player?

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2013, 11:52 AM
  #9
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,101
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Well yes, I really don't see why anyone would use ESGA/game when ESGA/60 is a superior metric that is also available. At least then you take the ice time variable out of the equation. Of course, there are still the variables of linemates, strength of opposition, and offensive/defensive zone starts. And it is still just a measure of even strength, while Guy was a fantastic penalty killer.
Agreed, the impact of line mates and PK support, ie goalie and Dmen also on the ice is something to consider.

For example the Habs allowed 60m PPGA on 320 PPG opportunities (which was quite low) in 92. The league average was 77 PPGA in 402.
The Habs PK efficiency was 81.25 marginally better than league average of 80.76.

Not really sure of how much of an impact above an average defensive replacement player Carbs really made on that team, like it's been stated before he was surrounded by many other good defensive players and they did have Roy in net, a goalie considered as a lock for one of the all time greats.



Quote:
Selke is definitely largely a reputation award, and it's pretty common that a veteran player would get more recognition than he necessarily "deserves." But wouldn't the same player then have gotten less recognition than he deserved as a younger player?
the first part is generally true but Carbs also benefits of looking as good or better than a guy like Gainey who was getting reputation Selke votes when the 2 guys careers overlapped.

that and playing in the east and in Montreal where legends can grow larger than say in San Jose could have spared Carbs the generally less recognition of younger players.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-01-2013, 05:08 PM
  #10
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,632
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I'm really not sure what your angle is here. Are you actually trying to show that Carbonneau's 1992 season wasn't as great as everyone thought it was? Or are you trying to show that looking at ESGA/game without context is a terrible way of judging anything?
Exactly... I'm sure if you look at any team like this you'll find the guy getting the tough matchups has defensive numbers that aren't sparkling.

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-04-2013, 04:43 PM
  #11
blogofmike
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 522
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
False assumptions you make.

First both teams can be over 80%. Each is graded out of 100 not the game being graded out of 100.
Sorry, but I think I was quite clear in saying that I was confused trying to figure out how one team spending 70% of their time on offense doesn't mean their opponent isn't spending 70% of their time on defense. I don't think I'm the only one who is unclear on this.

Quote:
NBA has the opposite paradigm. Check the NBA defensive stats for the 2012-13 season:

http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/te...oalPctOpponent

Looks like the majority of field goal attempts were defended successfully by each team.
FG% is misleading because of free throws which are often yielded from missed FGA. Which is why every team, even when 3-pointers are counted as 2-pointers to negate the influence of the extra point, surrenders more points than field goal attempts. By your chosen metric, a miss that yields free throws is an offensive failure, when it's actually the opposite.

In any event, stops are much rarer (and thus more valuable) in the NBA, no?

Quote:
1992 Carbonneau was on for 47 ESGA in 72 Games or 47/72. Over an 80 game season this is app 52 ESGA in 80 games. or 52/80.

Now the team allowed 207 goals, the lowest figure in the NHL. Factor out 60 PPGA and 5 SHGA = 142 ESGA over 80 games or 142/80 and this includes the time when Carbonneau was on the ice. So when Carbonneau was off the ice they were far from great contrary to your claim. This is Carbonneau's value. Gilchrist's numbers derive from Carbonneau.

If the team was able to sustain Carbonneau's ESGA level of 52/80 then instead of 207 they allow 52 + 60 + 6 =117 GA/80 instead of 207/80. Looks like a big difference. 90 ESGA over 80 games is a very big difference.
???

No amount of alcohol will convince me that Carbonneau's defense was worth 90 ESGA per season. The bolded part makes no mathematical sense.

The Canadiens were great defensively when anyone was on the ice. Hence the 207 GA in 1992. That being said ESGA was higher when Carbonneau was on the ice. Let's say he plays a third of ES time. That means if ESGA stays at the same level when he's off the ice, he has half as many ESGA as the rest of the team. He's clearly above half. If the team surrendered goals at the rate they did when Carbonneau was out there, that's 52 Carbo goals, + 104 in the other 2/3 of the game. 156+60+6 = 222. Which is worse than their actual performance...

