ATD #11, Foster Hewitt Semifinals. Thunder Bay Twins (2) vs. Minnesota Saints (3)

[seventieslord]

Please post your rosters. If I have made any mistake in the titling of this thread, please let me know and I will edit it. Good luck to both.

Click to read more...

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Good luck Nalyd, this should be a great series. I should be able to post some thoughts this weekend.

Coach: Billy Reay

Roy Conacher - Bill Cowley - Alexander Maltsev
Paul Kariya - Mike Modano - Daniel Alfredsson
Adam Graves - Phil Goyette - Bobby Rousseau
Louis Berlinquette - John Madden - Martin St. Louis
Milan Novy, Tumba Johansson

Chris Pronger - Nicklas Lidstrom
Sergei Zubov - Gary Suter
Ulf Samuelsson - Bill Hajt
Steve Duchesne

Ken Dryden
Andy Moog

PP1: Conacher - Cowley - Maltsev - Zubov - Suter
PP2: Kariya - Modano - Alfredsson - Pronger - Lidstrom

PK1: Madden - St. Louis - Lidstrom - Pronger
PK2: Goyette - Rousseau - Zubov - Hajt
PK3: Berlinquette - Modano - Lidstrom - Suter​

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

Coach: Pat Quinn
Assistant Coach: Jaroslav Pitner
Captain: Scott Stevens
Alternate Captain: Bob Gainey
Alternate Captain: Hod Stuart

#7 Doug Bentley-#19 Joe Thornton-#68 Jaromir Jagr
#23 Bob Gainey-#12 Mickey MacKay-#17 Jack Darragh
#16 Gaye Stewart-#11 Frank McGee-#9 Tod Sloan
#8 Rusty Crawford-#25 Orland Kurtenbach-#22 Stan Smyl

#4 Scott Stevens-#44 Cyclone Taylor
#2 Hod Stuart-#52 Adam Foote
#77 Gennady Tsygankov-#3 Joe Hall

#1 Hap Holmes
#31 Ed Giacomin

Spares:
#55 Jack Laviolette
#23 Bobby Rowe

Special Teams:
Bentley-Thornton-Jagr-Taylor-Hall
MacKay-McGee-Darragh-Stevens-Stuart

Gainey-Bentley-Stevens-Foote
Taylor-MacKay-Stuart-Tsygankov​

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

My 1st thought on strategy.

For games 3, 4 and 6 I'm gonna try and keep Jagr away from Lidstrom. That's a no brainer. But, for game 1, 2, 5 and 7, it's obviously a futile battle, so, the goal is to go head to head, strength to strength and see who wins. And how am I doing that? Cyclone Taylor will always be on the ice when Jagr is. Lidstrom and Pronger may be the 1st and 3rd best defensive d-men in the series. But, Jagr and Taylor are the 1st and 2nd best offensive players in the series. Also, having a dynamic 1st line, backed up by a dominant offensive d-man makes them harder to defend against because of the added dimension. It spreads puck movement out onto a 360 axis and gives the line 2 players who can exploit Pronger's lack of 360 mobility.

 

[Sturminator]

Remarkable how little discussion we've got going in this series considering the standard of verbosity set by the GMs involved. I'll add a couple of my thoughts:

- when the divisional standings came out, I foresaw this showdown in the second round as a very, very interesting battle. Nalyd's teams are always a little odd - both brilliant and flawed at the same time, often even on the same unit. Nalyd seems to eschew balance and conservatism for the creation of explosive and exciting teams (our collaborative ATD#8 Oakland Seals come to mind), and we see that again with these Fighting Saints. The first line, for example, has the talent to be a dominant unit, and the playoff leadership of a beer league team. What can we expect from Bentley - Thornton - Jagr? I haven't the slightest idea, though the presence of Cyclone Taylor on the first pairing makes it very difficult to simply dismiss the 1st unit as a playoff flop and be done with it.

