I just wanted to say what an honor it is to be in the finals. I've learned an unmeasurable amount of hockey history over the last 4 years since I first became involved with the ATD. I've always had a passion for research and history and being a part of the ATD has given me the vehicle to learn so much about hockey, spanning 100+ years. It's been eye opening to say the least and very rewarding.
As for the series at hand, obviously I believe the Bankers to be among the best teams in the ATD this year and certainly filled with talent that would be extremely difficult to beat in a 7 game series.
@rmartin65 has a very strong team as well and I look forward to a great match up. Here is how I see things top to bottom:
Home Ice Advantage for Pittsburgh:
-I think this is a fairly important aspect to point out. The Bankers being a 1 seed would have home ice vs a team that finished 2nd (a very strong 2nd place team to be fair) in their division. This gives Gorman and company last change more often and obviously the benefit of more games with the passionate Pittsburgh fans as the "7th" man so to speak helping push the Bankers and possibly getting under the skin of the Americans. It's certainly not a huge deal but something that should be pointed out for the reasons I mentioned and it could swing the pendulum slightly in the favor of the Bankers given the history of teams with home ice in the SCF.
Coaching:
-This is a really interesting matchup. I admit, I have a tough time comparing non NHL Russian coaches to North American ones. Tarasov is arguably the greatest Russian coach of all time. He was a pioneer for that nation and had a profound impact on the game and bringing the USSR to greater heights and at some points on par with Canada. I can't say definitively that he's a top 10 coach of all time for a few reasons.
One, much of his domestic success came in the 50's through the mid 60's when hockey was still in the growth process in Russia. His international success is also void of having to play the best players from North America, at least until the 70's when the Summit series' began and by that point his career was all but finished as a coach. It wasn't really until the mid to late 60's that other European teams (specifically the Czech's) got to a point where they could really keep up so competition is at least, to some degree questionable. As TDMM used to point out, it's still a bit of a challenge to flesh out the balance between his building up the Russian program/GM'ing and actual coaching. I also wonder how North American players would have reacted to his manner of teaching and style. But at the end of the day, he's an all time great. Nobody can deny that. In many ways he's quite similar to Gorman in that both had major successes as builders and coaches in the early stages of hockey in their respective countries.
Tommy Gorman is one of the greatest builders in hockey history, and certainly, IMO at least a borderline top 10 coach ever, which is mighty impressive considering he never played the game at any meaningful level. He took over the managing aspects of Ottawa in 1917 because the owner couldn't recruit players and he asked Gorman to spearhead efforts in changing that fortune. Gorman essentially, in less than 3 years built a dynasty. Why is this important? Because it shows he had a knack for finding the right talent and fit time and time again that was used in a variety of manners on the ice. He's the only coach in NHL history to have won a back to back title with 2 separate teams (Chicago and Montreal Maroons) and those teams had been more or less laughing stocks of the league for some time. He was an innovative coach that used an aggressive forechecking system to mask his teams lack of skill and talent and it worked wonders. Obviously here, with the Bankers he has a much, much superior team to anything he did in real life and I have little doubt that a man who built a dynasty, won multiple Cups as a coach and then built the 1940's Canadians teams which won a pair of titles, would have much trouble having success with the roster he has at his disposal here.
Overall I'd probably call this a wash, but Tarasov has a long resume as a coach, even if much of it came in the more rudimentary times in the USSR with the benefit of not having to face NHL competition on the international circuit.
If people want to give a slight leg up to the Americans I probably wouldn't argue to much.
Leadership/Intangibles:
-
I think Pittsburgh has a big advantage here. The Bankers have, in the minds of many, 3 of the top 10-15 captains ever to play the game. Gretzky, Clapper, Kennedy. Frank Foyston was arguably the best captains of his generation (along with Eddie Gerard). He spent his entire career (9 years) wearing the C in Seattle and had many successes there. Ed Westfall is another guy who has some stellar things written about his leadership qualities. He was the very first captain in Islander history from 72-77. He'd be a great A here and he doesn't even get one on the Bankers. Getzlaf has long been wearing the C in Anaheim. Even Patrick Roy had strong leadership qualities for a G. Having somebody with his confidence and track record manning the net has an absolutely calming effect on the skater in front of him. And we all know how shaky goal tending can have a trickle down effect on the skaters in front of them. That won't be an issue for Pittsburgh.
Mikhailov and Abel could also be argued as top 10-15 captains of all time but after that I think the Americans are pretty thin on C's/A's compared to Pitt.
And when you look at the absolutely insane amount of elite playoff talent on the Bankers, it's hard not to give them a big leg up in the clutch department. Gretzky, Roy, and Kennedy were 1, 2, 9 in the most recent HoH greatest postseason players of all time project. So you have the greatest skater in postseason history, and on the back end, the greatest netminder (and 2nd overall all time) in tournament history, on one team. Throw in #9 all time on the Bankers 3rd line and nobody can come close to touching that kind of peak postseason performance. Frank Foyston was 2nd in his generation, only to Frank Nighbor and was 40th on the HoH list. The Bankers top pair (Lappy and Clapper) are both battle tested and had numerous playoff successes with their respective teams.
You can see the HoH top 40 playoff performers list below. As i mentioned the Bankers have 1, 2, 9, and 40 on it. Unfortunately for the Americans they clearly lack the top end and even depth of Pittsburgh in this area and I think that has to be a key factor in the series.
Stan Mikita won a single Cup although he was generally a pretty solid playoff performer, just not great/elite. Kariya never won any and had limited playoff experience. Abel, while certainly a great captain was overshadowed in Detroit as a playoff performer IMO by Howe, Lindsay and Sawchuk. But he certainly possesses plenty of experience and won 3 titles and was generally a good playoff guy. Stamkos and Gilbert have zilch in the way of meaningful postseason accolades. I don't know if I've ever seen a top pair in the ATD not have a single Stanley Cup to their name but Salming and Park have that distinction, although to be fair Park was a pretty darn solid playoff guy. Bernie Parent obviously has 2 Smythe's and that is his major claim to fame so at least in peak value he's great but really has nothing else to his name (regular or postseason) beyond 74 and 75 so against Roy he's well behind (which most goalies are to be fair).
To me this is a huge advantage in favor of Pittsburgh.
The following is the final list of the top Stanley Cup playoff performers as determined by the History of Hockey community.
