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
09-14-2009, 01:00 AM
  #51
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
No. Who would the fans rather watch?
Depends, doesn't it? List some of the most iconic fan-favourites of all time. They're almost always guys who looked like they were busting ass out there. And in many cases, they're guys who weren't blessed with the slickest moves and smoothest skating.

arrbez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2009, 03:38 AM
  #52
foame
Registered User
 
foame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 254
vCash: 500
Pappyline and Stonefly.

You're not considering that our view of games/players changes with time.

foame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2009, 03:55 AM
  #53
VMBM
Registered User
 
VMBM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,503
vCash: 500
Thank you guys.

I think I'm a little wiser now, as far as his NHL career goes. I can see that even though 1326 pts in 1191 regular season & 103 pts in 90 playoff games look fairly impressive, Perreault does quite poorly in a 'closer examination'. Sometimes you feel like saying, "screw the stats, I know what I saw" (like Pappyline sort of commented), but I guess you simply can't...

However, in a 'fantasy' eight-game series between Canada and USSR, I think Perreault would still be my 3rd choice, as far as Centers go (after #99 and #66, of course); such was his ability, and I guess he was at his best in a series like that against the Europeans (unlike Lafleur, Dionne, F. Mahovlich...)

I have to wonder if Perreault was unlucky to not have been Russian (I mean strictly from a hockey point of view!) - would he be (more of) a legend now? (meaning that the type of skills he had would have been more appreciated there)


Last edited by VMBM: 09-14-2009 at 06:23 AM.
VMBM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2009, 03:55 AM
  #54
Nalyd Psycho
Registered User
 
Nalyd Psycho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: No Bandwagon
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,671
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stonefly View Post
Which one would a GM or coach rather have?
A GM would take the guy who appears to have more upside while the coach would take the guy that will give 100% every night.

__________________
Every post comes with the Nalyd Psycho Seal of Approval.
Nalyd Psycho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2009, 06:16 AM
  #55
Canadiens1958
Moderator
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,452
vCash: 500
GM / Coach

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nalyd Psycho View Post
A GM would take the guy who appears to have more upside while the coach would take the guy that will give 100% every night.
For purposes of this analogy is Mike Milbury being considered a coach or a GM?

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2009, 06:40 AM
  #56
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 20,081
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Outside99 View Post
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....
...What exactly makes this a case closed, and why should he be treated any differently than Alex Kovalev?

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2009, 06:43 AM
  #57
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 20,081
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VMBM View Post
Thank you guys.

I think I'm a little wiser now, as far as his NHL career goes. I can see that even though 1326 pts in 1191 regular season & 103 pts in 90 playoff games look fairly impressive, Perreault does quite poorly in a 'closer examination'. Sometimes you feel like saying, "screw the stats, I know what I saw" (like Pappyline sort of commented), but I guess you simply can't...

However, in a 'fantasy' eight-game series between Canada and USSR, I think Perreault would still be my 3rd choice, as far as Centers go (after #99 and #66, of course); such was his ability, and I guess he was at his best in a series like that against the Europeans (unlike Lafleur, Dionne, F. Mahovlich...)

I have to wonder if Perreault was unlucky to not have been Russian (I mean strictly from a hockey point of view!) - would he be (more of) a legend now? (meaning that the type of skills he had would have been more appreciated there)
Actually, Perreault is a Top-100 candidate. But to imply that he should rank above Mikhailov and Makarov is either really overrating him, or really underrating Makarov and Mikhailov. (and could give some weird results in regards to other players)

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2009, 06:47 AM
  #58
Canadiens1958
Moderator
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,452
vCash: 500
Perreault / Kovalev

Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
...What exactly makes this a case closed, and why should he be treated any differently than Alex Kovalev?
Gilbert Perreault came to play every game. Same cannot be said for Kovalev.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2009, 07:42 AM
  #59
VMBM
Registered User
 
VMBM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,503
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
Actually, Perreault is a Top-100 candidate. But to imply that he should rank above Mikhailov and Makarov is either really overrating him, or really underrating Makarov and Mikhailov. (and could give some weird results in regards to other players)
Is it?