Quote:
I am not comparing Carbonneau 1992 to Fedorov 1994. You are. If you wish to compare the Red Wings 1994 ESGA to Primeau's and run the complete numbers as I did you will see the impact. Once Fedorov and Yzerman improved post 1994, trading Primeau in a deal for a key piece became viable.

As for the 1992 Selke, seems like the correct choice was made. The best defensive forward on the best defensive team.
I did bring up this comparison, but only based on your assessments of each player. Why 1994 should be seen as one of Fedorov's worst defensive seasons and his Selke needs to be reviewed because of ESGA/game numbers, while Carbonneau's 1992 gets a pass for having an ESGA/game rate that is similar, relative to their team's defensive performances?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Well yes, I really don't see why anyone would use ESGA/game when ESGA/60 is a superior metric that is also available. At least then you take the ice time variable out of the equation. Of course, there are still the variables of linemates, strength of opposition, and offensive/defensive zone starts. And it is still just a measure of even strength, while Guy was a fantastic penalty killer.

Selke is definitely largely a reputation award, and it's pretty common that a veteran player would get more recognition than he necessarily "deserves." But wouldn't the same player then have gotten less recognition than he deserved as a younger player?
I fully agree on ESGA/game. And the variables. And the omission of PK time (the Habs weren't a great PK team in 1992 though.) Selke is largely reputation-based, but... http://www.hockey-reference.com/awards/selke.html. When sorted by age, we can see that young players can and have won this award. A lot. So it doesn't balance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Exactly... I'm sure if you look at any team like this you'll find the guy getting the tough matchups has defensive numbers that aren't sparkling.
That is a valid criticism of ESGA/gm. May have left out a dozen or so though.


Last edited by JeffMangum: 09-04-2013 at 04:56 PM.
blogofmike is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-04-2013, 08:26 PM
  #12
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,755
vCash: 500
The Actual On Ice Performance

Quote:
Originally Posted by blogofmike View Post
Sorry, but I think I was quite clear in saying that I was confused trying to figure out how one team spending 70% of their time on offense doesn't mean their opponent isn't spending 70% of their time on defense. I don't think I'm the only one who is unclear on this.

???

No amount of alcohol will convince me that Carbonneau's defense was worth 90 ESGA per season. The bolded part makes no mathematical sense.

The Canadiens were great defensively when anyone was on the ice. Hence the 207 GA in 1992. That being said ESGA was higher when Carbonneau was on the ice. Let's say he plays a third of ES time. That means if ESGA stays at the same level when he's off the ice, he has half as many ESGA as the rest of the team. He's clearly above half. If the team surrendered goals at the rate they did when Carbonneau was out there, that's 52 Carbo goals, + 104 in the other 2/3 of the game. 156+60+6 = 222. Which is worse than their actual performance...



I did bring up this comparison, but only based on your assessments of each player. Why 1994 should be seen as one of Fedorov's worst defensive seasons and his Selke needs to be reviewed because of ESGA/game numbers, while Carbonneau's 1992 gets a pass for having an ESGA/game rate that is similar, relative to their team's defensive performances?
Your 70%/70% analogy is not how hockey is played or evaluated.
Team and player performance is evaluated /100. The clear distinction that you wish to make between offence and defence does not exist in hockey. A skater - forward, winger playing his opposite winger, center opposite the center, defensemen filling their role are playing both offense and defense simultaneously. Each skater has the ability to play correct defense while putting himself into an advantageous offensive position.

You seem to have issues with the following:
__________________________________________________

1992 Carbonneau was on for 47 ESGA in 72 Games or 47/72. Over an 80 game season this is app 52 ESGA in 80 games. or 52/80.

Now the team allowed 207 goals, the lowest figure in the NHL. Factor out 60 PPGA and 5 SHGA = 142 ESGA over 80 games or 142/80 and this includes the time when Carbonneau was on the ice. So when Carbonneau was off the ice they were far from great contrary to your claim. This is Carbonneau's value. Gilchrist's numbers derive from Carbonneau.

