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.

What is the knock against Gil Perreault?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-13-2009, 09:27 PM
  #26
Stonefly
Registered User
 
Stonefly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,032
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
I can accept this, but the fact is, these players achieved results very similar to Perreault's results, and in Hawerchuk's case, usually did so with far inferior linemates to what Perreault had.

How do you explain that he is one of seven 1000+ point scorers who didn't really help his team's goal differential?

How do you explain Hawerchuk and Sittler having basically the same offensive record (similar career totals, similar top-10, top-20 finishes, how they were regarded in award voting, etc) if he's way, way better? What did they do to achieve the same results as him? What didn't Perreault do?

I understand that you watched him and he looked great, but just looking better on the ice doesn't make you better.... does it?
Have you done Hawerchuk's stats breakdown? The even strength stuff in particular. If so could you please post it?

Stonefly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2009, 09:45 PM
  #27
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,833
vCash: 500
The Gilbert Perreault Hatchett Job

Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
I don't doubt the skills. Everything I've ever read and the little I've seen agrees that he was enormously talented and a joy to watch. The problem for me is that his results don't seem to match up to his reputation. If you or anyone else wants to defend Perreault's effectiveness, I'm all ears.



This makes sense to me as an explanation for a gap in skills and results. In my experience, players who aren't in top shape quickly lose effectiveness off the puck before their game with the puck declines. They can still summon the energy to explode with the puck when they have it. The thing they lose is the ability to consistently pressure the puck, win it, and keep the puck moving in the right direction and in the right end of the rink.
Overpass I am somewhat disappointed in you as usual you are more objective with a sense for fairness, while seventieslord is basically a paper hatchet man who uses adjusted stats to suit his adgenda as I will show.

The thread was started by one of our European posters who raised the issue of Gilbert Perreault talents from a European perspective, giving slight details about why he was impressed by Gilbert Perreault in International competition, supported by statements from European players who played against Gilbert Perreault.

Some facts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo...ial_Auditorium

if you read the history of the Buffalo Memorial Auditorium (The Aud) you will notice that towards the bottom mention is made of the FACT that the Aud had a smaller ice surface.

Now nowhere in their posts did Overpass or seventieslord take this into account or make adjustments for the smaller rink size. If they did not know this fact then their credentials as historians are questionable,if they knew about this fact and surpressed it ..........?

What was impressive about Gilbert Perreault coming out of junior was his speed and execution but his biggest asset was his lateral movement. The Europeans who played or watched hockey on an Olympic ice surface could appreciate this.The smaller Buffalo rink limited Perreault's offensive potential so comparing him with adjusted stats to others who were not limited in such a fashion is rather silly to say the least.

An analogy may be made to Bobby Orr who played half his games at the small Boston Garden. Yes Orr was a joy and a privilege to watch in Boston BUT he was incredible on the regulation rinks in Montreal and Toronto leaving everyone wondering how incredible the numbers would have been if he had played his home games on a standard NHL rink.

As for the hatchet job. seventies lord uses adjusted stats for players going back to the thirties. But are these adjusted stats complete? Lets see the adjustment for the complete league so it may be determined if a.) the adjustments actually balance. Remember the actual stats always balance, and b.) that the adjusted stats, if they do balance do not reveal something contradictory or deficient about another player as a result.

As for the agenda. Craig Ramsey was not part of the discussion but seventieslord who favours Ramsey, introduced him regardless. Fine.
But then you have to look at the impact of playing half the schedule in Buffalo had on Ramsey's game. The opposing player's were disadvantaged going into Buffalo since they were used to playing on a larger rink. Ramsey an average sized forward with speed but lacking physicality was used to playing on Buffalo's smaller rink and used it to his advantage to play tight defense. Ramsey's game did not translate as well to the larger surface where the opposition was not disadvantaged. Comparing defensive skills of Craig Ramsey with Bob Gainey is interesting but must account for the difference in home ice surface. Gainey could play elite defense on the standard rink surface AND on a smaller ice surface being especially effective in the compact Boston Garden.

Bringing this full circle. An attempt was made to compare the even strength offensive results of the Perreault line with the Luce line.In Buffalo the Perreault line was hampered in their ability to create even strength offense on the rush by the small ice surface. Conversely the Luce line was advantage in their ability to create offense from the forecheck at even strength. Perreualt was further disadvantaged on the powerplay in Buffalo because of the small ice surface.