Firstly, to have Mikhailov above Anatoli Firsov on a list is basically a joke, especially from an European perspective. Mikhailov is one of my favourite players, but I don't quite understand the love he gets from North Americans; maybe because stylistically, he was more North American than most other Soviet players? Guys like Firsov, Kharlamov, Makarov and Maltsev had just as - or almost as - impressive careers, but had a big edge over him in terms of talent; the case of Maltsev is debatable, but Firsov, Kharlamov and Makarov at least should be ahead of him (yes, an opinion!).

And I think I have sort of confessed already that I've been overrating Perreault, so you don't need to rub it in anymore.


Last edited by VMBM: 09-14-2009 at 10:15 AM.
VMBM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2009, 07:56 AM
  #60
Canadiens1958
Moderator
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,452
vCash: 500
Rink Size

Quote:
Originally Posted by Center Shift View Post
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.
Thank you for taking the time to post the data. Later this week as time allows I will post some comparisons involving games of the teams you used in your data.

To have a visual idea of how important even the smallest difference in rink size could be have a look at the following video, Guy Lafleur's tying goal in game seven of the 1979 Canadiens / Bruins series plated at the Montreal Forum where the rink had regulation NHL dimensions as opposed to the Boston Garden that was 9 feet shorter and 2 feet narrower.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12-x70nq0vI

Watch the replays especially one from behind the Canadiens net as the rush unfolds.

Notice that the Boston goalie Gilles Gilbert, playing most of his games on the smaller Boston Garden, slightly overplays the rush leaving the far side slightly open. Notice the extra space that the Canadiens have coming thru the neutral zone and the favourable shooting angles that would not be available on the smaller Boston Garden surface.

At the elite NHL level every inch counts. Extra feet make a very big difference.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2009, 08:33 AM
  #61
Fredrik_71
Registered User
 
Fredrik_71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 1,001
vCash: 500
1326 pts in 1191 regular season & 103 pts in 90 playoff games says it all. The guy obiously was good but didn't play for a contender. There are a lot of players in the HHOF who rode on the shoulders of giants. Gil obvously wasn't a giant but his carrer is impressive. I think he deserves more, even a HHOF spot.

But he is a canadian and therefore is subject to another benchmark.

/Cheers

Fredrik_71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2009, 10:17 AM
  #62
BNHL
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 11,411
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
Wow! That's an impressively thorough evaluation of Perreault's acomplishment, seventieslord.



As the creator of this particular version of adjusted plus-minus, I'll add a little more detail on Perreault. Here is a breakdown of his adjusted plus-minus for the different periods of his career.

Player Year Seasons $ESGF/G $ESGA/G R-ON R-OFF XEV+/- EV+/- AEV+/- /82 SH% PP% $PPP/G $ESP/G
Gilbert Perreault 71-74 3.68 0.87 1.06 0.82 0.82 -39 -57 -17 -5 6% 86% 0.49 0.61
Gilbert Perreault 75-80 5.83 1.02 0.79 1.28 1.39 99 107 8 1 4% 76% 0.48 0.79
Gilbert Perreault 81-84 3.35 0.90 0.77 1.17 1.15 23 36 13 4 24% 55% 0.28 0.67
Gilbert Perreault 85-87 2.13 0.74 0.74 1.00 1.08 7 0 -7 -3 27% 5% 0.25 0.56
Gilbert Perreault 71-87 14.98 0.92 0.84 1.08 1.12 89 86 -3 0 12% 66% 0.40 0.68

Perreault appears to have started off as a talented scorer and very productive on the power play. However, on a weak even-strength team, Perreault's on-ice results were identical to his off-ice results. This suggests that he wasn't playing a strong 200-foot game. His even-strength results would improve, however.

His prime from 1974-75 to 1979-80 is particularly interesting. This is the period of his career that makes his reputation. Perreault was a plus player during the 75-80 period, with a fine 1.28 GF/GA ratio. However, Buffalo had a 1.39 GF/GA ratio with him off the ice, meaning that his adjusted plus-minus is essentially zero.

If Buffalo had particularly strong goalies and defense corps*, this would be a fair rating. However, the truth isn't so simple. As seventieslord pointed out, Buffalo had a second line that was dominant at even-strength. Ramsay, Luce, and Gare drove Buffalo's success during those years at least as much as Perreault's line did, and probably more. Perreault's even-strength results suffer in comparison to theirs, but the question is whether that's a fair comparison.