Top Stanley Cup Playoff Performers of All-Time
| | Pos. | Born | Nationality | First Playoff | Last Playoff | St. Cups | OT P/W |
1 | Wayne Gretzky | C1 | 1961 | Canada | 1980 | 1997 | 4 | |
2 | Patrick Roy | G1 | 1965 | Canada | 1986 | 2003 | 4 | |
3 | Maurice Richard | W1 | 1921 | Canada | 1944 | 1960 | 8 | |
4 | Jean Beliveau | C2 | 1931 | Canada | 1954 | 1971 | 10 | |
5 | Gordie Howe | W2 | 1928 | Canada | 1947 | 1980 | 4 | |
6 | Doug Harvey | D1 | 1924 | Canada | 1949 | 1968 | 6 | |
7 | Mark Messier | C3 | 1961 | Canada | 1980 | 1997 | 6 | |
8 | Jacques Plante | G2 | 1929 | Canada | 1953 | 1973 | 6 | |
9 | Ted Kennedy | C4 | 1925 | Canada | 1944 | 1955 | 5 | |
10 | Denis Potvin | D2 | 1953 | Canada | 1975 | 1988 | 4 | |
11 | Mario Lemieux | C5 | 1965 | Canada | 1989 | 2001 | 2 | |
12 | Joe Sakic | C6 | 1969 | Canada | 1993 | 2008 | 2 | |
13 | Bobby Orr | D3 | 1948 | Canada | 1968 | 1975 | 2 | |
14 | Red Kelly | D4 | 1927 | Canada | 1948 | 1967 | 8 | |
15 | Guy Lafleur | W3 | 1951 | Canada | 1972 | 1989 | 5 | |
16 | Frank Nighbor | C7 | 1893 | Canada | 1915 | 1928 | 4 | |
17 | Turk Broda | G3 | 1914 | Canada | 1937 | 1952 | 5 | |
18 | Peter Forsberg | C8 | 1973 | Sweden | 1995 | 2008 | 2 | |
19 | Henri Richard | C9 | 1936 | Canada | 1956 | 1975 | 11 | |
20 | Mike Bossy | W4 | | Canada | | | | |
21 | Larry Robinson | D5 | | Canada | | | | |
22 | Ken Dryden | G4 | | Canada | | | | |
23 | Nicklas Lidstrom | D6 | | Sweden | | | | |
24 | Bryan Trottier | C10 | | Canada | | | | |
25 | Bernie Geoffrion | W5 | | Canada | | | | |
26 | Doug Gilmour | C11 | | Canada | | | | |
27 | Serge Savard | D7 | | Canada | | | | |
28 | Sidney Crosby | C12 | | Canada | | | | |
29 | Phil Esposito | C13 | | Canada | | | | |
30 | Frank Boucher | C14 | | Canada | | | | |
31 | Bobby Hull | W6 | | Canada | | | | |
32 | Chris Pronger | D8 | | Canada | | | | |
33 | Jari Kurri | W7 | | Finland | | | | |
34 | Sergei Fedorov | C15 | | Russia | | | | |
35 | Martin Brodeur | G5 | | Canada | | | | |
36 | Scott Stevens | D9 | | Canada | | | | |
37 | Jacques Lemaire | W8 | | Canada | | | | |
38 | Duncan Keith | D10 | | Canada | | | | |
39 | Billy Smith | G6 | | Canada | | | | |
40 | Frank Foyston | C16 | | Canada | | | | |
[TBODY]
[/TBODY]
Goalies:
-To me this is where the series is truly decided. The Bankers have already faced and defeated Ken Dryden and Turk Broda. Both of whom are superior to Bernie Parent in regular and post season accolades (Dryden very much so).
Patrick Roy is the greatest goalie of all time in the minds of most. He combines a very good regular season resume with the greatest postseason career ever by any netminder and only Wayne Gretzky is definitively ahead of him when you bring skaters into the mix (and i personally don't think the gap is very large).
Roy's value (and goalies in general) has been underrated for years around here. In large part because we've never really addressed
the fact that goalies are on the ice for 60 (or more) minutes a game. There value (positive or negative) goes well beyond simply stopping shots. No one position is on a bigger island than goalie. No one position can swing the momentum for his team like goalie.
And here, Roy swings the pendulum greatly in Pittsburgh's favor. His presence, confidence and resume allows his skaters to be more relaxed in front of him and puts an added burden on the opposing team knowing they're facing an elite goalie, especially in a best of 7 type series.
The Bankers possess a massive advantage in net. That's not a knock on Parent, who was a fine netminder and obviously gets serious points for his 2 Conn Smythe runs
but other than 1974 and 1975 his career is void of any real ATD value. That's not being harsh, it's simple reality.
Parent in a 24 team draft is at best below average here. And Parent played for the broad street bullies. I don't see the Americans being able to play that style with their roster make up or with Tarasov
Roy blows him away no matter what area you look at. Better Hart record, better AS record, better Vezina record, his adjusted regular season SV% is elite (see graph below thank you Hockey Outsider and Q from HoH for these studies) and shows just how dominant he was beyond the postseason. He has elite longevity, his peak was longer and more sustained. And he carried multiple teams on his back to Stanley Cups in Montreal.
Career Save Percentage PLAYOFFS - minimum 1,000 adjusted shots
* This table is now updated for 2017
Goalie | Shots | Saves | Sv% |
Tim Thomas | 1,526 | 1,409 | 92.4% |
Olaf Kolzig | 1,446 | 1,330 | 92.0% |
Patrick Roy* | 7,218 | 6,638 | 92.0% |
John Vanbiesbrouck | 2,030 | 1,865 | 91.9% |
Tuukka Rask | 1,639 | 1,505 | 91.8% |
Ken Wregget | 1,767 | 1,622 | 91.8% |
Dominik Hasek | 3,422 | 3,140 | 91.7% |
Braden Holtby | 1,774 | 1,627 | 91.7% |
Ed Belfour* | 4,641 | 4,256 | 91.7% |
Jean-Sebastien Giguere | 1,546 | 1,416 | 91.6% |
Craig Anderson | 1,482 | 1,356 | 91.5% |
Kirk McLean | 2,099 | 1,918 | 91.4% |
Patrick Lalime | 1,105 | 1,010 | 91.4% |
Cam Ward | 1,137 | 1,038 | 91.3% |
Dwayne Roloson | 1,478 | 1,348 | 91.2% |
Felix Potvin | 2,186 | 1,992 | 91.1% |
Curtis Joseph | 4,044 | 3,685 | 91.1% |
Martin Brodeur | 5,439 | 4,953 | 91.1% |
Grant Fuhr* | 3,966 | 3,610 | 91.0% |
Jonathan Quick | 2,322 | 2,113 | 91.0% |
Henrik Lundqvist | 3,739 | 3,402 | 91.0% |
Mike Liut | 1,064 | 968 | 91.0% |
Mike Richter | 2,182 | 1,985 | 91.0% |
Miikka Kiprusoff | 1,679 | 1,527 | 90.9% |
Bill Ranford | 1,536 | 1,396 | 90.9% |
Tom Barrasso | 3,521 | 3,197 | 90.8% |
Roberto Luongo | 2,087 | 1,895 | 90.8% |
Ryan Miller | 1,697 | 1,540 | 90.7% |
Chris Osgood | 3,246 | 2,943 | 90.7% |
Jimmy Howard | 1,424 | 1,291 | 90.6% |
Corey Crawford | 2,522 | 2,284 | 90.6% |
Nikolai Khabibulin | 2,155 | 1,951 | 90.5% |
Ron Hextall | 2,632 | 2,382 | 90.5% |
Pekka Rinne | 1,970 | 1,781 | 90.4% |
Reggie Lemelin | 1,147 | 1,036 | 90.3% |
Marty Turco | 1,345 | 1,215 | 90.3% |
Kelly Hrudey | 2,531 | 2,286 | 90.3% |
Carey Price | 1,702 | 1,536 | 90.3% |
Sean Burke | 1,101 | 993 | 90.2% |
Greg Millen | 1,336 | 1,205 | 90.2% |
Brian Boucher | 1,069 | 964 | 90.2% |
Don Beaupre | 1,538 | 1,386 | 90.1% |
Mike Vernon | 3,493 | 3,146 | 90.1% |
Jose Theodore | 1,730 | 1,559 | 90.1% |
Jon Casey | 1,789 | 1,611 | 90.1% |
Andy Moog | 2,655 | 2,385 | 89.8% |
Marc-Andre Fleury | 3,210 | 2,882 | 89.8% |
Evgeni Nabokov | 2,314 | 2,077 | 89.7% |
Ilya Bryzgalov | 1,304 | 1,169 | 89.7% |
Arturs Irbe | 1,513 | 1,357 | 89.6% |
Antti Niemi | 1,808 | 1,618 | 89.5% |
Brian Elliott | 1,063 | 951 | 89.5% |
Ray Emery | 1,051 | 937 | 89.2% |
[TBODY]
[/TBODY]
This table shows why it's critically important to take the era into consideration when evaluating goalies' playoff performances. For example, Grant Fuhr posted a seemingly unimpressive 89.9% save percentage between 1984 and 1988, when he helped the Oilers win four Stanley Cups in five years. Adjusted for era, Fuhr stopped 91.8% of the shots he faced during those four seasons. That's not quite elite, but it's a very strong performance over a large sample size (79). That doesn't even take into account the strong likelihood that Fuhr faced tougher quality shots than average due to playing on a run-and-gun team.