One thing that cannot be questioned about these Fighting Saints is their toughness. They're not a Murphy-esque squad, but the Fightins are quite nasty in their own right. Stevens, Stuart, Foote and Hall bring a large amount of aggression (and flat-out dirty play) to the defense, and the forward lines boast names like Gainey, Sloan, Kurtenbach and McGee. This Minnesota team is big, strong and highly aggressive, and they back it up with a couple of high-end pugilists (Kurtenbach and Hall) in expendable roster slots that won't hurt the PK when they're sitting in the box.

I am not normally a GM who focuses a whole lot on the physical game because most ATD teams have enough jam not to be thrown off their game by a team like Minnesota, but I'm not sure that the Twins are one of those teams. As GBC pointed out in the last round, Thunder Bay is arguably the softest team in the league, with very few players known for finishing their checks and nobody who could even moonlight as a heavyweight pugilist against the likes of Bad Joe Hall and/or Orland Kurtenbach. The Twins feature several cupcakes like Cowley, Kariya and Rousseau and even the biggest, strongest forward on their scoringlines (Conacher) has no reputation as a digger or a physical force. Puckwinning may be somewhat of an issue for Thunder Bay, but what really interests me in all of this is Chris Pronger.

Anyone who has watched his career knows that there are two Prongers: Good Pronger and Bad Pronger. The modifiers "good" and "bad" accord both to Pronger's mood and his level of play. In short: when Chris tries to play rough, he gets out of control and hurts his team. When he plays within himself and stays in control, he is often the best player on the ice. A quick look over Pronger's career, especially his playoff performances, bears this out. Pronger has exactly two great playoff runs to his credit, in consecutive seasons with Edmonton and Anaheim. What are the common factors seen in these performances?

1) Pronger's PIMs are at around 1/game

2) Pronger played on very physical teams

3) Pronger was not team captain (or really put in any kind of meaningful leadership role. He was new to the teams in both cases, and worked his way into leadership only by his play on the ice)

...before anyone points it out for me, yes, Chris was suspended twice during the Ducks' Cup run (including one game in the finals), but actually played an extremely disciplined game throughout those playoffs when he wasn't taking match penalties. I can only recall seeing Chris take 2 or 3 minor penalties in that entire Cup run, and I watched (in great frustration) all of the Ducks' games save for a couple in the first round.

And what are the common factors in Pronger's long list of playoff burnouts and failures while in St Louis?

1) His PIMs are disgustingly bloated. Pronger racked up 210 PIMS in 85 playoff games in St. Louis, for a per-game rate of 2.47, which would make Eddie Shore proud.

2) His teams were soft, especially at forward and especially in the middle period of his St. Louis years, featuring raging bulls like Pavol Demitra, Pierre Turgeon and Brett Hull as cornerstones of the attack. Later on, Keith Tkachuk was at least a credible physical presence, but he's no kind of team leader, and the rest of the Blues "physicality" generally came from somewhat pitiful sources like Tyson Nash and Jamal Mayers.

3) He was team captain (from 1997 to 2003, at least) and the vocal leader of those Blues.

Pronger was the physical and emotional leader of those teams - the Bad Cop in St. Louis, and as a consequence, more often than not played like Bad Pronger when the playoffs rolled around and the physical intensity of the games rose. He failed utterly as a leader, and showed his worthlessness in that role again in Anaheim, when he was promoted to captian in 07-08 and subsequently removed from the role (in favor of Niedermayer again) this season. Pronger's vast postseason improvement in Edmonton and Anaheim was not a coincidence. Take Pronger out of the sheriff/leadership role and let him play his game and he is a dominant force on the ice because he is a great hockey player. Fail to pull in the reigns, let the idea form in his tiny squirrel brain that he is an enforcer, and you've just punched your ticket to a playoff flameout. Title of this essay: The Rise and Fall of the Blues in Five Paragraphs.

Long story short, I think Thunder Bay may be heading for a trainwreck with Pronger in this series, and where goes Pronger, so go the Twins (at least in this case), because without Good Pronger, I don't think the Twins are going to beat these Saints. Do the Twins have the leadership to reign in Pronger? Can Billy Reay, the players' coach, do it? Can the captains Lidstrom, Conacher and Madden (I believe those were the assigned players), do it? As far as I know, Conacher and Madden were never captains in real life, and although I have great respect for Lidstrom, as an ATD captain, he is very much on the low end for that role. There appears to be something of a leadership vacuum in Thunder Bay, and an almost perfect Bad Pronger storm in the making.