Perreault's greatest contributions probably came on the power play. Here are the top power play scorers from 1974-75 to 1979-80. (Power play assists from 1975-76 on compiled from the Hockey Summary Project data, estimated for 1974-75.)

Player GP PPG PPA PPP PPP/G
Marcel Dionne 470 81 155 236 0.50
Guy Lafleur 462 90 136 226 0.49
Denis Potvin 421 55 149 204 0.48
Phil Esposito 472 109 113 222 0.47
Bryan Trottier 387 65 104 169 0.44
Gilbert Perreault 466 56 140 196 0.42
Darryl Sittler 447 81 96 177 0.40

He wasn't on the level of the top power play scorers, but was still among the best at his peak.

In his post-prime years in the '80s, Perreault was no longer an elite scorer. While he was still a solid contributor, he was not a difference maker - more like a second line center on a good team or a first line center on a weaker team. He wasn't an elite power play scorer anymore, and was basically even at even-strength as his scoring dropped off. He did start killing penalties - evidence that his defensive game improved as his offensive game declined.

*This topic merits further research, particularly since SV% results from these years are coming out.



I think this is a fair assessment. Personally, I see him as comparable to Hawerchuk - centers who were very good to excellent but not elite scorers, were not distinguished on the defensive end, and brought much of their value on the power play.
Only a few players can stand up to this type of analysis and actually look as good or better than perceived. I can think of one.

BNHL is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2009, 10:21 AM
  #63
BNHL
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 11,411
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
As I said, pappy, It doesn't matter how pretty he looked doing it.

If other players dominated the league statistically better than he did, they're better than him. It doesn't matter if he can skate better, shoot better, and stickhandle in a phone booth if the results aren't there. the results are there, but 35-45 other centers just have better results.

You can dismiss the word "stats" all you like. But it is a FACT that Perreault's Sabres, over the course of his career, had the same goal differential with him on the ice, as they did without him. Every other 1000+ point player made a very positive impact on his team's goal differential except Perreault and the six others. How do you explain this if he is so dominant?

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?

Mikhail Grabovski looks pretty special when I watch him play, too. But when the season was all said and done, he was just a 48-point player, and many other players who didn't "look" as good achieved far more this season than he did.
Sometimes a beautiful woman is very unattractive when you get to know her.

BNHL is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2009, 10:28 AM
  #64
VMBM
Registered User
 
VMBM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,503
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrodptl View Post
Only a few players can stand up to this type of analysis and actually look as good or better than perceived. I can think of one.
Is his middle name... Douglas?

VMBM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2009, 10:44 AM
  #65
BNHL
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 11,411
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VMBM View Post
Is his middle name... Douglas?
Actually Gordon.

BNHL is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2009, 10:51 AM
  #66
VMBM
Registered User
 
VMBM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,503
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VMBM View Post
Firstly, to have Mikhailov above Anatoli Firsov on a list is basically a joke, especially from an European perspective. Mikhailov is one of my favourite players, but I don't quite understand the love he gets from North Americans; maybe because stylistically, he was more North American than most other Soviet players? Guys like Firsov, Kharlamov, Makarov and Maltsev had just as - or almost as - impressive careers, but had a big edge over him in terms of talent; the case of Maltsev is debatable, but Firsov, Kharlamov and Makarov at least should be ahead of him (yes, an opinion!).
I would just like to add that this doesn't mean Mikhailov shouldn't be in the top 100 or even top 70 of an all-time list. But I'd better shut up already, eh?

VMBM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2009, 11:19 AM
  #67
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,322
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stonefly View Post
You're forgetting the part about the two players producing the same results.
No. You asked me who a coach would prefer. I said (and arrbez agreed) that they would want the guy with a contagious work ethic. The reason I said that is because the coach's main goal is not to ice a flashy team, but a team that wins. A player who gets the same results, but works his ass off to get them, should in theory, help a team more as we all know work ethics are contagious.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
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.
Yeah, thanks, I get all that. But it doesn't prove that Perreault in particular had a rougher time scoring at home. Based on Buffalo's 4.30 GPG at home from 75-80, and 3.53 GPG on the road in the same time frame, the rest of the team didn't seem to have trouble scoring at home.