Keep in mind that career save percentage is, by definition, a career average. Tom Barrasso had a few rough playoffs at the start and end of his career, and that dragged down his average. His career average of 90.8% is barely above average; if one focuses on his prime from 1988 to 1996, Barrasso's save percentage rises to a very strong 91.6%.
Patrick Roy is tied for the second highest career save percentage out of any goalie who faced at least 1,000 shots (Roy faced more shots than the other top five goalies combined). He's also faced 33% more shots than the next closest goalie (Brodeur). No goalie during the past thirty years has surpassed (or even approached) Roy's combination of an extremely high level of performance, and longevity.
Top Thirty Playoffs – minimum 1,000 minutes
* updated for 2017
Goalie | Cup? | Smythe? | Year | Team | Minutes | Shots | Saves | Sv% |
Martin Brodeur | Yes | | 1995 | NJD | 1,222 | 475 | 448 | 94.4% |
Patrick Roy* | Yes | Yes | 1993 | MTL | 1,293 | 611 | 577 | 94.3% |
Pelle Lindbergh | | | 1985 | PHI | 1,008 | 468 | 441 | 94.3% |
Ed Belfour* | | | 1995 | CHI | 1,014 | 491 | 462 | 93.9% |
Patrick Roy* | Yes | Yes | 1986 | MTL | 1,218 | 489 | 458 | 93.7% |
Jean-Sebastien Giguere | | Yes | 2003 | MDA | 1,407 | 760 | 711 | 93.6% |
Patrick Roy* | | | 1989 | MTL | 1,206 | 521 | 488 | 93.6% |
Reggie Lemelin | | | 1988 | BOS | 1,027 | 442 | 414 | 93.5% |
Olaf Kolzig | | | 1998 | WSH | 1,351 | 770 | 720 | 93.5% |
John Vanbiesbrouck | | | 1996 | FLA | 1,332 | 720 | 672 | 93.4% |
Tim Thomas | Yes | Yes | 2011 | BOS | 1,542 | 789 | 736 | 93.3% |
Jonathan Quick | Yes | Yes | 2012 | LAK | 1,238 | 546 | 509 | 93.2% |
Dominik Hasek | | | 1999 | BUF | 1,217 | 616 | 574 | 93.2% |
Tom Barrasso | Yes | | 1991 | PIT | 1,175 | 600 | 559 | 93.2% |
Bill Ranford | Yes | Yes | 1990 | EDM | 1,401 | 676 | 629 | 93.2% |
Patrick Roy* | Yes | Yes | 2001 | COL | 1,451 | 693 | 645 | 93.0% |
Mike Smith | | | 2012 | PHX | 1,027 | 611 | 568 | 93.0% |
Dwayne Roloson | | | 2006 | EDM | 1,160 | 625 | 581 | 92.9% |
Sean Burke | | | 1988 | NJD | 1,001 | 530 | 492 | 92.9% |
Kirk McLean | | | 1994 | VAN | 1,544 | 813 | 755 | 92.8% |
Martin Brodeur | | | 1994 | NJD | 1,171 | 526 | 488 | 92.7% |
Andy Moog | | | 1990 | BOS | 1,195 | 489 | 453 | 92.7% |
Arturs Irbe | | | 2002 | CAR | 1,078 | 511 | 474 | 92.7% |
Marc-Andre Fleury | | | 2008 | PIT | 1,251 | 603 | 559 | 92.6% |
Tuukka Rask | | | 2013 | BOS | 1,466 | 724 | 669 | 92.4% |
Alain Chevrier | | | 1989 | CHI | 1,013 | 478 | 441 | 92.3% |
Ed Belfour* | Yes | | 1999 | DAL | 1,544 | 648 | 597 | 92.3% |
Martin Brodeur | Yes | | 2003 | NJD | 1,491 | 678 | 626 | 92.2% |
Chris Osgood | Yes | | 2008 | DET | 1,160 | 425 | 392 | 92.2% |
Henrik Lundqvist | | | 2014 | NYR | 1,516 | 731 | 674 | 92.2% |
[TBODY]
[/TBODY]
I realize that 93.0% is an arbitrary threshold, but it's a pretty good summary of the best playoff performances of the past thirty years.
As I said in the previous post, there is little doubt that Roy is the greatest playoff goalie of the past three decades. He has three of the top seven performances, and five of the top thirty-three. He performed at an exceptionally high level on five different occasions where his team made the Stanley Cup finals, and he was a major reason why they were victorious four times.
Support Neutral Wins & Losses
* update for 2017
Goalie | Decision | Wins | Losses | Win% |
Patrick Roy* | 245 | 143 | 102 | 58.2% |
Martin Brodeur | 204 | 109 | 95 | 53.5% |
Ed Belfour* | 156 | 89 | 67 | 57.0% |
Grant Fuhr* | 137 | 72 | 65 | 52.3% |
Curtis Joseph | 129 | 69 | 60 | 53.6% |
Henrik Lundqvist | 126 | 68 | 58 | 53.7% |
Mike Vernon | 133 | 65 | 68 | 49.1% |
Dominik Hasek | 114 | 65 | 49 | 57.2% |
Chris Osgood | 123 | 63 | 60 | 51.4% |
Tom Barrasso | 115 | 59 | 56 | 51.7% |
Marc-Andre Fleury | 113 | 53 | 60 | 47.1% |
Andy Moog | 100 | 47 | 53 | 47.3% |
Ron Hextall | 90 | 46 | 44 | 50.8% |
Jonathan Quick | 81 | 44 | 37 | 54.7% |
Corey Crawford | 85 | 43 | 42 | 50.8% |
Kelly Hrudey | 82 | 41 | 41 | 49.8% |
Mike Richter | 74 | 40 | 34 | 53.4% |
Evgeni Nabokov | 84 | 39 | 45 | 46.5% |
Felix Potvin | 72 | 38 | 34 | 53.0% |
Kirk McLean | 68 | 37 | 31 | 54.8% |
Nikolai Khabibulin | 70 | 36 | 34 | 51.2% |
Roberto Luongo | 69 | 36 | 33 | 51.7% |
Pekka Rinne | 70 | 35 | 35 | 50.2% |
Braden Holtby | 59 | 34 | 25 | 58.3% |
Tim Thomas | 50 | 31 | 19 | 62.4% |
Tuukka Rask | 53 | 31 | 22 | 58.6% |
Ken Wregget | 53 | 31 | 22 | 58.6% |
Jon Casey | 63 | 30 | 33 | 47.6% |
Antti Niemi | 65 | 29 | 36 | 45.2% |
Ryan Miller | 55 | 28 | 27 | 51.4% |
Jean-Sebastien Giguere | 50 | 28 | 22 | 56.5% |
Miikka Kiprusoff | 53 | 28 | 25 | 52.6% |
Carey Price | 56 | 28 | 28 | 49.7% |
Bill Ranford | 53 | 27 | 26 | 51.6% |
Olaf Kolzig | 44 | 26 | 18 | 59.1% |
Don Beaupre | 53 | 26 | 27 | 48.8% |
Craig Anderson | 45 | 25 | 20 | 56.6% |
Dwayne Roloson | 46 | 25 | 21 | 53.9% |
Jose Theodore | 51 | 24 | 27 | 47.9% |
Arturs Irbe | 50 | 24 | 26 | 48.1% |
Jimmy Howard | 47 | 24 | 23 | 50.8% |
Marty Turco | 47 | 24 | 23 | 50.8% |
Patrick Lalime | 41 | 23 | 18 | 55.5% |
Cam Ward | 41 | 22 | 19 | 54.8% |
Greg Millen | 46 | 22 | 24 | 48.8% |
Ilya Bryzgalov | 45 | 21 | 24 | 46.5% |
Mike Liut | 35 | 19 | 16 | 53.5% |
Reggie Lemelin | 36 | 19 | 17 | 51.6% |
Ben Bishop | 34 | 18 | 16 | 54.4% |
Jonas Hiller | 30 | 17 | 13 | 57.2% |
Pete Peeters | 34 | 17 | 17 | 50.2% |
Brian Elliott | 37 | 17 | 20 | 45.6% |
Sean Burke | 35 | 17 | 18 | 47.6% |
Martin Jones | 30 | 16 | 14 | 55.0% |
Ray Emery | 38 | 16 | 22 | 42.8% |
Frederik Andersen | 32 | 16 | 16 | 48.9% |
Mario Gosselin | 31 | 15 | 16 | 47.3% |
[TBODY]
[/TBODY]
This is a concept developed by Taco McArthur –
link. Essentially, it shows how many games a goalie would be expected to win, had they played on an average team. I’m not sure if I like this or Wins Added more (the latter is a statistic I created), but TM’s statistic is far easier to calculate and gives fairly similar results, so let’s go with his! The chart above shows the results for all goalies with 30+ decisions.