Again if you are going to adjust then adjust for all relevent factors and adjust completely.

Doing a hatchett job on a HHOFer the caliber of Gilbert Perreault when the are blatant omissions is rather unfortunate.


Last edited by Canadiens1958: 09-13-2009 at 09:46 PM. Reason: addition
Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2009, 09:59 PM
  #28
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,513
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stonefly View Post
Have you done Hawerchuk's stats breakdown? The even strength stuff in particular. If so could you please post it?
Yes, I've done a stat breakdown for Hawerchuk

Player Year Seasons $ESGF/G $ESGA/G R-ON R-OFF XEV+/- EV+/- AEV+/- /82 SH% PP% $PPP/G $ESP/G
Dale Hawerchuk 82-88 6.99 0.94 0.94 1.00 0.88 -47 1 48 7 16% 1 0.42 0.74
Dale Hawerchuk 89-94 5.82 0.83 0.89 0.93 0.96 -13 -28 -15 -3 10% 1 0.47 0.61
Dale Hawerchuk 95-97 2.10 0.64 0.44 1.45 1.03 2 34 32 15 5% 1 0.32 0.47
Dale Hawerchuk 82-97 14.90 0.85 0.85 1.01 0.92 -58 7 65 4 12% 1 0.43 0.65

Hawerchuk's even strength results are difficult to compare with Perreault's, as Perreault played on a far better team. Compare the off-ice goal ratio for each in their prime - 1.39 for Perreault from 1974-75 to 1979-80, 0.88 for Hawerchuk from 1981-82 to 1987-88. Hawerchuk basically broke even on a weak team. I think those results are fairly similar, but this depends on specific strengths and weaknesses of the team as well. Perreault was a slightly better scorer at even strength - 0.79 points per game to Hawerchuk's 0.74 (adjusted for even strength scoring level). However, he had better linemates.

Hawerchuk's numbers were excellent in a reduced role in his three final seasons. I'm not sure to if this should be attributed to chance, defensive improvement, or a favourable situation. Much of his edge over Perreault in adjusted plus-minus (the numbers that seventieslord quoted) comes from these years.

Power play - Hawerchuk's numbers in his prime fall a little short of Perreault's, with 0.42 power play points per game (scoring adjusted) to Perreault's 0.48 in his prime. Hawerchuk did step up his power play scoring even as his even strength role was reduced in the late 80s, scoring 59 power play points in 1987-88 (3rd in the league), 56 in 1991-92 (2nd, and the top forward), and 52 in 1992-93 (9th). However, Hawerchuk didn't always combine his best even strength years with his best power play years, as some of his big years on the power play came after his move to the strong Buffalo power play with Lafontaine, Andreychuk, and Mogliny.

After a quick refresher on Hawerchuk's stats I would put Perreault ahead, but I don't see a big difference between the two in results.


Last edited by overpass: 09-13-2009 at 10:17 PM.
overpass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2009, 10:06 PM
  #29
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,513
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Overpass I am somewhat disappointed in you as usual you are more objective with a sense for fairness, while seventieslord is basically a paper hatchet man who uses adjusted stats to suit his adgenda as I will show.

The thread was started by one of our European posters who raised the issue of Gilbert Perreault talents from a European perspective, giving slight details about why he was impressed by Gilbert Perreault in International competition, supported by statements from European players who played against Gilbert Perreault.

Some facts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo...ial_Auditorium

if you read the history of the Buffalo Memorial Auditorium (The Aud) you will notice that towards the bottom mention is made of the FACT that the Aud had a smaller ice surface.

Now nowhere in their posts did Overpass or seventieslord take this into account or make adjustments for the smaller rink size. If they did not know this fact then their credentials as historians are questionable,if they knew about this fact and surpressed it ..........?

What was impressive about Gilbert Perreault coming out of junior was his speed and execution but his biggest asset was his lateral movement. The Europeans who played or watched hockey on an Olympic ice surface could appreciate this.The smaller Buffalo rink limited Perreault's offensive potential so comparing him with adjusted stats to others who were not limited in such a fashion is rather silly to say the least.

An analogy may be made to Bobby Orr who played half his games at the small Boston Garden. Yes Orr was a joy and a privilege to watch in Boston BUT he was incredible on the regulation rinks in Montreal and Toronto leaving everyone wondering how incredible the numbers would have been if he had played his home games on a standard NHL rink.