So it's one of two things:

1. You're wrong, and this didn't affect Perreault.

2. You're right, and it did affect Perreault, and it was clearly something that most, if not all, of his team was able to overcome, which is an indictment of Perreault.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Outside99 View Post
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....
No one's disputing how skilled the guy was. But 35-45 other centers in history have better achievements than him, and should therefore be more highly regarded by historians like us.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2009, 11:31 AM
  #68
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,322
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nalyd Psycho View Post
A GM would take the guy who appears to have more upside while the coach would take the guy that will give 100% every night.
Good point. I missed the GM part last night. You're absolutely right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VMBM View Post
Is it?

Firstly, to have Mikhailov above Anatoli Firsov on a list is basically a joke, especially from an European perspective. Mikhailov is one of my favourite players, but I don't quite understand the love he gets from North Americans; maybe because stylistically, he was more North American than most other Soviet players? Guys like Firsov, Kharlamov, Makarov and Maltsev had just as - or almost as - impressive careers, but had a big edge over him in terms of talent; the case of Maltsev is debatable, but Firsov, Kharlamov and Makarov at least should be ahead of him (yes, an opinion!).
I'm 3/4 done Tarasov's book, "Road To Olympus" which was written in the late 1960s.... and boy oh boy, does he love Firsov. There's no doubt he was the finest Russian of the 1960s. I know you're European and I will take to heart whatever else you can tell me. But I'll be honest, I have Mikhailov ahead of him, and here's why:

- They appear to have the same skillset - dominant offensive capabilities, skating, shooting, feints and dekes, but also intensity, leadership, and they can't be intimidated.
- They both appear to have been roughly as dominant in the Russian league and internationally.
- Mikhailov's prime was at a time that it was known to be a true that Russia's best were truly as good as Canada's best - In other words, if you're the top RW in Russia, you're definitely one of the top three RWs on earth. Firsov peaked a decade earlier, which leaves us in a bit of a gray area. The Russians were beating up on everyone, and beating good Canadian amateurs, but we don't know how they were against top pros. A jnuior team backed by Jacques Plante beat them. So the way I see it, being the top RW in Russia wasn't a gurarantee of being a top-3 RW in the world at that point. We also know that Russian hockey was in a sharp upward trajectory from its humble beginnings in 1946 until some point when it became equal to ours. Was it 1972? Was it somewhat before? Was it not until even later? (some say later considering we still beat the Russians in 1972 without Hull and Orr, and they had the element of surprise)

From a totally Russian perspective, I can see Firsov being ranked ahead of Mikhailov. Globally speaking, I'm not sure of that. In the same way, I can see how Bobrov is the most dominant Russian player of all-time, but strictly globally, I don't think he was ever one of the game's top-10 LWs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fredrik_71 View Post
1326 pts in 1191 regular season & 103 pts in 90 playoff games says it all. The guy obiously was good but didn't play for a contender. There are a lot of players in the HHOF who rode on the shoulders of giants. Gil obvously wasn't a giant but his carrer is impressive. I think he deserves more, even a HHOF spot.

But he is a canadian and therefore is subject to another benchmark.

/Cheers
He's already in the HHOF. And no one doubts that he should be. This is more about his status as a top-100 player.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2009, 11:57 AM
  #69
VMBM
Registered User
 
VMBM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,503
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post

I'm 3/4 done Tarasov's book, "Road To Olympus" which was written in the late 1960s.... and boy oh boy, does he love Firsov. There's no doubt he was the finest Russian of the 1960s. I know you're European and I will take to heart whatever else you can tell me. But I'll be honest, I have Mikhailov ahead of him, and here's why:

- They appear to have the same skillset - dominant offensive capabilities, skating, shooting, feints and dekes, but also intensity, leadership, and they can't be intimidated.
- They both appear to have been roughly as dominant in the Russian league and internationally.
- Mikhailov's prime was at a time that it was known to be a true that Russia's best were truly as good as Canada's best - In other words, if you're the top RW in Russia, you're definitely one of the top three RWs on earth. Firsov peaked a decade earlier, which leaves us in a bit of a gray area. The Russians were beating up on everyone, and beating good Canadian amateurs, but we don't know how they were against top pros. A jnuior team backed by Jacques Plante beat them. So the way I see it, being the top RW in Russia wasn't a gurarantee of being a top-3 RW in the world at that point. We also know that Russian hockey was in a sharp upward trajectory from its humble beginnings in 1946 until some point when it became equal to ours. Was it 1972? Was it somewhat before? Was it not until even later? (some say later considering we still beat the Russians in 1972 without Hull and Orr, and they had the element of surprise)