Roy’s dominance continues. He has the most Support Neutral Wins by a massive margin. He also has the best win percentage out of any goalie with 60+ decisions. Once again, there is little doubt that Roy is greatest playoff goalie of the past three decades.
I've put together a chart comparing the playoff save percentage of every Stanley Cup Finalist of the official save percentage era (1984-2014) to the average regular season shooting percentage of their four respective playoff opponents.
Example: In 2002, Dominik Hasek and the Detroit Red Wings played the Vancouver Canucks, St. Louis Blues, Colorado Avalanche, and Carolina Hurricanes. Their respective shooting percentages were 10.9%, 9.5%, 9.4%, and 9.2%, for an average of 9.75%, meaning that the expected save percentage was .9025 or .903. Dominik Hasek had a .920, so he exceeded expectations by .017.
Looking strictly at a raw difference undoubtedly has its flaws, as it's not adjusted to the exact amount of games played against each team. And the higher the expectation, the harder it is to exceed those expectations by the same raw amount. And conversely, if one were to play against the Edmonton Oilers or Pittsburgh Penguins in their heyday (Lindbergh, Smith, Vanbiesbrouck, Vernon, etc.), very little was expected at all.
More than that, some of the goalies on the list didn't play 100% of their teams' games - for instance, Grant Fuhr was absent for much of the 1984 Finals against a team shooting at 14.7%.
Top Performances - Stanley Cup Winners
1. Patrick Roy, 1993 (+.057)
2. Patrick Roy, 1986 (+.049)
3. Grant Fuhr, 1984 (+.044)
4. Martin Brodeur, 1995 (+.039)
4. Patrick Roy, 2001 (+.039)
6. Patrick Roy, 1996 (+.037)
7. Bill Ranford, 1990 (+.036)
8. Jonathan Quick, 2012 (+.035)
9. Tim Thomas, 2011 (+.033)
10. Martin Brodeur, 2000 (+.032)
Top Performances - Stanley Cup Losers
1. Pelle Lindbergh, 1985 (+.053)
2. John Vanbiesbrouck, 1996 (+.049)
3. Patrick Roy, 1989 (+.043)
3. Jean-Sebastien Giguere, 2003 (+.043)
3. Tuukka Rask, 2013 (+.043)
6. Dominik Hasek, 1999 (+.041)
7. Billy Smith, 1984 (+.040)
8. Ron Hextall, 1987 (+.038)
8. Kirk McLean, 1994 (+.038)
10. Olaf Kolzig, 1998 (+.035)
10. Arturs Irbe, 2002 (+.035)
Hockey Outsider's look at adjusted regular season save % which shows Roy to be incredibly elite:
Save percentage is, in my opinion, the best statistic to evaluate a goalie with. Every goaltending statistic (save percentage, wins, GAA, shutouts, etc) is influenced by the goalie’s team, however save percentage is less team-dependent than the others. I think this is intuitively obvious to anyone who studies goaltending, but I’ll explain if anybody’s curious.
The problem with save percentage is that it’s highly era-dependent. The purpose of this study is to adjust save percentage so that it’s comparable across seasons. I have data for 1983-2009.
Career Adjusted Save Percentage REGULAR SEASON(min 400 games)
Name | Adj GP | Adj SA | Adj Sv | Sv% |
Dominik Hasek | 741 | 21368 | 19768 | 92.5% |
Patrick Roy | 1040 | 29471 | 27114 | 92.0% |
Roberto Luongo | 517 | 16744 | 15360 | 91.7% |
Martin Brodeur | 1009 | 26215 | 23943 | 91.3% |
Tomas Vokoun | 486 | 14928 | 13628 | 91.3% |
John Vanbiesbrouck | 872 | 25316 | 23110 | 91.3% |
Guy Hebert | 488 | 15379 | 14029 | 91.2% |
Jean-Sebastien Giguere | 436 | 12837 | 11707 | 91.2% |
Ed Belfour | 957 | 25678 | 23406 | 91.2% |
Andy Moog | 686 | 19252 | 17548 | 91.1% |
Kelly Hrudey | 664 | 20724 | 18888 | 91.1% |
Daren Puppa | 423 | 12179 | 11096 | 91.1% |
Curtis Joseph | 923 | 27638 | 25168 | 91.1% |
Ron Hextall | 605 | 16727 | 15211 | 90.9% |
Mike Richter | 660 | 20122 | 18294 | 90.9% |
Martin Biron | 407 | 12147 | 11043 | 90.9% |
Tom Barrasso | 746 | 22001 | 19999 | 90.9% |
Evgeni Nabokov | 471 | 12872 | 11697 | 90.9% |
Sean Burke | 804 | 24389 | 22162 | 90.9% |
Marty Turco | 433 | 11044 | 10035 | 90.9% |
Felix Potvin | 636 | 18855 | 17121 | 90.8% |
Jon Casey | 401 | 11172 | 10143 | 90.8% |
Dwayne Roloson | 435 | 12861 | 11674 | 90.8% |
Bob Essensa | 404 | 11976 | 10869 | 90.8% |
Mike Liut | 466 | 12993 | 11789 | 90.7% |
Nikolai Khabibulin | 661 | 19627 | 17807 | 90.7% |
Jeff Hackett | 473 | 14210 | 12891 | 90.7% |
Jose Theodore | 474 | 14133 | 12810 | 90.6% |
Chris Osgood | 690 | 18559 | 16809 | 90.6% |
Olaf Kolzig | 703 | 20961 | 18980 | 90.5% |
Don Beaupre | 585 | 16927 | 15318 | 90.5% |
Jocelyn Thibault | 558 | 16424 | 14856 | 90.5% |
Tommy Salo | 511 | 14333 | 12949 | 90.3% |
Patrick Lalime | 400 | 11085 | 10012 | 90.3% |
Grant Fuhr | 787 | 22904 | 20680 | 90.3% |
Ron Tugnutt | 498 | 14570 | 13154 | 90.3% |
Mike Vernon | 768 | 20514 | 18518 | 90.3% |
Arturs Irbe | 556 | 16034 | 14473 | 90.3% |
Glenn Healy | 418 | 12188 | 10996 | 90.2% |
Ken Wregget | 559 | 17368 | 15653 | 90.1% |
Greg Millen | 416 | 12054 | 10859 | 90.1% |
Bill Ranford | 628 | 18796 | 16925 | 90.0% |
Kirk McLean | 616 | 17573 | 15817 | 90.0% |
[TBODY]
[/TBODY]
Patrick Roy is incredibly underrated from a save percentage perspective. His peak occurred in the high-scoring late eighties and early nineties. He towered over his peers with almost Hasek-like dominance, but his raw numbers aren’t impressive because his played during an era that was very unfriendly to goalies. I often see people argue that Brodeur is better than Roy due to a higher save percentage. That would like comparing stats from an eighties player to a modern player, and concluding that the former was better. Adjusted for era, Roy was a significantly better regular season goalie than every goalie aside from Hasek in the past three decades.