If the team was able to sustain Carbonneau's ESGA level of 52/80 then instead of 207 they allow 52 + 60 + 6 =117 GA/80 instead of 207/80. Looks like a big difference. 90 ESGA over 80 games is a very big difference.
__________________________________________________ ____

Basically the issue is team defensive performance with vs without Carbonneau and by extension offensive performance.

Team Numbers

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/MTL/1992.html

HSP link for the 1991-92 Canadiens season

http://www.flyershistory.com/cgi-bin/hspgames.cgi

Your claim about Guy Carbonneau's alleged weak defense and the Canadiens "Great" defense is based on hypotheticals. Let's look at what actually happened in the eight games Guy Carbonneau missed.

Guy Carbonneau missed 7 games Jan 13 -29,1992 and the March 3, 1992 game, During those 8 games the Canadiens allowed 26 goals = 17 ESGA + 8 PPGA + 1 SHGA.They also scored 26 goals in these 8 games or 260 over the course of the season

This projects to a season where the team gives up 260 GA = 170 ESGA + 80 PPGA + 10 SHGA. Or 7th defensively in the league instead of first and 80PPGA vs 77PPGA - the league average whereas globally with Carbonneau(even missing 8 games) they were at 60PPGA. The Canadiens scored 267 goals, with Carbonneau and project to only 260 without, contradicting your view of his offensive contribution as well. So without Guy Carbonneau the 1991-92 Canadiens were a basic .500 team.

This is much more accurate and revealing than your hypothetical(s). Also trust this answers your Fedorov 1994 issue.


Last edited by Canadiens1958: 09-04-2013 at 09:09 PM.
Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2013, 01:10 AM
  #13
blogofmike
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 522
vCash: 500
Rhymes with Fample Fizes

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Your 70%/70% analogy is not how hockey is played or evaluated.
Team and player performance is evaluated /100. The clear distinction that you wish to make between offence and defence does not exist in hockey. A skater - forward, winger playing his opposite winger, center opposite the center, defensemen filling their role are playing both offense and defense simultaneously. Each skater has the ability to play correct defense while putting himself into an advantageous offensive position.

You seem to have issues with the following:
__________________________________________________

1992 Carbonneau was on for 47 ESGA in 72 Games or 47/72. Over an 80 game season this is app 52 ESGA in 80 games. or 52/80.

Now the team allowed 207 goals, the lowest figure in the NHL. Factor out 60 PPGA and 5 SHGA = 142 ESGA over 80 games or 142/80 and this includes the time when Carbonneau was on the ice. So when Carbonneau was off the ice they were far from great contrary to your claim. This is Carbonneau's value. Gilchrist's numbers derive from Carbonneau.

If the team was able to sustain Carbonneau's ESGA level of 52/80 then instead of 207 they allow 52 + 60 + 6 =117 GA/80 instead of 207/80. Looks like a big difference. 90 ESGA over 80 games is a very big difference.
__________________________________________________ ____

Basically the issue is team defensive performance with vs without Carbonneau and by extension offensive performance.

Team Numbers

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/MTL/1992.html

HSP link for the 1991-92 Canadiens season

http://www.flyershistory.com/cgi-bin/hspgames.cgi

Your claim about Guy Carbonneau's alleged weak defense and the Canadiens "Great" defense is based on hypotheticals. Let's look at what actually happened in the eight games Guy Carbonneau missed.

Guy Carbonneau missed 7 games Jan 13 -29,1992 and the March 3, 1992 game, During those 8 games the Canadiens allowed 26 goals = 17 ESGA + 8 PPGA + 1 SHGA.They also scored 26 goals in these 8 games or 260 over the course of the season

This projects to a season where the team gives up 260 GA = 170 ESGA + 80 PPGA + 10 SHGA. Or 7th defensively in the league instead of first and 80PPGA vs 77PPGA - the league average whereas globally with Carbonneau(even missing 8 games) they were at 60PPGA. The Canadiens scored 267 goals, with Carbonneau and project to only 260 without, contradicting your view of his offensive contribution as well. So without Guy Carbonneau the 1991-92 Canadiens were a basic .500 team.