From a totally Russian perspective, I can see Firsov being ranked ahead of Mikhailov. Globally speaking, I'm not sure of that. In the same way, I can see how Bobrov is the most dominant Russian player of all-time, but strictly globally, I don't think he was ever one of the game's top-10 LWs.
Sorry, I don't have much time now... just a couple of points about their individual skills.

Actually, as far as shooting and skating go, I think Firsov was miles ahead of Mikhailov. Firsov had one of the biggest (as well as the most accurate) slap shots of any European forward ever - well, that's how the story goes. On the other hand, Mikhailov didn't really have any kind of slapshot; he was by far at his most dangerous in the slot; yes, he was very accurate too, but there were no big shots in his arsenal. And whereas Firsov is recognized as one of best Soviet skaters ever (I have him in the top 4 with Balderis, Kapustin and Maltsev), Mikhailov had fairly mediocre skating skills - for a Soviet forward, that is. Yes, ok speed, but definitely behind Firsov in that department.

Stick-handling? Also, definitely the edge to Firsov.

Firsov was also considered the best Soviet forward for about 5-6 years, whereas Mikhailov - was he ever even considered that? Well, if he was, it was probably only for a couple of years (in the late seventies). Then again, Mikhailov obviously had more competition in that department.

One thing that Mikhailov has over Firsov is that he faced the best Canada had to offer and he proved (to me at least) that he could shine against them. To me, however, this isn't as big a deal as to maybe North Americans.

Gotta go now, maybe somebody else can take over... I would be especially interested to see someone making a case for Mikhailov.

VMBM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2009, 12:06 PM
  #70
Canadiens1958
Moderator
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,452
vCash: 500
Reading

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post

Yeah, thanks, I get all that. But it doesn't prove that Perreault in particular had a rougher time scoring at home. Based on Buffalo's 4.30 GPG at home from 75-80, and 3.53 GPG on the road in the same time frame, the rest of the team didn't seem to have trouble scoring at home.

So it's one of two things:

1. You're wrong, and this didn't affect Perreault.

2. You're right, and it did affect Perreault, and it was clearly something that most, if not all, of his team was able to overcome, which is an indictment of Perreault.



No one's disputing how skilled the guy was. But 35-45 other centers in history have better achievements than him, and should therefore be more highly regarded by historians like us.
Trust one day you will learn to read with understanding. My quote from my initial post on this matter.

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.

At no time did I state scoring. A smaller rink limits speed,movement, execution because available space is reduced. So the highly skilled player has to selectively reduce his skill set or has it reduced for him by having to play in tighter quarters.

That you clearly wish to focus only on scoring goes to your understanding of the game.

As for your 35-45 centers with better achievements you fail over and over to ask the key question. Would their achievements be the same if they had to play half their games on a smaller ice surface?

Your data is after all adjusted for variables that you deem relevant BUT you obviously did not think of the smaller ice surface variable.
So its is up to you to do the corrections. Then we might talk.

Example the old Chicago Stadium had an ice surface that was 188 x 85 as opposed to the the NHL regulation size of 200 x 85. So 15980 sq.ft as opposed to the league norm of 17000 square feet. Identical width but shorter. Net advantage to Bobby Hull because he would be onto the goalie quicker with a shorter rush but a disadvantage to a player who relies on movement and space for offense. The Aud in Buffalo had 788 fewer square feet of ice surface, so a player like Perreault was easier to contain.

Do the necessary research and adjustments to your study. Other than pointing out a blatant flaw I have no obligation to do the actual research or work for YOU who made the omission.