As for the hatchet job. seventies lord uses adjusted stats for players going back to the thirties. But are these adjusted stats complete? Lets see the adjustment for the complete league so it may be determined if a.) the adjustments actually balance. Remember the actual stats always balance, and b.) that the adjusted stats, if they do balance do not reveal something contradictory or deficient about another player as a result.

As for the agenda. Craig Ramsey was not part of the discussion but seventieslord who favours Ramsey, introduced him regardless. Fine.
But then you have to look at the impact of playing half the schedule in Buffalo had on Ramsey's game. The opposing player's were disadvantaged going into Buffalo since they were used to playing on a larger rink. Ramsey an average sized forward with speed but lacking physicality was used to playing on Buffalo's smaller rink and used it to his advantage to play tight defense. Ramsey's game did not translate as well to the larger surface where the opposition was not disadvantaged. Comparing defensive skills of Craig Ramsey with Bob Gainey is interesting but must account for the difference in home ice surface. Gainey could play elite defense on the standard rink surface AND on a smaller ice surface being especially effective in the compact Boston Garden.

Bringing this full circle. An attempt was made to compare the even strength offensive results of the Perreault line with the Luce line.In Buffalo the Perreault line was hampered in their ability to create even strength offense on the rush by the small ice surface. Conversely the Luce line was advantage in their ability to create offense from the forecheck at even strength. Perreualt was further disadvantaged on the powerplay in Buffalo because of the small ice surface.

Again if you are going to adjust then adjust for all relevent factors and adjust completely.

Doing a hatchett job on a HHOFer the caliber of Gilbert Perreault when the are blatant omissions is rather unfortunate.
Your point about rink size is a good one.

Whether an adjustment is needed for the smaller rink that Perreault played in depends on whether you are looking for ability or value. If you are correct about the effect of the smaller rink, Perreault provided less value to his teams than he could have in another rink, whether it was his fault or not. If you are interested in value, no adjustment is necessary. If you are interested in ability, then one is needed.

I do think that a player's ability to excel in different environments is relevant, so I take your point on this, and agree the smaller rink should be taken into account when evaluating Buffalo players. Maybe some day I'll run the home/road splits for Buffalo players of that era. While a full plus-minus breakdown probably isn't possible, the scoring stats could probably provide evidence for or against such an effect.

overpass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2009, 10:29 PM
  #30
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,833
vCash: 500
Smaller Rink Size

Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
Your point about rink size is a good one.

Whether an adjustment is needed for the smaller rink that Perreault played in depends on whether you are looking for ability or value. If you are correct about the effect of the smaller rink, Perreault provided less value to his teams than he could have in another rink, whether it was his fault or not. If you are interested in value, no adjustment is necessary. If you are interested in ability, then one is needed.

I do think that a player's ability to excel in different environments is relevant, so I take your point on this, and agree the smaller rink should be taken into account when evaluating Buffalo players. Maybe some day I'll run the home/road splits for Buffalo players of that era. While a full plus-minus breakdown probably isn't possible, the scoring stats could probably provide evidence for or against such an effect.
Actually there are three factors - ability, value and team/player performance. In all instance the small rink is a negative.

The seminal question was simply about ability. Bobby Orr after all was just as valuable to the Bruins on the small Boston rink as he was on the regulation sized rinks elsewhere. Team player performance is where the home team with the smaller rink gets short changed. Simply the constant adjustments from home to away preclude getting into the flow that is necessary to perform at a constant level.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2009, 10:37 PM
  #31
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,829
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stonefly View Post
Have you done Hawerchuk's stats breakdown? The even strength stuff in particular. If so could you please post it?
Like the stuff I did above? Sure, here it is:

Goals, then assists:

Top-2 Top-5 Top-10 Top-15 Top-20 Top-2 Top-5 Top-10 Top-15 Top-20
Perreault 0 0 4 5 6 0 3 5 8
Hawerchuk 0 0 3 5 6 0 3 5 8
Sittler 0 0 3 6 9 1 1 2 6
D.Savard 0 0 1 3 3 1 3 5 6

Almost identical.