This is much more accurate and revealing than your hypothetical(s). Also trust this answers your Fedorov 1994 issue.
So in response to my complaints about statistics of dubious relevance, you post more statistics of dubious relevance.

Let's run this method with another player:

Team Numbers: http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/EDM/1984.html
HSP: http://www.flyershistory.com/cgi-bin/hspgames.cgi

Wayne Gretzky missed 6 games in 1984 from February 3 to February 12. The Edmonton Oilers went 1-5 and were drubbed by a cumulative score of 38-19.

GF GF/gm GF/80 GA GA/gm GA/80
80 total games 446 5.5750 446 314 3.9250 314
74 with Gretzky 427 5.7703 461.6 276 3.7297 298.4
6 without Gretzky 19 3.1667 253.3 38 6.3333 506.7
Purported Impact 2.6036 208.3 -2.6036 -208.3

So Wayne Gretzky took what would have been the 20th best offense and made it the best of all time. He took what would have eclispsed the Capitals as the worst defense of all time, and turned it into the 10th best in the NHL. Surprisingly his defensive value matches his offensive value at 208 goals. Even more surprising is that his defensive value dwarfs anything Guy Carbonneau has ever done. And I didn't even mention the improvement in PPGF and PPGA Gretzky caused...

Accurate and revealing, no?

No?

No.

Well of course not. But it is just as accurate and revealing as your post on 1991-92 Guy Carbonneau, because it's the exact same method. Though this example does seem to be revealing something about the method, if not the actual players...




As for the 52/80 nonsense, you do realize that you're asking the Canadiens to never allow a goal when Carbonneau is off the ice, right? That's NOT maintaining his pace. You're basically saying that none of the 90 non-Carbo ESGA would have happened. My numbers were based on Carbo playing 20 of every 60 ES minutes, and the team's per minute GA remaining the same in the 40 minutes he was off the ice. That IS maintaining his pace.

1991-92 Canadiens Your Math Real Math Actual Performance
ESGA w/ Carbo on ice 52 52 52
ESGA w/ Carbo off ice 0 104 90
Total ESGA 52 156 142
Total GA (+60 PGA, 5 SH) 117 221 207

In short, the 0 in your math makes no sense. You take the 90 in the actual performance column and pretend it should be zero for reasons I cannot fathom, then claim that this is a measure of defensive value. I try to guess what the off-ice ESGA would be if Carbo's pace was maintained.

The Canadiens clearly allowed goals at a higher rate when Carbonneau was ON the ice. After all, his ESGA/gm is higher than almost every player on the team. There may be valid reasons for this that others have touched on, but these are also valid reasons for concluding that measuring individual performance by team GA will yield dubious results.

blogofmike is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2013, 06:43 AM
  #14
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,755
vCash: 500
Your Numbers

Quote:
Originally Posted by blogofmike View Post
So in response to my complaints about statistics of dubious relevance, you post more statistics of dubious relevance.

Let's run this method with another player:

Team Numbers: http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/EDM/1984.html
HSP: http://www.flyershistory.com/cgi-bin/hspgames.cgi

Wayne Gretzky missed 6 games in 1984 from February 3 to February 12. The Edmonton Oilers went 1-5 and were drubbed by a cumulative score of 38-19.

GF GF/gm GF/80 GA GA/gm GA/80
80 total games 446 5.5750 446 314 3.9250 314
74 with Gretzky 427 5.7703 461.6 276 3.7297 298.4
6 without Gretzky 19 3.1667 253.3 38 6.3333 506.7
Purported Impact 2.6036 208.3 -2.6036 -208.3

So Wayne Gretzky took what would have been the 20th best offense and made it the best of all time. He took what would have eclispsed the Capitals as the worst defense of all time, and turned it into the 10th best in the NHL. Surprisingly his defensive value matches his offensive value at 208 goals. Even more surprising is that his defensive value dwarfs anything Guy Carbonneau has ever done. And I didn't even mention the improvement in PPGF and PPGA Gretzky caused...