Forwards:
-I think Pittsburgh has a decided advantage here.
First Lines:
Looking at the first lines Pittsburgh comes out on top for me whether looking collectively or individually. We'll start off with scoring acumen and go from there.
Gretzky - 155.6
Foyston - 78.4 (Consolidated NHA/PCHA 7 year score via Dreakmur)
Martinec - ?
vs
Mikita - 107.8
Kariya - 84.9
Mikhailov - ?
-As in any series Gretzky's going to give the Bankers a big leg up as a scoring unit. He's flat out the most dominant offensive player in history by a wide margin be it regular or postseason. Consider if he doesn't score a single goal in his career he's still the all time points leader. That's mind boggling. And in the postseason he's got almost 100 more points than 2nd place (Messier) and more than 150 that of 3rd (Kurri). Mikita is actually one of the better scoring C's of all time but even he can't come close to matching the pace of Gretzky and is nowhere remotely close in terms of postseason production or peak play.
Kariya obviously gives the Americans a slight edge at LW in terms of scoring (regular season) but that's about the only advantage he has. Foyston is an all time great playoff performer, Kariya is not. Kariya offers no value defensively or in the way of checking/physical play. Foyston does. If you're looking at the overall package and for a player that is going to rise to the occasion this really isn't a contest. But for all intents and purposes we'll call this a wash as both players are generally drafted close to one another and I'm inclined to say Kariya was superior in the regular season while Foyston much more so in the postseason.
Now we get to the fun part. Mikhailov and Martinec. I think this is quite close in all reality. Martinec, to me is one of the most underrated players in the ATD, and I've thought that since did an incredible bio on him, and Batis (along with a few other European HoH members) really shined a light on his defensive and PK abilities. I'm not going to sell Martinec as Mikhailov's equal but it IS c fairly close match up especially when you factor in the international stage and Martinec's dominance there. This is another comparison where I think you have to say Mikhailov was the better domestic player but Martinec was every bit as good, if not better (especially considering he didn't play for a loaded USSR team) than Mikhailov in major tournaments.
At the end of the day Mikhailov gets the advantage here but it's not a big one IMO.
Thanks to TDMM's thorough breakdown of Martinec we have more than enough to make this battle come out much closer than people might think on the surface:
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/threads/round-2-vote-8-hoh-top-wingers.1775699/page-2#post-92733299
I. Martinec looks to have peaked higher in international play than Boris Mikhailov or Alexander Maltsev
A. Martinec was the All-Star RW at the World Championships 4 straight years in the middle of the primes of all three (1974, 1975, 1976, 1977)
-Mikhailov was only an All-Star at the WCs twice (1973, 1979)
-Maltsev was an All-Star at the WC in 70, 71, 72, 78, 81 - The gap in the middle is Martinec's prime.
B. Martinec was the best player in the WCs in 1976, competing against prime Mikhailov, Maltsev, and all the 70s Soviet greats
1) Martinec was the top scorer in at the 1976 World Championships, with 20 points in 10 games.
2) He was voted the best forward at the 1976 World Championships
C. The Soviets feared Martinec so much that they felt the need to take him out in the 1974 WCs, similar to what Clarke did to Kharlamov in the Summit Series.
D. Czechoslovakia was almost as good as the USSR during Martinec's prime and he was the best Czech skater at the time.
1) During the course of Martinec's international career (71-77), the Czechs won 3/7 World Championships (72, 76, 77), and were 5-7-3 against the Soviets overall.
Even before then, the Czechs were apparently right up there with the Soviets:
From 66-72, the Czechs were 12-11-2 against the USSR and 5-5-2 in "meaningful games."
Source.
2) Martinec was considered the best Czech player at the time.
a) He won 3 of 4 "Golden Stick" awards for best Czechoslovakian player during this time (73, 75, 76). Goalie Jiri Holocek won in 74.
b) Overall, Martinec won 4 Golden Stick awards (73, 75, 76, 79) - the most ever until Jagr and Hasek.
3. Martinec is the All-Time leading Czechoslovakian scorer in "major international" tournaments by a wide margin.
■
135 pts 69 goals 66 assists 115 appearances Vladimir MARTINEC
■113 pts – 60 g – 53 a – 117 appearances — Jiri HOLIK
■110 pts – 78 g – 32 a – 111 appearances — Vaclav NEDOMANSKY (all before '74)
■104 pts – 53 g – 51 a – 114 appearances— Ivan HLINKA
4) Nedomansky defected after the 74 WCs. Martinec was undisputed star forward for the Czech National Team afterwards.
II. Maltsev and Mikhailov have slight longevity advantages.
A. Martinec seems to have been a star player from 1971 (when he first joined the national team) to 1979 (his last golden stick win. I believe he led the Czech league in goals that year for the first time, finally playing on a good team).
B. Mikhailov seems to have been a star from 69-80 and Maltsev seems to have been a star from from 69-81.
http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=565254
C. Maltsev might have been at his best from 70-72 and Mikhailov might have been at his best from 78-80.
D. This isn’t a huge longevity advantage, but its enough to probably make the three players about even in offensive value.
III. Intangibles and other considerations
A. Mikhailov oozes intangibles in a way that perhaps no other non-NHL Euro ever did.
B. Martinec and Maltsev are not known for much besides offense.
C. Martinec and Maltsev were both likely above average defensively, but I haven’t seen anything definitive.
D. One big difference between Maltsev and Martinec is that Maltsev has shown that he didn’t handle physical play very well. Whereas Martinec always bounced right back when physically abused (except when deliberately injured in 1974, but he can hardly be faulted for that:
Conclusion and All-Time rankings:
Martinec looks to have peaked higher internationally while Maltsev and Mikahilov had greater longevity as top scorers.
Mikhailov definitely beats the other two in intangibles. Martinec and Maltsev are about the same.
If Mikhailov is the 20th best winger of all-time, what does that make Martinec, who looks to have been better in his peak/prime in the international arena, but doesn't quite have the longevity, and definitely doesn't have the grit?
Where should Martinec be ranked in relation to Alexander Maltsev, considering again, Martinec looks to have been better in his peak/prime in the international arena, without quite having the longevity? Martinec wasn't known as gritty, but he seems to have handled physical play quite well.
By the way, Mikhailov and Maltsev were the two players with unusually good longevity as top scorers for the Soviets, so having less longevity than them isn't necessarily a bad thing (Martinec's prime looks at first glance to have been slightly longer than Kharlamov's).