 

[arrbez]

I heard Pronger shops at the GAP.

For anyone who remembers, what was Bill Hajt like as a physical/confrontational player? The Pronger-as-Sheriff talk just got me thinking about how someone inevitably has to answer for Ulf Samuelsson, and it's rarely Ulf himself.

 

[seventieslord]

I heard Pronger shops at the GAP.

For anyone who remembers, what was Bill Hajt like as a physical/confrontational player? The Pronger-as-Sheriff talk just got me thinking about how someone inevitably has to answer for Ulf Samuelsson, and it's rarely Ulf himself.

As I understand it, he was nondescript in every way. He did little offensively, he did little physically, and he did little defensively that you would notice.... in other words, no mistakes. Just a flawless defensive game with little else to speak of. I'm trying to think of a modern comparison.............................................................................................. Can't think of one that does Hajt justice.

 

[seventieslord]

oh, and that was a really entertaining and insightful analysis by Sturm.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

The first line, for example, has the talent to be a dominant unit, and the playoff leadership of a beer league team. What can we expect from Bentley - Thornton - Jagr? I haven't the slightest idea, though the presence of Cyclone Taylor on the first pairing makes it very difficult to simply dismiss the 1st unit as a playoff flop and be done with it.

I think Jagr gets a bit of a bad rap. We all know that in the NHL, depth wins in the playoffs. And Jagr played on painfully shallow teams. So, naturally his teams lost. But you aggregate the performances and you get a better picture. From 97-99 Pittsburgh only won one series. But 8 points in 5 games, 9 in 6 and 12 in 9 amounts to 20gp: 13 g, 16a, 29pts. Which is, honestly Conn Smythe candidate production. It's clearly not a lack of production by Jagr that hurt the team.

Yes, he did disappoint in '93, but the whole team did and he wasn't expected to lead the team. And I would imagine 2001 stands out where he wins the Art Ross but manages 12 points in 16 games. But, this was the dead puck era and that was good for 3rd on the team. And, focusing on that ignores the fact that his previous 3 double digit game runs netted him: 15 in 12 (10 goals), 23 in 18 and 16 in 11.

His regular season ppg is: 1.256
His post season ppg is: 1.071

Does it drop? Yes. Is .185 a huge drop? No. Games get tighter, the teams are better, scoring drops. Is he still a point per game player? Clearly yes. Can he be shut down in the post season? Clearly no. Add to that, his longest playoff run was as a rookie when he was still adapting. Subtract that and his playoff ppg is 1.159.

I have no concern about Jagr being able to produce solid numbers. Enough numbers for Minnesota to win.

And with our superior leadership, a players coach who will get Jagr's respect and a Czech assistant coach who will have Jagr's ear. I think we'll see Jagr at his very best.

As I understand it, he was nondescript in every way. He did little offensively, he did little physically, and he did little defensively that you would notice.... in other words, no mistakes. Just a flawless defensive game with little else to speak of. I'm trying to think of a modern comparison.............................................................................................. Can't think of one that does Hajt justice.

I considered him heavily for my 6th d-man spot and researched him heavily. And he was definitely a gentle giant. Excellent positionally and the embodiment of the maxim that "the best defensemen are never noticed."

 

[seventieslord]

I think Jagr is a pretty good playoff performer. Even late in his career he was clearly the catalyst for his team.

His PPG drops by 15% from the regular season to the postseason which doesn't classify him really as a warrior or a choker, his scoring dropped only at about the same level that the rest of the league did.

Of course, 1991 skews his numbers as he played 14% of his career playoff games that year, and only 6% of his career regular season games. Take both out, and he has 1.2925 and 1.1586 for a drop of just 10% from regular season to playoffs. I believe this is actually less than the "across the board" scoring plunge that we generally see.