Accurate and revealing, no?

No?

No.

Well of course not. But it is just as accurate and revealing as your post on 1991-92 Guy Carbonneau, because it's the exact same method. Though this example does seem to be revealing something about the method, if not the actual players...




As for the 52/80 nonsense, you do realize that you're asking the Canadiens to never allow a goal when Carbonneau is off the ice, right? That's NOT maintaining his pace. You're basically saying that none of the 90 non-Carbo ESGA would have happened. My numbers were based on Carbo playing 20 of every 60 ES minutes, and the team's per minute GA remaining the same in the 40 minutes he was off the ice. That IS maintaining his pace.

1991-92 Canadiens Your Math Real Math Actual Performance
ESGA w/ Carbo on ice 52 52 52
ESGA w/ Carbo off ice 0 104 90
Total ESGA 52 156 142
Total GA (+60 PGA, 5 SH) 117 221 207

In short, the 0 in your math makes no sense. You take the 90 in the actual performance column and pretend it should be zero for reasons I cannot fathom, then claim that this is a measure of defensive value. I try to guess what the off-ice ESGA would be if Carbo's pace was maintained.

The Canadiens clearly allowed goals at a higher rate when Carbonneau was ON the ice. After all, his ESGA/gm is higher than almost every player on the team. There may be valid reasons for this that others have touched on, but these are also valid reasons for concluding that measuring individual performance by team GA will yield dubious results.
Your portrayal of the 1983-84 Gretzky scenario has a few obvious holes. Namely the within season nature of such data - the Capitals analogy does not fit this criteria. Did not happen in the 1983-84 season. Also you overlook the fact that the six games split 1H - Oilers only win, 5A - all loses. Not really representative of a hockey season which is balanced with an equal number of H and A games.

You then concoct an artificial situation for Guy Carbonneau a 60 min ES game when in fact during the 1991-92 season teams averaged app 5 PPO per game, so a typical game there would be slightly more than 10 PPO per game leaving about 40 actual ES minutes. Rather obvious flaw in your critique.

There seems to be a misunderstanding of the defensive role of a center on a team and the use of the 52/80 as a generator for the Montreal Canadiens center performance.

The Without Carbonneau Canadiens ESGA was 170/80, while with Carbonneau they were 142/80 yet you claim that with Carbonneau they were weaker defensively. This alone represents a 28 ESGA favourable to Carbonneau. Your entitlement to appreciate the math anyway you wish.

At various points you have alluded to match-ups but have avoided any analysis of specific match-ups. 1991-92 season Mario Lemieux's base stats 64 GP 44G 87A 131 PTS. Lemieux only played two games against Montreal matched against Guy Carbonneau, Lemieux scored 1G and 1A, Carbonneau scored 0G and 1A. Effectively reducing Mario Lemieux to a 64 GP 32A 32A 64PTS level, a striking difference. Yet the other Canadiens playing without Carbonneau allowed the Penguins 4-5 ES goals in the same two games.

So how are the other Canadiens, mainly the centers, so superior to Carbonneau defensively when there are two instances(Carbonneau's absence, vs Penguins with Lemieux) of them not getting the job done defensively?

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2013, 11:27 AM
  #15
blogofmike
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 522
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Your portrayal of the 1983-84 Gretzky scenario has a few obvious holes. Namely the within season nature of such data - the Capitals analogy does not fit this criteria. Did not happen in the 1983-84 season. Also you overlook the fact that the six games split 1H - Oilers only win, 5A - all loses. Not really representative of a hockey season which is balanced with an equal number of H and A games.
You can just use Oilers road games if you like, but it doesn't make using small sample sizes any more accurate. Given that the Oilers are breaking the single season GA record (it is fairly notable, even if the record is set another year) they're not getting worse with Gretzky.