Here's a great quote from VMBM on Martinec
I reckon his defensive play was one of those "areas" that "everyone" talked about?
Vladimír Martinec. He is one of our most wittiest hockey players. By two assists on goals he contributed a great deal to the victory over USSR. He attacks and defends very well, has an intuition for the game, he is a constructive player. If he gains better conditioning and experience yet, he can become the backbone of CSSR team
This (bolded) passage is also notable, and I remeber that poster Robert Gordon Orr already mentioned during the Non-NHL Europeans project that Martinec hated physical training (and was not maybe always in great condition). However, Martinec did become the backbone of Team CSSR, at least in 1974-77 (and good years beyond that too), even though I don't think his conditioning necessarily improved awfully lot in later years. This could also explain a little bit why his domestic numbers aren't as great as one might think.
At the end of the day, both 1st lines are loaded with offensive firepower, the Bankers more so thanks to Gretzky. Neither line will play great defense as the only plus defensive players on them are Foyston and maybe Mikita. Neither line is particularly heavy and certainly relies more on finesse but Foyston was very aggressive and Martinec, while not a big checker was arguably the most abused European of his time and handled it exceptionally well. Mikita and Mikhailov were "ornery". Gretzky, Foyston and Martinec is thoroughly dominant in the postseason/international realm vs the Americans top line.
2nd Lines:
-Another interesting match up. This one is tighter, let's take a look. Starting off with the scoring:
Stewart - 90.3
Giroux - 88.0 (100 this past full season at LW)
Broadbent - ?
vs
Stamkos - 88.4
Abel - 87.3
Gilbert - 83.1
From a scoring standpoint you have to give the Americans the advantage here because Gilbert is probably about 20-25 points superior to Broadbent, who doesn't have an official score because his career was prior to the consolidation point but I've guesstimated it to be roughly 55-60.
An interesting thing to note is both lines have a player in their secondary position. Giroux is coming off an elite 100 point season which was his first, full time at LW for the Flyers. Sid Abel's best years and most dominant period was at C on the production line between Lindsay and Howe (has any C ever had better wingers? I can't imagine so). Abel did manage 1 2nd team AS at left wing earlier in his career and I'd wager Giroux deserves/gets one for his elite season, as long as the voters don't just automatically toss him at C, which he didn't play (that'd be Coutourier). Both lines are well balanced, have a dominant goal getter (Stewart and Stamkos) and able facilitators (Giroux, Abel, Gilbert). The Bankers do possess a great deal more grit and physicality on their line.
I do think the Americans top 6 can be pushed around some and you better believe that Gorman will have his checking lines doing a great deal of smart hitting when available.
Stewart was a 2 time Hart winner at C and had an elite all time season in 1925-26 all the way through being thoroughly dominant in the Cup finals. It's also important to note there is some real life chemistry here with Stewart and Broadbent who played 25-26 and 26-27 together on the same line for the Maroons so there is an added bonus in terms of cohesion.
Overall, I want to call this is a wash, but the Americans do possess a fairly large advantage in terms of pure scoring thank to RW, although the Bankers do have real life chemistry and more Cup winning experience on it. I absolutely rate Stewart above Stamkos all time, even before I unearthed the treasure trove of information regarding his defensive play and speed. Each line has 1 plus defensive player (Broadbent and Abel) although the advantage here overall is with the Bankers IMO. Giroux is at least average and Stewart as well after all the information I dug up on him was presented.
But the Americans have the advantage on both wings in my estimation and that gives them a slight advantage overall.
3rd lines:
-I think we're back to seeing the Bankers on top here. Ted Kennedy is by far the best player on either line. We're talking about a borderline top 20 C ever. One of the all time great postseason performers. The only thing he really wasn't elite/great at was scoring and skating. He's one of the greatest players in the dot of all time. An elite checker, great defensive forward who also routinely killed penalties and obviously an elite leader with elite intangibles. I think he's about as perfect as you can get as a two way, checking line C to go up against Mikita. Mikita for the first portion of his career was prone to taking stupid penalties and Kennedy is exactly the type of guy who could draw those with his relentless checking and physical play. Plus he's got plenty of offense for a 3rd line C on the counter attack. I'm one of Kopitar's biggest fans and even with this years elite season is still a ways off from Kennedy all time. I think Kopitar has a chance to get to Kennedy's level if things go right but he's not there yet. Offensively they're almost dead even and I'd say defensively they are as well. But Kennedy's regular and postseason resume's are simply better. Better Hart finishes, AS finishes, and Kennedy was essentially an elite player on 5 SC winning teams vs 2 for Kopitar. He has simply done more but that's partially because Kopitar is still playing. Either way, it's an advantage for Pitt.
Ed Westfall is one of the all time great pure defensive wingers and PK'ers. He was so good he completely owned the likes of Bobby Hull in the playoffs and you better believe he'll be keeping a close eye on Mikhailov/Kariya. Ace Bailey provides a touch more offense and he's certainly a good to great defensive player (namely on the PK) but he's not on the level of Westfall who's routinely mentioned as the best ever in his own end, at ES or on the PK. Consider Westfall tied/led the playoffs in short handed goals 4 times and has a big advantage in terms of longevity, which is due to Bailey suffering a horrible career ending injury which is unfortunate because he would likely be ranked a good bit higher had he not been hurt so badly by Eddie Shore. Advantage Pittsburgh.
Sid Smith is a fairly underrated player all time IMO. He was a 3 time postseason AS (one 1st and two 2nds) and was there around the same time as guys like Ted Lindsay, Bert Olmstead, and Dickie Moore. Not shabby competition at LW. Rarely took penalties, was a decent scorer and all around player and like the 2nd line for the Bankers (Stewart/Broadbent) played the better part of a decade with or on the same line as Ted Kennedy (they won 3 titles together) so again Pittsburgh has some real life chemistry brewing. I do think Gordon Roberts is a touch better though simply because he was a bit more highly thought of during his days vs his peers in the PCHA and was a better overall scorer.
All in all I think this is a decent advantage for Pittsburgh, namely due to the depth at C and having a player like Ted Kennedy here. Westfall>Bailey and Roberts>Smith. Both lines are built to be two way units as far as i can see but both can absolutely handle a more pure checking role if needed.
4th lines:
-Like other series, this boils down to C depth. Getzlaf is miles better than Luce. I don't think there is much separating the wingers (Bourne and Paiement vs Balon and Russell). The Bankers have more of a two way checking line vs a pure defensive line from the Amerks. Because of Getzlaf >>Luce I see this as a decided advantage for Pittsburgh.
Overall:
-I think the Banker possess an advantage to one degree or another on the 1st, 3rd and 4th lines, while the Americans have a slight advantage on the 2nd.
Defense:
1st pairs:
-
Your top pair (Salming-Park) is absolutely superior to my top pair (Laperriere-Clapper). You have an advantage no double about it. A few things though.
Salming and Park and never won a Cup. Their experience in the biggest moments is lacking compared to Lappy-Clapper.
Also, I defeated Orr-Horton, and Kelly-Bouchard already and your pair is certainly weaker than the 1st one listed and not definitively better than the 2nd either.
How much better is Salming compared to Laperriere? Salming faced stiffer competition at D to be fair but he was also an offensively slanted defender while
JL was more heavily focused on defense, yet Lappy won a Norris over Pilote, Trembaly and Stapleton, certainly not a bunch of nobodies and had an overall record of 1, 2, 4, 4, 5, 8 (vs 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 5, 10) and was a 4 time postseason AS. Again, he didn't put up gaudy point totals yet got plenty of recognition as a defender by the voters. Salming is superior because his regular season resume is better but Lappy makes up a lot of ground with his postseason experience and performances.