One other thing worth mentioning is that it is much harder for the generational talent-caliber players with outstanding PPG numbers, to maintain it in the playoffs. I've noticed that the better you are, the harder it is to maintain that production in the playoffs. If you look at the all-time PPG leaders here:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/leaders/points_per_game_career.html

You have Gretzky, who drops 5%, Lemieux, who drops 15%, Bossy, who drops 18%, Orr, who drops 11%, Dionne, who drops 30%, Stastny, who drops 11%, Forsberg, who drops 10%, Nilsson, who drops 29%, Esposito, who drops 15%, Lafleur, who drops 13%, Sakic, who drops 9%, Hawerchuk, who drops 14%, Lafontaine, who drops 23%, and Yzerman, who drops 19%, occupying the top 15 spots along with Jagr.

Obviously this is not a definitive list of generational talents; it is mostly modern players who posted high numbers. It's rather elementary. These 15 players, with the exceptions of Nilsson and Dionne, are known to be excellent playoff performers, some would say they were dominant, or warriors. And Jagr's PPG drop is right in line with the rest of that crowd.

I wonder how far down that list I'd have to go before I found a player whose playoff PPG was higher than his regular season PPG. (finally found him... Jari Kurri)

 

[pitseleh]

And even if you only look at Jagr's production after Lemieux retired for the first time (so from the 1998 playoffs onward), the only players with better playoff PPG averages are Crosby, Ovechkin, and Malkin, none of whom had to suffer through the dead puck era.

 

[arrbez]

I have no idea why Jagr gets slagged for his playoff performances. Aside from 2006, I don't recall a poor performance from him. And he was downright dominant in a number of cases, on some pretty mediocre teams. I think some people see his moodiness and equate it with not being a "heart and soul" type player, which is nonsense IMO.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

1. Taylor
It’s worth questioning how effective Taylor would be as a defenseman in an ATD context. (This is the first time since ATD #6 that Taylor will be used as a defenseman). It’s well established that Taylor was a generational scorer during his offensive prime in the PCHA (peaking in 1914 and 1915), but he was a forward those years. Taylor spent the majority of his long career as a rover, which, due to its nature, requires more risk-taking and fewer defensive responsibilities compared to a defenseman in five-man hockey. Taylor’s legendary speed, stick handling ability and instincts will still make him dangerous as defenseman but how effective would he be – would Taylor be in Coffey territory, or would he be closer to, say, Salming?

I don’t dispute that Taylor was the greatest rover in hockey history, nor do I dispute that, if he played as a forward, Taylor would be behind only Jagr as the series’ best scorer. Still, how would he fare given the additional defensive responsibilities of a blueliner? If Taylor is given the green light to aggressively take chances and join the rush (i.e. effectively play as a rover), the Saints are opening up a large hole on the right side – Jagr was at best indifferent defensively and Taylor, despite his tremendous speed, would likely be caught out of position by Conacher and Kariya (two players who are known for their speed and have the ability to take advantage of opponents’ defensive lapses).

In short, I think Taylor has the skill and hockey sense to be a strong offensive defenseman, but I definitely don’t buy him as a Jagr-level scoring threat, or as an equal to Lidstrom, in this role.

2. Stevens
Which version of Stevens do the Saints have – the aggressive high-scoring version from late eighties/early nineties who was indisciplined and constantly out of position; or the hard-hitting shutdown defenseman who topped 30 points once?

Will try to add more later.

 

[arrbez]

2. Stevens
Which version of Stevens do the Saints have – the aggressive high-scoring version from late eighties/early nineties who was indisciplined and constantly out of position; or the hard-hitting shutdown defenseman who topped 30 points once?

I always think of Stevens (and similarly Steve Yzerman) as a mix of the two styles. Not a flawless positional defender or a loose cannon, not a 60 point scorer or a 20 point scorer, not a 200+ PIM guy or a 40 PIM guy...but somewhere in the middle on all counts.

I agree with your concerns about Cyclone Taylor. I don't doubt his qualifications as one of the top rushing defencemen in the draft, but I do wonder about his in-zone coverage and things like that.

 

[seventieslord]

I agree that with Stevens you're getting a sort of a hybrid of what he was in the two career phases he had.