Quote:
You then concoct an artificial situation for Guy Carbonneau a 60 min ES game when in fact during the 1991-92 season teams averaged app 5 PPO per game, so a typical game there would be slightly more than 10 PPO per game leaving about 40 actual ES minutes. Rather obvious flaw in your critique.
Flaw? That's how people measure things. PowerPlay goals per 60 minutes is a statistic people use to evaluate power plays. It's not meant to be representative of an actual game, because teams don't have 60 minute powerplays. However it gives you an idea of how effective teams with different PPo numbers are at the powerplay.

The obvious flaw with your numbers is that in 60 ES minutes, 40 ES minutes, or 3 ES minutes, Guy Carbonneau isn't playing half the minutes. He's playing a third of the minutes. The rest play the other two thirds. Two thirds being twice as much as one third, means he's expected to allow half as many GA if both are equal at GA prevention.

Quote:
There seems to be a misunderstanding of the defensive role of a center on a team and the use of the 52/80 as a generator for the Montreal Canadiens center performance.
No, it's any semblance of relevance of the ESGA/gm stat as an evaluative tool that I have trouble seeing.

Quote:
The Without Carbonneau Canadiens ESGA was 170/80, while with Carbonneau they were 142/80 yet you claim that with Carbonneau they were weaker defensively. This alone represents a 28 ESGA favourable to Carbonneau. Your entitlement to appreciate the math anyway you wish.
More misused numbers. At least you no longer say he's worth 90 ESGA that season. As a test I would suggest using Lebeau and doing your Carbo math with him. It will probably illustrate the weaknesses when it looks like Lebeau is a better defensive player.

Quote:
At various points you have alluded to match-ups but have avoided any analysis of specific match-ups. 1991-92 season Mario Lemieux's base stats 64 GP 44G 87A 131 PTS. Lemieux only played two games against Montreal matched against Guy Carbonneau, Lemieux scored 1G and 1A, Carbonneau scored 0G and 1A. Effectively reducing Mario Lemieux to a 64 GP 32A 32A 64PTS level, a striking difference. Yet the other Canadiens playing without Carbonneau allowed the Penguins 4-5 ES goals in the same two games.
By that same token, Gretzky went from 74GP, 30-90-121 to 74GP, 37-148-185. Jeremy Roenick goes from 53-50-103 to 0-160-160. Are those numbers any more meaningful?

Quote:
So how are the other Canadiens, mainly the centers, so superior to Carbonneau defensively when there are two instances(Carbonneau's absence, vs Penguins with Lemieux) of them not getting the job done defensively?
If you want to attach relevance to ESGA/gm, then it's because virtually all of them have better numbers.

If you choose to abandon small sample sizes and this flawed metric, you can make a legitimate case for Carbonneau. {MOD} Otherwise someone voting in this thing might actually believe these numbers mean something.


Last edited by Killion: 09-07-2013 at 12:20 PM. Reason: not required...
blogofmike is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2013, 01:58 AM
  #16
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,163
vCash: 500
So is the idea for this thread that Carboneau shouldn't have won the Selke and Fedorov should have in 1992? If this is 1992 I personally think the best defensive forward in the game would have been Carboneau by most. Wouldn't he of won it in 1990 if it was based off of reputation?

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2013, 06:54 AM
  #17
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,755
vCash: 500
1990

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
So is the idea for this thread that Carboneau shouldn't have won the Selke and Fedorov should have in 1992? If this is 1992 I personally think the best defensive forward in the game would have been Carboneau by most. Wouldn't he of won it in 1990 if it was based off of reputation?
1990, Guy Carbonneau missed 12 games.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2013, 01:46 PM
  #18
struckbyaparkedcar
Zemgus Da Gawd
 
struckbyaparkedcar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Upstate NY
Country: Cote DIvoire
Posts: 10,480
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
So is the idea for this thread that Carboneau shouldn't have won the Selke and Fedorov should have in 1992? If this is 1992 I personally think the best defensive forward in the game would have been Carboneau by most. Wouldn't he of won it in 1990 if it was based off of reputation?
No, it's that neither 92 Carbs or 94 Feds deserve their trophies if goal prevention is the best proxy for overall defensive performance.