I don't think this is much of a gap at all in reality because most people don't realize how impressive JL's regular season awards are given he was much more of a defensive dman, and the difference in playoff output and background.
Park is probably 10-12 spots better than Clapper but again Clapper's intangibles are through the roof, he has a peak that, IMO rivals Park on D (Clapper was thought of as every bit as good as Eddie Shore was from 1938 through 1941, and won the equivalent of 2 Norris trophies as determined by TDMM and others and had 2 Hart finalist nods).
Obviously Park did it better on D for longer, but that's in large part because Clapper spent the first 2/3 of his career as an AS caliber RW.
Either way, you're ahead all together. It's a decided advantage but comes with some caveats IMO.
2nd Pairs
-I think Pittsburgh wins here for 2 reasons.
One, I simply think Stapleton-White is slightly superior to Siebert-Goldham. And two, Staples-White was a stellar real life defensive pairing for quite some time in Chicago, including during the 1972 Summit series where they were flat out amazing and big part of why the Canucks ended up victorious in a monumentally important series both in terms of talent involved but also due to the political and cultural times. The Stapleton-White will be less prone to communication breakdowns.
Also consider how much Stapleton and White were used at ES and the impact they had there (along with Laperriere). See graphs below:
Even Strength - Defencemen
Player | GP | $ESP/82 | $ESGF/82 | $ESGA/82 | R-ON | R-OFF | EV% |
Bobby Orr | 657 | 64 | 130 | 66 | 1.99 | 1.03 | 49% |
Pat Stapleton | 635 | 31 | 104 | 87 | 1.18 | 1.14 | 49% |
Bill White | 604 | 24 | 93 | 75 | 1.24 | 1.06 | 49% |
Pierre Pilote | 660 | 36 | 108 | 81 | 1.34 | 1.11 | 49% |
Tim Horton | 1010 | 24 | 97 | 83 | 1.16 | 1.17 | 48% |
Jacques Laperriere | 691 | 21 | 104 | 77 | 1.35 | 1.29 | 47% |
Marcel Pronovost | 636 | 21 | 93 | 91 | 1.02 | 0.98 | 46% |
Gilles Marotte | 808 | 23 | 85 | 99 | 0.86 | 0.87 | 46% |
Leo Boivin | 728 | 23 | 87 | 115 | 0.76 | 0.73 | 46% |
Erik Karlsson | 556 | 44 | 85 | 84 | 1.01 | 0.95 | 46% |
Harry Howell | 932 | 21 | 88 | 101 | 0.87 | 0.77 | 46% |
Ian Turnbull | 628 | 33 | 86 | 82 | 1.05 | 1.02 | 45% |
J.C. Tremblay | 796 | 25 | 101 | 78 | 1.30 | 1.30 | 45% |
Moose Vasko | 600 | 19 | 89 | 83 | 1.07 | 1.09 | 45% |
Brian Leetch | 1205 | 33 | 84 | 80 | 1.06 | 0.97 | 45% |
Barry Gibbs | 792 | 19 | 74 | 85 | 0.87 | 0.95 | 45% |
Gary Bergman | 838 | 26 | 86 | 88 | 0.97 | 0.90 | 44% |
Bob Baun | 826 | 19 | 88 | 77 | 1.15 | 1.16 | 44% |
Carl Brewer | 533 | 27 | 100 | 70 | 1.42 | 1.07 | 44% |
Allan Stanley | 627 | 26 | 92 | 79 | 1.17 | 1.21 | 44% |
Ted Harris | 788 | 19 | 84 | 71 | 1.18 | 1.17 | 43% |
Dale Rolfe | 509 | 19 | 83 | 79 | 1.06 | 1.02 | 43% |
Jim Schoenfeld | 719 | 20 | 88 | 68 | 1.29 | 1.19 | 43% |
Paul Coffey | 1409 | 41 | 95 | 77 | 1.23 | 1.20 | 43% |
Jim Neilson | 1024 | 22 | 81 | 86 | 0.94 | 1.00 | 43% |
Dallas Smith | 889 | 24 | 96 | 76 | 1.27 | 1.34 | 43% |
Borje Salming | 1148 | 28 | 86 | 75 | 1.14 | 0.82 | 43% |
Larry Robinson | 1384 | 32 | 97 | 61 | 1.60 | 1.34 | 43% |
Reed Larson | 904 | 29 | 73 | 81 | 0.90 | 0.82 | 43% |
Denis Potvin | 1060 | 36 | 87 | 58 | 1.49 | 1.23 | 43% |
Duncan Keith | 913 | 33 | 88 | 73 | 1.20 | 1.08 | 43% |
Serge Savard | 1040 | 23 | 94 | 65 | 1.44 | 1.52 | 43% |
Terry Harper | 1066 | 17 | 85 | 68 | 1.24 | 1.04 | 43% |
Ted Green | 620 | 26 | 89 | 100 | 0.89 | 1.07 | 42% |
Ron Stackhouse | 889 | 25 | 82 | 79 | 1.05 | 0.82 | 42% |
Dave Burrows | 724 | 14 | 76 | 85 | 0.89 | 0.99 | 42% |
Carol Vadnais | 1087 | 24 | 78 | 82 | 0.96 | 1.00 | 42% |
Phil Russell | 1016 | 22 | 75 | 73 | 1.04 | 0.96 | 42% |
P.K. Subban | 500 | 31 | 77 | 69 | 1.11 | 0.99 | 42% |
Drew Doughty | 688 | 25 | 72 | 63 | 1.15 | 1.02 | 42% |
Scott Stevens | 1635 | 28 | 83 | 63 | 1.31 | 1.19 | 42% |
Guy Lapointe | 884 | 28 | 91 | 64 | 1.41 | 1.66 | 42% |
Bob Stewart | 575 | 14 | 62 | 95 | 0.65 | 0.75 | 42% |
Dustin Byfuglien | 521 | 35 | 79 | 78 | 1.02 | 0.92 | 42% |
Brad Park | 1115 | 33 | 89 | 64 | 1.40 | 1.20 | 42% |
Alex Pietrangelo | 539 | 33 | 77 | 68 | 1.13 | 1.14 | 42% |
Ray Bourque | 1612 | 35 | 86 | 63 | 1.37 | 0.95 | 42% |
Victor Hedman | 549 | 35 | 81 | 74 | 1.08 | 0.99 | 42% |
Bob Dailey | 561 | 26 | 74 | 68 | 1.09 | 1.18 | 41% |
Derian Hatcher | 1045 | 21 | 73 | 70 | 1.04 | 1.10 | 41% |
Robert Svehla | 655 | 25 | 73 | 70 | 1.04 | 0.95 | 41% |
Jocelyn Guevremont | 571 | 24 | 79 | 75 | 1.05 | 0.97 | 41% |
Dion Phaneuf | 902 | 22 | 74 | 73 | 1.02 | 0.97 | 41% |
Barry Beck | 615 | 23 | 75 | 73 | 1.02 | 0.84 | 41% |
Nicklas Lidstrom | 1564 | 30 | 88 | 62 | 1.41 | 1.17 | 41% |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
[TBODY]
[/TBODY]
Consider your TOP PAIR wasn't even used near as much at even strength as my 2nd pair or Jacques Laperierre.
Stapleton and White's teams produced a lot of offense with them essentially playing half the game at ES over the course of their careers and
neither one of them ever enjoyed having a F like Gretzky or overall scoring ability in the top 6 to get the puck up to. Nor the depth of C talent.