However, to expect him to be a 40-point scorer (sort of the average of his career) is even asking too much. It's not as simple as that, or we could all expect 20 goals from our fourth-liners and then how does that jive with the 2.20 GAA we all expect from our elite goalies?

In a 28-team ATD context, a guy like Stevens is a low-end #1 defenseman - roughly 25th best. He's above average defensively, one of a handful of the best physically, and slightly above average offensively. He's not a 30-minute guy; in a real life NHL where he was a top-5 defensemen, he was a 30-minute guy. Here, he's a 24-minute guy, a shutdown, penalty killing, crease clearing guy who will score 30-ish points. That's how I see it, anyway.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

1. Taylor
It’s worth questioning how effective Taylor would be as a defenseman in an ATD context. (This is the first time since ATD #6 that Taylor will be used as a defenseman). It’s well established that Taylor was a generational scorer during his offensive prime in the PCHA (peaking in 1914 and 1915), but he was a forward those years. Taylor spent the majority of his long career as a rover, which, due to its nature, requires more risk-taking and fewer defensive responsibilities compared to a defenseman in five-man hockey. Taylor’s legendary speed, stick handling ability and instincts will still make him dangerous as defenseman but how effective would he be – would Taylor be in Coffey territory, or would he be closer to, say, Salming?

I don’t dispute that Taylor was the greatest rover in hockey history, nor do I dispute that, if he played as a forward, Taylor would be behind only Jagr as the series’ best scorer. Still, how would he fare given the additional defensive responsibilities of a blueliner? If Taylor is given the green light to aggressively take chances and join the rush (i.e. effectively play as a rover), the Saints are opening up a large hole on the right side – Jagr was at best indifferent defensively and Taylor, despite his tremendous speed, would likely be caught out of position by Conacher and Kariya (two players who are known for their speed and have the ability to take advantage of opponents’ defensive lapses).

In short, I think Taylor has the skill and hockey sense to be a strong offensive defenseman, but I definitely don’t buy him as a Jagr-level scoring threat, or as an equal to Lidstrom, in this role.

2. Stevens
Which version of Stevens do the Saints have – the aggressive high-scoring version from late eighties/early nineties who was indisciplined and constantly out of position; or the hard-hitting shutdown defenseman who topped 30 points once?

Will try to add more later.

Stevens: His intructions are to be a conservative stay at home defenceman who risks position only for a good hit. That's coaches orders. It's up to voters how well you think he'll follow orders. But know this, Pat Quinn has always been good at encouraging players to do what the team needs of them.

Taylor: His instructions Are to be a rover. You don't have an explosive talent like Taylor and ask him to reign it in. But the thing to remember is, he was the most dangerous playmaker of his era and we don't have stats on his assets as a rover or defenceman. Given how he dominated as a forward (5 scoring titles after age 30, something no one in history has ever done. Heck, does anyone other than Gordie have 5 top 5 finishes after 30?) and given how the written and oral history says he shocked and excited audiences across the east as a rover and a defenceman such that Ottawa lost 3 Hall of Famers the year before they won the 1909 Stanley Cup. (And while Ottawa won again after Taylor left it was against a Galt team that had one player of any note, Hugh Lehman, one of the many examples of an old Cup challenger who had no right challenging, a topic heavily discussed in the Lalonde vs Malone discussion. Where as Taylor's Ottawa HC had to overcome a very talented Montreal Wanderers club.) I think it's safe to assume that he'd be an explosive offensive blueliner. I have trouble seeing him in a league with anyone but Coffey offensively. And while little is known about Taylor's defensive game, I have trouble believing he'd be a Phil Housley without someone writing something about it. And given his skating, (Tommy Phillips was one of the top skaters in the world, and he admitted he couldn't keep up with Taylor.) I have trouble buying that Kariya or Conacher could leave him struggling to keep up.

And the idea that Lidstrom could be as big an offensive impact as Taylor is just crazy. The big difference between the two is that Lidstrom has the ability to maximize probability of success, Taylor has the ability to change probability of success. Lidstrom compliments, Taylor is the go to guy. There are only a handful of players in the history of hockey who have the skill set and team first style of a Fred Taylor: Bobby Orr, Valeri Kharlamov and... that's probably it. I just don't see how Lidstrom's phantom offence can match a player who can stickhandle like Max Bentley while going full tilt like Mike Gartner.