Three things that affect these results:

- The presence of statistical nightmares Gretzky and Lemieux (this made it harder on Hawerchuk and Savard but didn't really affect Sittler or Perreault)
- Many of the world's top forwards were in europe during the primes of all these players
- Some potential top scorers were in the WHA, they could have made the leaderboards a few times (this made it slightly easier on Perreault and Sittler)

Even strength adjusted +/-:

Savard: +141
Hawerchuk: +72
Sittler: +48
Perreault: -6

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2009, 10:39 PM
  #32
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,829
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pappyline View Post
My eyes tell me he was significantly better. Simple as that
How do you explain that he is one of seven 1000+ point scorers who didn't really help his team's goal differential?

How do you explain Hawerchuk and Sittler having basically the same offensive record (similar career totals, similar top-10, top-20 finishes, how they were regarded in award voting, etc) if he's way, way better? What did they do to achieve the same results as him? What didn't Perreault do?

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2009, 10:40 PM
  #33
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,829
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stonefly View Post
I am in complete agreement with your thoughts on Perreault. Perreault = Sittler? Perreault had more talent in his big toe than Sittler had in his whole body.
Sittler made up for it somehow, then, didn't he? Because his offensive accomplishments are every bit as good as those of Perreault.

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2009, 10:41 PM
  #34
NOTENOUGHBREWER
Registered User
 
NOTENOUGHBREWER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 8,673
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pappyline View Post
Stats, stats, Stats. seventies & overpass have done a hatchet job on Gilbert based on stats. In their opinion stats bring him down to the Sittler/ Hawerchuk level. I saw the entire career of these guys & perrault was way way above those guys. One of the most skilled players I have had the privelege of watching over the last 50 years. Sure when you haven't seen a guy play maybe you have to use stats as a rating although I tend to go more with written descriptions. I hope there are some others out there who actually saw these guys play will come to Perrault's defense.
How would you compare him to Stastny?

NOTENOUGHBREWER is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2009, 10:51 PM
  #35
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,829
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Overpass I am somewhat disappointed in you as usual you are more objective with a sense for fairness, while seventieslord is basically a paper hatchet man who uses adjusted stats to suit his adgenda as I will show.


Quote:
if you read the history of the Buffalo Memorial Auditorium (The Aud) you will notice that towards the bottom mention is made of the FACT that the Aud had a smaller ice surface.

Now nowhere in their posts did Overpass or seventieslord take this into account or make adjustments for the smaller rink size. If they did not know this fact then their credentials as historians are questionable,if they knew about this fact and surpressed it ..........?
Yep, we all know nothing and you know everything.


Quote:
What was impressive about Gilbert Perreault coming out of junior was his speed and execution but his biggest asset was his lateral movement. The Europeans who played or watched hockey on an Olympic ice surface could appreciate this.The smaller Buffalo rink limited Perreault's offensive potential so comparing him with adjusted stats to others who were not limited in such a fashion is rather silly to say the least.
The only adjusted stat I used was Overpass' adjusted +/-. I fail to see how anyone in Buffalo would be affected by it. If it's easier to defend, it should be easier for your opponent to defend against you. If it's harder to score, it should be harder for your opponent to score. coaches aren't idiots.

As for offensive numbers, that is all conjecture until you prove it to me.

Quote:
As for the hatchet job. seventies lord uses adjusted stats for players going back to the thirties. But are these adjusted stats complete? Lets see the adjustment for the complete league so it may be determined if a.) the adjustments actually balance. Remember the actual stats always balance, and b.) that the adjusted stats, if they do balance do not reveal something contradictory or deficient about another player as a result.
I don't even know what you mean. The only thing I mentioned going back to the 1930s was a player's placement on the leaderboard in goals or assists. Does it "balance"? I'm not sure how to answer this. Were 10 players in the top-10? Yes.

Quote:
As for the agenda. Craig Ramsey was not part of the discussion but seventieslord who favours Ramsey, introduced him regardless. Fine.
But then you have to look at the impact of playing half the schedule in Buffalo had on Ramsey's game. The opposing player's were disadvantaged going into Buffalo since they were used to playing on a larger rink. Ramsey an average sized forward with speed but lacking physicality was used to playing on Buffalo's smaller rink and used it to his advantage to play tight defense. Ramsey's game did not translate as well to the larger surface where the opposition was not disadvantaged.
As I said, the disadvantage should go both ways. And if you want to claim Ramsay wasn't as good on the road, you'll have to prove it. Use the game sheets at the HSP. Keep in mind that a small dropoff is to be expected; you'll need to show a large dropoff.