And they also have the benefit of having the greatest goalie of all time behind them in Patrick Roy. Remember Glenn Hall was out of Chicago by the time Stapleton and White were a thing.
Bernie Parent is a fine goalie, but which defensive corps is going to be more relaxed? I'd say Pittsburgh's easily.
3rd Pairs
-Pittsburgh is ahead here again for much of the same reasons as the 2nd pairing.
Frank Patrick, to me is the best player on either pairing. He's paired with a longtime teammate in Si Griffis. So again you have a real life chemistry advantage for Pittsburgh. And a pair that's actually going to be on the ice a lot more because Joe Hall is one of the most violent/PIM'd players in the entire ATD.
Look at Patrick's offensive dominance: (taken from RB's bio)
First Lets Look At the PCHA (Source Empire of Ice)
- PCHA defense scoring leader all 4 full PCHA seasons he played (1912, 1913, 1914, 1917)
1912 Season
Frank - 24 Goals (Points) - 4th League Wide
Lester - 10 Goals (Points) - 11th League Wide
Johnson - 9 Goals (Points) -12th League Wide
Notable forwards he outscored: Tommy Phillips, Fred Taylor
1913 Season
Frank - 12 Goals - 20 Points - 4th League Wide
Lester - 14 Goals - 5 Points - 5th League Wide
Johnson - 6 Goals - 10 Points - 13th League Wide
Notable forwards he outscored: Fred Taylor, Eddie Oatman
1914 Season
Frank - 11 Goals - 20 Points - 6th League Wide
Lester - 5 Goals - 10 Points - 16th League Wide (was injured though)
Johnson - 3 Goals - 8 Points - Tied for 17th
Notable forwards he outscored: Didier Pitre, Frank Nighbor, Smokey Harris
1917 Season
Frank - 13 Goals - 26 Points - Tied for 10th
Lester - 10 Goals - 21 Points - Tied for 12th
Cook - 13 Goals - 22 Points - Tied for 11th
Jonhson - 12 Goals - 21 Points - Tied for 12th
Notable forwards he outscored: Jack Walker, Tommy Dunderdale (tie)
Looking at the scoring in these four years and arbitrarily picking the best defenceman each team in the PCHA had that season (L.Patrick, L.Cook and E.Johnson) it's fairly clear that Frank was on a level above them in terms of offensive production. PCHA all-time defense points-per-game leaders, min. 80 GP
Finally to make it as apples to apples as I can, in these 4 seasons Frank played 68 games, so taking those other defencemens ppg over their best seasons as close as I can get to 68 games gives
This is from SIHR
F. Patrick - 1.32 Pts/Game
L. Patrick - 1.10 Pts/Game
L.Cook - 0.97 Pts/Game
The retirement of (Frank) Patrick from the game means the passing of one of the greatest, if not the greatest, player who ever handled a puck in Canadian hockey. ... As a defence player there are few better than Patrick. A wonderful stickhandler, fast on his skates and possessing wonderful judgment, he has played brilliantly during the many years of services with the various teams. ... Patrick and Griffis proved the most formidable pair of defence players in the Coast League since the inception of the game in these parts. Patrick has not only proved himself one of the most wonderful puck chasers of the last decade, but he has clearly won honor as one of the best leaders in the history of the game. - Calgary Daily Herald, Dec. 10, 1917
Frank Patrick and Griffis were in the limelight with many speedy rushes. - Morning Leader, Mar. 21, 1913 (during exhibition game between NHA and PCHA)
Frank Patrick played a great game, and time after time he carried the puck from end to end, only to be foiled by the wonderful work of Lehman. Patrick's stick-handling and skating was a revelation to the fans, and they applauded it heartily. - Calgary Daily Herald, Mar. 18, 1913
The outstanding feature of the Renfrew team's performance was the gilt edged work of Frank Patrick at point. Patrick was head and shoulders over any other player on the ice, his sensational goal-to-goal rushes being directly responsible for three or four Renfrew goals. Frank seems to have hit his championship clip for in every movement, he showed the same speed and cleverness which made him such a tower of strength to the Montreal Victorias two years ago. With Lester he electrified the crowd time after time. - Ottawa Citizen, Jan. 20, 1910
Fred Whitcroft at left wing put up a fine game, nevertheless, he and Frank Patrick often making many a dangerous rush. Several of the Renfrew goals were scored on individual rushes. In this respect Frank Patrick, Lester Patrick and Fred Taylor shone. - Ottawa Citizen, Feb. 5, 1910
The rushes of Joe Power and Frank Patrick were features of the team's play, and their clever stick-handling and fast skating won them applause. - Montreal Gazette, Jan. 1, 1908
The brothers, Lester and Frank Patrick, were really good ones. Lester was a classical player in every phase of the game whereas Frank was strong defensively. But Frank could also carry the puck from one end of the rink to the other if he had to, and he often did.
The Victoria forwards were unable to do much against the Vancouver defence, Griffis and (Frank) Patrick, intercepting many rushes, while Taylor was to the fore in leading attacks on the Victoria goal. - Saskatoon Phoenix, Dec. 19, 1912
Seattle put up a better brand of combination than they have shown this season; they checked back as hard as ever, but they lacked the power to finish work well begun, largely because Lehman and (Frank) Patrick and Griffis put up their usual line of defence. - Morning Leader, Jan. 31, 1916
The thing that sticks out at me from the above is the "usual" part, which implies that, at the very least, the group that Patrick was a part of normally were very steady defensively.
Frank Patrick was easily the most conspicuous man on the ice, the youngster showing up in brilliant form. His long combination rushes with Whitcroft were features of the game, while his defence play was of a high class. - Ottawa Citizen, Feb. 5, 1910
Cook and Frank Patrick were in great form on the defence and were hard to beat. The rushes of both of them were of the spectacular order. - Backcheck: A hockey retrospective, regarding game 3
Frank Patrick beat the shit out of Joe Hall
One night Lester went down on the ice under a mass of kicking, struggling players, among them Bad Joe Hall, one of the roughest hockey players of all time. Frank leaned over the prostrate Lester, his eyes focused on a gash on his brother's forehead. "Who did it, Lester?" he asked grimly. "Was it Hall? Never mind answering. I'll take care of him." Actually Lester didn't need any help at all. He was bigger than Frank to begin with. But in less time than it takes to tell the tale Frank had Bad Joe stretched out on the ice, listening to the sweet tune the birdies sing. - New York Times, Nov. 18, 1943
Patrick again bests Hall in a scrap
Through the contest, Hall and Patrick had been exchanging pokes and chops, and already bloodied by a swipe from Patrick, Hall had had enough. After taking one more of these knocks, Joe went splashing up the ice after Frank, who hit him again. Hall stopped and struck back with his stick, slicing Frank's cheek. A lively scrap ensued, during which Hall received yet another nasty gash, this time over his eye. - The Patricks: Hockey's Royal Family
Bod Joe was constantly running at the Patricks... Frank had fought back, too hard, insisted Hall, who said that he had been crosschecked by Patrick earlier, without a penalty being called... Hall was continually frustrated in his attempts to corner Frank Patrick. The latter was retaliating... Their lively scrap terminated when Hall dropped his stick and hit Patrick, who retaliated with a Jeffreys punch. - The Renfrew Millionaires
Overall:
I think like the series against Kenora, this ends up being a wash.
-
The Americans certainly have the advantage on the top pair but the Bankers bridge the gap IMO, with their superior depth and 2 real life pairings that had a ton of success together at the highest levels. Plus throw in the fact that Stapleton-White logged elite ES minutes and were very productive with them, they'll be able to contribute a bit more than your ordinary 2nd pair IMO.