Problem with *that* is that our data is too primitive without toi amounts, especially evaluating Fedorov during a year where he was likely double shifted and playing minutes more comparable to a top pairing defenseman. Ryan Callahan and Ryan McDonagh's GA/G and GA/60 figures from 11-12 do a good job of illustrating the effects of icetime on goal prevention metrics.

struckbyaparkedcar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2013, 02:19 PM
  #19
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,755
vCash: 500
Comparables

Quote:
Originally Posted by struckbyaparkedcar View Post
No, it's that neither 92 Carbs or 94 Feds deserve their trophies if goal prevention is the best proxy for overall defensive performance.

Problem with *that* is that our data is too primitive without toi amounts, especially evaluating Fedorov during a year where he was likely double shifted and playing minutes more comparable to a top pairing defenseman. Ryan Callahan and Ryan McDonagh's GA/G and GA/60 figures from 11-12 do a good job of illustrating the effects of icetime on goal prevention metrics.
Point is that 1992 Carbonneau was not as good defensively as 1988 or 1989 when he also won the Selke or 1990 when he was in the discussion for the Selke.

The other 1992 issue would be finding a more deserving Selke winner than Carbonneau.

Regardless, tracking match-ups from the start of Carbonneau's career going forward, we see why he was the #1 defensive center choice on the Canadiens and in the NHL from roughly 1986 - 1994.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2013, 02:58 PM
  #20
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,112
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Point is that 1992 Carbonneau was not as good defensively as 1988 or 1989 when he also won the Selke or 1990 when he was in the discussion for the Selke.

The other 1992 issue would be finding a more deserving Selke winner than Carbonneau.

Regardless, tracking match-ups from the start of Carbonneau's career going forward, we see why he was the #1 defensive center choice on the Canadiens and in the NHL from roughly 1986 - 1994.
Not that I think that total ESGA is particularly useful in comparing players, but if you don't think Carbs deserved the 1992 Selke, the obvious next choice would appear to be Fedorov. Feds actually got the most 1st place votes in 1992, but barely got any 2nd of 3rd place votes. Perhaps a lingering bias against the Soviets or their style of play? Or perhaps Feds played a flashier style that was caused some voters to overrate his impact?

Quote:
SELKE: Guy Carbonneau 160 (19-20-5); Sergei Fedorov 120 (22-3-1); Kelly Miller 70 (8-7-9); Brent Sutter 34 (1-8-5);Doug Gilmour 20 (2-3-1); Adam Graves 20 (2-3-1); Brent Gilchrist 18 (2-1-5); Steve Larmer 16 (2-2-0); Mark Messier 15 (3-0-0); Jeremy Roenick 15 (3-0-0); Craig MacTavish 15 (1-3-1); Paul Ysebaert 15 (1-3-1); Mike McPhee 13 (0-4-1); Kelly Buchberger 12 (0-1-9); Mike Ridley 10 (1-1-2); Claude Vilgrain 9 (0-2-3); Shawn Burr 8 (1-0-3); Gaetan Duchesne 8 (1-0-3); Kirk Muller 5 (0-1-2); Dirk Graham 5 (0-0-5); Doug Brown 4 (0-1-1); Dale Hunter 4 (0-1-1); Troy Murray 4 (0-1-1); Ulf Dahlen 3 (0-1-0); Claude Lemieux 3 (0-1-0); Bob Probert 3 (0-1-0); Joe Sakic 3 (0-1-0); Jan Erixon 2 (0-0-2); Bob Bassen 1 (0-0-1); Dimitri Khristich 1 (0-0-1); Ron Sutter 1 (0-0-1); Brian Propp 1 (0-0-1); Ed Olczyk 1 (0-0-1); Mike Eagles 1 (0-0-1); Mark Pederson 1 (0-0-1)

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2013, 03:08 PM
  #21
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,163
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
1990, Guy Carbonneau missed 12 games.
I suppose that tied into it

Quote:
Originally Posted by struckbyaparkedcar View Post
No, it's that neither 92 Carbs or 94 Feds deserve their trophies if goal prevention is the best proxy for overall defensive performance.