Quote:
Bringing this full circle. An attempt was made to compare the even strength offensive results of the Perreault line with the Luce line.In Buffalo the Perreault line was hampered in their ability to create even strength offense on the rush by the small ice surface. Conversely the Luce line was advantage in their ability to create offense from the forecheck at even strength. Perreualt was further disadvantaged on the powerplay in Buffalo because of the small ice surface.
.....but on larger ice (in other arenas) it was like night and day! Perreault and his line flew like the wind and scored massive amounts of goals, and Ramsay's line looked lost and could no longer effectively retrieve the puck on the forecheck!!!

Right?

Regardless, the team played 50% of their games there and 50% of their games elsewhere. The Ramsay line had a far better goal differential under the same conditions.

Besides, great players adjust, right? Sounds like something you'd say.

Quote:
Doing a hatchett job on a HHOFer the caliber of Gilbert Perreault when the are blatant omissions is rather unfortunate.
Keep in mind that every player in this comparison is either in the HHOF, or should be.

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2009, 11:01 PM
  #36
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,833
vCash: 500
The Aud

Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
Yes, I've done a stat breakdown for Hawerchuk

Player Year Seasons $ESGF/G $ESGA/G R-ON R-OFF XEV+/- EV+/- AEV+/- /82 SH% PP% $PPP/G $ESP/G
Dale Hawerchuk 82-88 6.99 0.94 0.94 1.00 0.88 -47 1 48 7 16% 1 0.42 0.74
Dale Hawerchuk 89-94 5.82 0.83 0.89 0.93 0.96 -13 -28 -15 -3 10% 1 0.47 0.61
Dale Hawerchuk 95-97 2.10 0.64 0.44 1.45 1.03 2 34 32 15 5% 1 0.32 0.47
Dale Hawerchuk 82-97 14.90 0.85 0.85 1.01 0.92 -58 7 65 4 12% 1 0.43 0.65

Hawerchuk's even strength results are difficult to compare with Perreault's, as Perreault played on a far better team. Compare the off-ice goal ratio for each in their prime - 1.39 for Perreault from 1974-75 to 1979-80, 0.88 for Hawerchuk from 1981-82 to 1987-88. Hawerchuk basically broke even on a weak team. I think those results are fairly similar, but this depends on specific strengths and weaknesses of the team as well. Perreault was a slightly better scorer at even strength - 0.79 points per game to Hawerchuk's 0.74 (adjusted for even strength scoring level). However, he had better linemates.

Hawerchuk's numbers were excellent in a reduced role in his three final seasons. I'm not sure to if this should be attributed to chance, defensive improvement, or a favourable situation. Much of his edge over Perreault in adjusted plus-minus (the numbers that seventieslord quoted) comes from these years.

Power play - Hawerchuk's numbers in his prime fall a little short of Perreault's, with 0.42 power play points per game (scoring adjusted) to Perreault's 0.48 in his prime. Hawerchuk did step up his power play scoring even as his even strength role was reduced in the late 80s, scoring 59 power play points in 1987-88 (3rd in the league), 56 in 1991-92 (2nd, and the top forward), and 52 in 1992-93 (9th). However, Hawerchuk didn't always combine his best even strength years with his best power play years, as some of his big years on the power play came after his move to the strong Buffalo power play with Lafontaine, Andreychuk, and Mogliny.

After a quick refresher on Hawerchuk's stats I would put Perreault ahead, but I don't see a big difference between the two in results.
First bear in mind that Gilbert Perreault was not the same player after his leg injury, suffered in the 1981 Canada Cup.

Also if you look at Dale Hawerchuk's stats after he was trade to the Sabres entering his prime circa 1990 you will notice that his stats became constrained since the movement in his offensive game was reduced by the smaller ice surface at The Aud. The 1992-93 season, an expansion year which produced unsually high point totals did not impact Hawerchuk's point totals favourably.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...hawerda01.html

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2009, 11:09 PM
  #37
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,829
vCash: 500
Hawerchuk had 1.14 PPG in the two seasons before he went to Buffalo. He then had 1.16 PPG in the next four seasons as a Sabre.