I will not provide you with the Aud's exact dimensions. Use Google.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2009, 12:23 PM
  #71
Canadiens1958
Moderator
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,452
vCash: 500
Additional Data

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post



I'm 3/4 done Tarasov's book, "Road To Olympus" which was written in the late 1960s.... and boy oh boy, does he love Firsov. There's no doubt he was the finest Russian of the 1960s. I know you're European and I will take to heart whatever else you can tell me. But I'll be honest, I have Mikhailov ahead of him, and here's why:

- They appear to have the same skillset - dominant offensive capabilities, skating, shooting, feints and dekes, but also intensity, leadership, and they can't be intimidated.
- They both appear to have been roughly as dominant in the Russian league and internationally.
- Mikhailov's prime was at a time that it was known to be a true that Russia's best were truly as good as Canada's best - In other words, if you're the top RW in Russia, you're definitely one of the top three RWs on earth. Firsov peaked a decade earlier, which leaves us in a bit of a gray area. The Russians were beating up on everyone, and beating good Canadian amateurs, but we don't know how they were against top pros. A jnuior team backed by Jacques Plante beat them. So the way I see it, being the top RW in Russia wasn't a gurarantee of being a top-3 RW in the world at that point. We also know that Russian hockey was in a sharp upward trajectory from its humble beginnings in 1946 until some point when it became equal to ours. Was it 1972? Was it somewhat before? Was it not until even later? (some say later considering we still beat the Russians in 1972 without Hull and Orr, and they had the element of surprise)

From a totally Russian perspective, I can see Firsov being ranked ahead of Mikhailov. Globally speaking, I'm not sure of that. In the same way, I can see how Bobrov is the most dominant Russian player of all-time, but strictly globally, I don't think he was ever one of the game's top-10 LWs.



He's already in the HHOF. And no one doubts that he should be. This is more about his status as a top-100 player.
Your presentation of the Jacques Plante game against the the Soviets is somewhat incomplete. The junior Canadiens at that time were coached by............. Scotty Bowman. For the game they had 5 minor pro call-ups from the Canadiens farm system, 3 forwards and 2 defensemen all who were NHL caliber. The junior Canadiens that season featured amongst others future NHL players Jacques Lemaire(HHOF), Serge Savard(HHOF), Carol Vadnais, Christian Bordeleau.

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/l...ams/0010531966

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2009, 12:55 PM
  #72
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,322
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VMBM View Post
Sorry, I don't have much time now... just a couple of points about their individual skills.

Actually, as far as shooting and skating go, I think Firsov was miles ahead of Mikhailov. Firsov had one of the biggest (as well as the most accurate) slap shots of any European forward ever - well, that's how the story goes. On the other hand, Mikhailov didn't really have any kind of slapshot; he was by far at his most dangerous in the slot; yes, he was very accurate too, but there were no big shots in his arsenal. And whereas Firsov is recognized as one of best Soviet skaters ever (I have him in the top 4 with Balderis, Kapustin and Maltsev), Mikhailov had fairly mediocre skating skills - for a Soviet forward, that is. Yes, ok speed, but definitely behind Firsov in that department.

Stick-handling? Also, definitely the edge to Firsov.

Firsov was also considered the best Soviet forward for about 5-6 years, whereas Mikhailov - was he ever even considered that? Well, if he was, it was probably only for a couple of years (in the late seventies). Then again, Mikhailov obviously had more competition in that department.

One thing that Mikhailov has over Firsov is that he faced the best Canada had to offer and he proved (to me at least) that he could shine against them. To me, however, this isn't as big a deal as to maybe North Americans.

Gotta go now, maybe somebody else can take over... I would be especially interested to see someone making a case for Mikhailov.
I think the bolded part is the key. To me, this is a big deal. To be a top-100 player, you have to have played against the best at some point. Firsov making our top-100 is the lone exception, because he was so good and so dominant domestically and internationally (and very close to the time where we know Russian hockey parelleled ours) that he appropriately gets the benefit of the doubt.

Thank you for the detailed breakdown of their skills. I will definitely take that to heart when building lines in the All-time draft. That said, I am results-driven, and I think Mikhailov, despite his lesser shot and skating, still "got it done" in the 70s as well as Firsov did in the 60s.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Your presentation of the Jacques Plante game against the the Soviets is somewhat incomplete. The junior Canadiens at that time were coached by............. Scotty Bowman. For the game they had 5 minor pro call-ups from the Canadiens farm system, 3 forwards and 2 defensemen all who were NHL caliber. The junior Canadiens that season featured amongst others future NHL players Jacques Lemaire(HHOF), Serge Savard(HHOF), Carol Vadnais, Christian Bordeleau.