Problem with *that* is that our data is too primitive without toi amounts, especially evaluating Fedorov during a year where he was likely double shifted and playing minutes more comparable to a top pairing defenseman. Ryan Callahan and Ryan McDonagh's GA/G and GA/60 figures from 11-12 do a good job of illustrating the effects of icetime on goal prevention metrics.
I just think there is more to it than the numbers. You also have to take yourself back to that moment. Carboneau had just finished the 1992 season when the votes came in. We can look back in hindsight with the numbers but in the end it is only half of what you see on paper. The other half is the eye test, the situations he was put in, the match ups he faced, his performance late in games, etc.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2013, 04:09 PM
  #22
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,755
vCash: 500
1992 Comparables

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Not that I think that total ESGA is particularly useful in comparing players, but if you don't think Carbs deserved the 1992 Selke, the obvious next choice would appear to be Fedorov. Feds actually got the most 1st place votes in 1992, but barely got any 2nd of 3rd place votes. Perhaps a lingering bias against the Soviets or their style of play? Or perhaps Feds played a flashier style that was caused some voters to overrate his impact?
Not my claim at all. Just asked readers to submit an alternative to Guy Carbonneau in 1992.

You are suggesting Sergei Fedorov.

From the HSP project.

Head to head Canadiens were 3-0 against the Red Wings winning 4-1,4-3,4-1. Without elite offensive centers like Yzerman and Fedorov outscoring the Red Wings 12-5. Supports a view that Carbonneau was an integral part of getting the job done while Fedorov did not manage to perform as well defensively in these games.

Against Pittsburgh the Red Wings were 1-0-2, results 3-3,4-4, 4-3. Mario Lemieux in 2 games scored 1G + 3A = 4 PTS or a pace of 128/64 vs his 131/64. Against the Canadiens led by Carbonneau defensively at center Lemieux was on a 64/64 pace.

Sample space positions aside, that is how the games and season played out in 1992. Enough of a difference for Carbonneau to be named on 44 ballots to 26 for Fedorov which is significant given there were 69 ballots. Almost 2/3 voters say Carbonneau as a top 3 defensive forward while slightly over 1/3 saw Fedorov as a top 3 defensive forward.


Last edited by Canadiens1958: 09-09-2013 at 04:12 PM. Reason: phrasing
Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2013, 04:15 PM
  #23
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,163
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Not my claim at all. Just asked readers to submit an alternative to Guy Carbonneau in 1992.

You are suggesting Sergei Fedorov.

From the HSP project.

Head to head Canadiens were 3-0 against the Red Wings winning 4-1,4-3,4-1. Without elite offensive centers like Yzerman and Fedorov outscoring the Red Wings 12-5. Supports a view that Carbonneau was an integral part of getting the job done while Fedorov did not manage to perform as well defensively in these games.

Against Pittsburgh the Red Wings were 1-0-2, results 3-3,4-4, 4-3. Mario Lemieux in 2 games scored 1G + 3A = 4 PTS or a pace of 128/64 vs his 131/64. Against the Canadiens led by Carbonneau defensively at center Lemieux was on a 64/64 pace.

Sample space positions aside, that is how the games and season played out in 1992. Enough of a difference for Carbonneau to be named on 44 ballots to 26 for Fedorov which is significant given there were 69 ballots. Almost 2/3 voters say Carbonneau as a top 3 defensive forward while slightly over 1/3 saw Fedorov as a top 3 defensive forward.
Fair points. There is always more to look at. I would have picked Carboneau either way.

Big Phil 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 12:51 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.