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2009, 11:25 PM
  #38
Stonefly
Registered User
 
Stonefly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,032
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Sittler made up for it somehow, then, didn't he? Because his offensive accomplishments are every bit as good as those of Perreault.
Possibly but from the coaches polls posted recently Sittler doesn't ever appear. Though a certain defenceman does who most certainly benefitted Sittler.
Perreault appears in all of them.

Here's a question for you. There are two players whose accomplishments are pretty much identical. One of those players has to work hard for his accomplishments where the other is a natural talent who makes it seem easy. Which player is the better hockey player?

Stonefly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2009, 11:37 PM
  #39
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,829
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stonefly View Post
Possibly but from the coaches polls posted recently Sittler doesn't ever appear. Though a certain defenceman does who most certainly benefitted Sittler.
Perreault appears in all of them.

Here's a question for you. There are two players whose accomplishments are pretty much identical. One of those players has to work hard for his accomplishments where the other is a natural talent who makes it seem easy. Which player is the better hockey player?
Same accomplishments, same results = equal AFAIC.

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2009, 11:40 PM
  #40
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,833
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post




Yep, we all know nothing and you know everything.




The only adjusted stat I used was Overpass' adjusted +/-. I fail to see how anyone in Buffalo would be affected by it. If it's easier to defend, it should be easier for your opponent to defend against you. If it's harder to score, it should be harder for your opponent to score. coaches aren't idiots.

As for offensive numbers, that is all conjecture until you prove it to me.



I don't even know what you mean. The only thing I mentioned going back to the 1930s was a player's placement on the leaderboard in goals or assists. Does it "balance"? I'm not sure how to answer this. Were 10 players in the top-10? Yes.



As I said, the disadvantage should go both ways. And if you want to claim Ramsay wasn't as good on the road, you'll have to prove it. Use the game sheets at the HSP. Keep in mind that a small dropoff is to be expected; you'll need to show a large dropoff.



.....but on larger ice (in other arenas) it was like night and day! Perreault and his line flew like the wind and scored massive amounts of goals, and Ramsay's line looked lost and could no longer effectively retrieve the puck on the forecheck!!!

Right?

Regardless, the team played 50% of their games there and 50% of their games elsewhere. The Ramsay line had a far better goal differential under the same conditions.

Besides, great players adjust, right? Sounds like something you'd say.



Keep in mind that every player in this comparison is either in the HHOF, or should be.
Simply on a smaller rink the angles change. On a shorter rink one of the zones is shorter/smaller.

The visiting team to a smaller rink has to make a one game adjustment in their forechecking angles, their offensive and defensive schemes while the defensemen have to adjust their on ice positioning since their reference points are not the same. Likewise the visiting goalie has to adjust his reference points. There are numerous other differences as well.Those reading the thread that have played hockey obviously understood and adjusted their comments and opinions, while you did not.Your loss.

You made the initial claims without making adjustments for rink size.That the Buffalo Memorial Auditorium was a smaller than regulation rink is a historical, stand alone fact, which you do not dispute. You presented data without accounting for a basic fact, so it is up to you to make the necessary adjustments/corrections in your presentation before anyone will consider it as worthy of rebuttal. Once done, we might revisit the discussion until then no further debate.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2009, 11:48 PM
  #41
Stonefly
Registered User
 
Stonefly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,032
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Same accomplishments, same results = equal AFAIC.
Which one would a GM or coach rather have?

Stonefly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2009, 11:51 PM
  #42
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,829
vCash: 500
Your claims regarding the effects of the rink size are completely unproven. You are free to prove this, and once you have, I will be glad to adjust my position. As it stands right now, my position is that you are grossly overstating the effects of the smaller rink.

Besides, great players are supposed to adjust to these things, right? If they're the best, they'll be the best on any sheet of ice. Or so one would think.

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2009, 12:04 AM
  #43
arrbez
bad chi
 
arrbez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,611
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to arrbez
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stonefly View Post
Which one would a GM or coach rather have?
If you know for a fact that they'll produce the exact same, you probably go with the guy who's working harder (or at least looks like it), don't you?

arrbez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2009, 12:05 AM
  #44
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,829
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stonefly View Post
Which one would a GM or coach rather have?
Honestly, probably the one with the contagious work ethic.