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/l...ams/0010531966


are you actually sticking up for the Russians???

I'm aware of who was on the team. But they were still juniors and minor pro call-ups. They were nowhere near as good as they were going to be.

One game doesn't prove anything. It's just an indicator of where they were at, at the time. The argument could also be made that the Russians were much better than those juniors and that Plante simply stole the game. Plante's biography tends to give that impression.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Trust one day you will learn to read with understanding. My quote from my initial post on this matter.

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.

At no time did I state scoring. A smaller rink limits speed,movement, execution because available space is reduced. So the highly skilled player has to selectively reduce his skill set or has it reduced for him by having to play in tighter quarters.

That you clearly wish to focus only on scoring goes to your understanding of the game.

As for your 35-45 centers with better achievements you fail over and over to ask the key question. Would their achievements be the same if they had to play half their games on a smaller ice surface?

Your data is after all adjusted for variables that you deem relevant BUT you obviously did not think of the smaller ice surface variable.
So its is up to you to do the corrections. Then we might talk.

Example the old Chicago Stadium had an ice surface that was 188 x 85 as opposed to the the NHL regulation size of 200 x 85. So 15980 sq.ft as opposed to the league norm of 17000 square feet. Identical width but shorter. Net advantage to Bobby Hull because he would be onto the goalie quicker with a shorter rush but a disadvantage to a player who relies on movement and space for offense. The Aud in Buffalo had 788 fewer square feet of ice surface, so a player like Perreault was easier to contain.

Do the necessary research and adjustments to your study. Other than pointing out a blatant flaw I have no obligation to do the actual research or work for YOU who made the omission.

I will not provide you with the Aud's exact dimensions. Use Google.
You say "So its is up to you to do the corrections. Then we might talk." But you still talk.

There is no need for any correction. The numbers show that it didn't make it any harder on anyone else to score in that building. Great players should adjust. Either he didn't, which is not good, or he did, and you're using the small building as a crutch to prop his resume on when he wasn't as dominant as 35-45 other centers.


------------------------------------

One other thing in response to those who said Perreault didn't backcheck because it wasn't his job or it wouldn't be the best use of his skills - you are right, and this doesn't make him a bad player. It does, however, make other players (The Ullman, Keon, Abel, Delvecchio, Gilmour, Forsberg, Fedorov, Howe, Francis, Lach crowd) better than him if they are able to be just as dominant offensively while playing a good to excellent two-way game. Those are the types of players who should make a top-100 list. Or, one-dimensional players such as Bill Cowley, Joe Malone, Marcel Dionne, Frank Mahovlich, or Wayne Gretzky, whose one dimension is too strong to ignore. Perreault is not in that league.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2009, 12:57 PM
  #73
ContrarianGoaltender
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 567
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
At the elite NHL level every inch counts. Extra feet make a very big difference.
Do they? The numbers suggest that they really don't. How did those extra feet or lack thereof directly affect goals for or goals against for the Buffalo Sabres?

I'm not arguing with your assessments of Perreault's skating ability or the fact that some rinks were smaller than others. However, just because differences exist does not mean they are important. If they didn't affect Buffalo's scoring or outscoring, and the criticisms of Perreault are based on his ability to score and outscore, then what are we arguing about again? Whether Perreault wasn't able to be as flashy at home as he was on the road? Skills don't win games on their own unless they translate into goals.

You seem to love debating the minutiae, but I don't think the big picture effects are as big as you make them out to be. Just because a variable exists does not make it important. I'm not convinced there is much there at all, or that if there was some rink effect that it could easily have been outweighed by other factors, such as possibly the advantage of having the last change, which would likely represent a significant advantage to a team with both an outstanding checking line and a strong first line.

The Gilbert Perreault debate reminds me of the Peter Forsberg debate, in that it doesn't seem to be a debate about the player at all but rather a debate about how players are evaluated. Voters who rate players based on their individual skills or on their memories from watching them play seem to rate Perreault much more highly than voters who rate players based on accomplishments or statistical measurements. I subscribe to the "overall picture" outlook, and to me the numbers are pretty convincing that Perreault is a marginal Top-100 guy.