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2009, 12:13 AM
  #45
Stonefly
Registered User
 
Stonefly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,032
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arrbez View Post
If you know for a fact that they'll produce the exact same, you probably go with the guy who's working harder (or at least looks like it), don't you?
No. Who would the fans rather watch?

Stonefly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2009, 12:17 AM
  #46
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,829
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stonefly View Post
No. Who would the fans rather watch?
That's a major consideration? I would think icing a winning team would be the #1 goal.

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2009, 12:25 AM
  #47
Stonefly
Registered User
 
Stonefly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,032
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
That's a major consideration? I would think icing a winning team would be the #1 goal.
You're forgetting the part about the two players producing the same results.

Stonefly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2009, 12:37 AM
  #48
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,833
vCash: 500
Geometry and Physics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Your claims regarding the effects of the rink size are completely unproven. You are free to prove this, and once you have, I will be glad to adjust my position. As it stands right now, my position is that you are grossly overstating the effects of the smaller rink.

Besides, great players are supposed to adjust to these things, right? If they're the best, they'll be the best on any sheet of ice. Or so one would think.
Simple geometry and physics.

Get three sheets of paper and to scale draw an Olympic sized rink on one, a regulation NHL rink on another and a smaller rink say 5-10% shorter and narrower on the third.Position the nets and markings accordingly.

If you have a wide and a narrow funnel each tapering to the same diameter keep them handy. If you don't and want to buy a couple go to a Dollarama.

Do the geometry of positioning players, using the various on ice reference points on each sheet and then look at how the angles to the net, to the corners, outlet passes etc are impacted as you go from the largest to the smallest rink.

In Montreal coaches use similar explanations to teach novice/atom aged kids(under 10) the nuances of playing on the various sized rinks available. The Maurice Richard is Olympic sized, some are NHL regulation and some are smaller plus you have the reduced 3 on 3 complex. The kids grasp the differences very quickly.

The funnels will illustrate how the angles change if viewed from a goalies or defensive end perspective.

In most communities with multiple rinks for youth hockey there are
differences in sizes. Visit the arenas with different sized rinks and watch a few games. You should see the differences.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2009, 12:41 AM
  #49
ContrarianGoaltender
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 570
vCash: 500
Seems like this discussion about rink sizes needs some data, so I quickly looked up the home/road goal splits for a few top teams from 1974-75 to 1979-80.

Goals against, home vs. road, 1975-80:

Buffalo: 2.63 home GAA, 3.12 road GAA
Montreal: 2.40 home GAA, 2.59 road GAA
Boston: 2.68 home GAA, 3.34 road GAA
Philadelphia: 2.28 home GAA, 3.16 road GAA

Goals scored per game, home vs. road, 1975-80:

Buffalo: 4.30 home GPG, 3.53 road GPG
Montreal: 4.92 home GPG, 3.93 road GPG
Boston: 4.43 home GPG, 3.61 road GPG
Philadelphia: 4.33 home GPG, 3.45 road GPG

I don't know what Perreault's individual numbers were, but I'm not sure there's much to suggest that he suffered because of the size of his home rink. All four teams had very similar home scoring effects, scoring between 22 and 26% more goals per game at home. Buffalo's goals against jumped on the road, but that was probably a typical increase as the home/road difference wasn't as large as it was in Boston or Philadelphia. Montreal was the clear outlier, they were much tougher to score against on the road than everyone else and had by far the best road record of these four teams.

Maybe the rink issue has some minor relevance for some part of the Gainey/Ramsay argument, but I doubt it had much of an impact on Gilbert Perreault.

ContrarianGoaltender is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2009, 12:59 AM
  #50
Outside99*
Sedins off Kas
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,347
vCash: 796
Just barging in.

Perreault was a very gifted offensive hockey player. He should be measured by his gift, not by his weakness. Plus minus measures his weakness and it also reflects the effectiveness of his teammates in covering his weakness. Would you measure a shot putter by how far he throws the shot put or how fast he runs the mile?

No disrespect to Dale Hawerchuk, who was an excellent hockey player, but his skill wasn't even close to Perreault's.

Added this:

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=680327

Gil Perreault ranked ahead of Gretzky in stick handling and between Gretzky and Lafleur in natural talent...

Case closed for ranking him 125th or so....


Last edited by Outside99*: 09-14-2009 at 01:23 AM.
Outside99* 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 04:01 AM.

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.