ContrarianGoaltender is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2009, 01:15 PM
  #74
Canadiens1958
Moderator
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,452
vCash: 500
Adjusted Metrics

Quote:
Originally Posted by Center Shift View Post
Do they? The numbers suggest that they really don't. How did those extra feet or lack thereof directly affect goals for or goals against for the Buffalo Sabres?

I'm not arguing with your assessments of Perreault's skating ability or the fact that some rinks were smaller than others. However, just because differences exist does not mean they are important. If they didn't affect Buffalo's scoring or outscoring, and the criticisms of Perreault are based on his ability to score and outscore, then what are we arguing about again? Whether Perreault wasn't able to be as flashy at home as he was on the road? Skills don't win games on their own unless they translate into goals.

You seem to love debating the minutiae, but I don't think the big picture effects are as big as you make them out to be. Just because a variable exists does not make it important. I'm not convinced there is much there at all, or that if there was some rink effect that it could easily have been outweighed by other factors, such as possibly the advantage of having the last change, which would likely represent a significant advantage to a team with both an outstanding checking line and a strong first line.

The Gilbert Perreault debate reminds me of the Peter Forsberg debate, in that it doesn't seem to be a debate about the player at all but rather a debate about how players are evaluated. Voters who rate players based on their individual skills or on their memories from watching them play seem to rate Perreault much more highly than voters who rate players based on accomplishments or statistical measurements. I subscribe to the "overall picture" outlook, and to me the numbers are pretty convincing that Perreault is a marginal Top-100 guy.
When introducing adjusted metrics into a discussion the onus is on the person making the introduction that the adjusted metric is necessary,accurate and complete. I won't question the necessary since that is a pointless debate from my perspective. Simply they exist and people will use or misuse them as they will. However I will not give anyone a free pass when it comes to accurate and complete. So far the accurate and complete aspect is far from satisfactory.

Drawing a baseball analogy. The last line change is similar to the last at bat. Regardless baseball metrics when including adjustments include adjustments for the STADIUM regardless of how insignificant the variance in dimensions may appear to some people or which team had the last at bat. Now for some debates there may be an agreement to waive such considerations in a discussion BUT I am not willing to do so in this discussion.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2009, 01:24 PM
  #75
God Bless Canada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bentley reunion
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,780
vCash: 500
I think pappy was bang-on when he rightfully said that there is way too much statistical smoke from a couple of posters in this thread. Frankly, I haven't seen anything from overpass other than stats, which tells me that he doesn't have an actual argument.

Perreault is a top 100 player of all-time, and should be regarded as such by anyone who does proper research. (In other words, digs deeper than just statistics). To even suggest or hint he's on par with Hawerchuk or Sittler is indicative of someone who hasn't done research, and doesn't have a clue.

He was a true franchise player, the guy that Buffalo built around to have those strong teams in the 70s. They had strong teams, but never the best team. They lost in 75 to Philly. Then you had the Habs dynasty (which would have been the Bruins dynasty if not for the Habs). And you had Philly still playing at a high level, and an Islanders team that was on the upswing.

He wasn't very good defensively and he wasn't a physical force. But he was a dazzling offensive player, a game-breaker. He was the guy that opponents established their game plan for. If you stopped Perreault, you stopped the Sabres. He had fine linemates in the goal-scoring Martin and the rugged, all-round Robert, but it was Perreault who teams knew they had to stop.

For those who go ga-ga over numbers, he had three top five finishes in assists and points. And he was still Buffalo's threat, their go-to guy, for the first half of the 80s, even though he had the wear-and-tear of being his team's best player from the moment he entered the league. Buffalo didn't have much for surrounding talent after Martin suffered the knee injury and Robert was dealt, but Perreault, at 30-something, still put up really good numbers.

And his playoff record is very impressive. Tied for the lead on a Cup finalist in scoring. His 21 points in 12 games in 80 is incredible when you consider that he virtually carried that team offensively.

I thought he came in a little high in the THN rankings in 1996. But keep in mind those were people who actually watched the guy played, watched most of those who preceeded him play, and had a good time of reference for him. (He had been retired for 10 years). But to suggest he's out of the top 100 is mind-boggling.

God Bless Canada 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 11:13 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.