 

[seventieslord]

- In the interests of accuracy I would like to point out that Taylor's first two scoring titles came at age 28 and 29.

- Due to the splinter leagues at the time, it's a bit.... "misleading" isn't the right word, but in that vicinity.... to say he had five scoring titles. I would prefer to say that five times he led his "conference" in scoring. In a consolidated league it is entirely possible that he would have still been the top scorer but he may have been topped by 1-2 NHL/NHA guys as well. To me, it's five seasons where he was one of the three best scorers in hockey and potentially the best.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

- In the interests of accuracy I would like to point out that Taylor's first two scoring titles came at age 28 and 29.

- Due to the splinter leagues at the time, it's a bit.... "misleading" isn't the right word, but in that vicinity.... to say he had five scoring titles. I would prefer to say that five times he led his "conference" in scoring. In a consolidated league it is entirely possible that he would have still been the top scorer but he may have been topped by 1-2 NHL/NHA guys as well. To me, it's five seasons where he was one of the three best scorers in hockey and potentially the best.

That's why I corrected to use top 5 finishes as a comparison. Obviously, a splinter league makes it vague. But, if we say top 5 finishes from 28 onward, unless I'm missing someone, the list is:
Gordie Howe, Jean Beliveau, Wayne Gretzky and Maurice Richard.

 

[seventieslord]

He meant age 28 and onwards.

If the list really is that exclusive, then wow, I'm impressed. I had no idea it was that difficult.

But I guess I shouldn't be surprised. My research shows only 29 players have been top-5 in goalscoring five times or more, so out of those 29, I guess a pretty small percentage managed five after age 28.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

He meant age 28 and onwards.

If the list really is that exclusive, then wow, I'm impressed. I had no idea it was that difficult.

But I guess I shouldn't be surprised. My research shows only 29 players have been top-5 in goalscoring five times or more, so out of those 29, I guess a pretty small percentage managed five after age 28.

I fully expected Sakic to be on the list, but, he has done it 4 times. Bobby Hull is of course, data incomplete. But yeah, I may have started a year late on some, it's hard to tell and I was doing a quick job, but, yeah. A VERY exclusive club.

 

[BM67]

That's why I corrected to use top 5 finishes as a comparison. Obviously, a splinter league makes it vague. But, if we say top 5 finishes from 28 onward, unless I'm missing someone, the list is:
Gordie Howe, Jean Beliveau, Wayne Gretzky and Maurice Richard.

Bill Cook has 5 after age 30. He was 30 before starting his NHL career.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

That's why I corrected to use top 5 finishes as a comparison. Obviously, a splinter league makes it vague. But, if we say top 5 finishes from 28 onward, unless I'm missing someone, the list is:
Gordie Howe, Jean Beliveau, Wayne Gretzky and Maurice Richard.

I don't dispute Taylor's scoring ability (as a forward anyway), but this comparison is misleading. It's generally accepted that Taylor spent his entire career in an era where professional talent was split over multiple leagues so you really should be comparing Taylor's top-five finishes (after age 28) to top-ten finishes for players playing 1926 & onwards. Many more players meet that lower standard: Sakic, Hull, Bucyk, Ullman, Cook, Delvecchio, Francis, Barry, Ratelle, Oates, Boucher & Stewart. Denneny also has five pre-consolidation top five's. That's still great company, obviously, though it's less exclusive than Howe, Gretzky, Beliveau and Richard.

EDIT: I realize you were probably talking only about goal-scoring as assists weren't tracked consistently when Taylor played.

 

[seventieslord]

HO: The assist records of Taylor's time (1910-1923) are definitely good enough to go off of, and all sources that I know of agree on what he got.

He actually had five PCHA points titles after age 28, which Nalyd is quite conservatively equating to be "top-5" finishes because of the fact it was a splinter league. Personally I consider them "top-3 and quite likely 1st" so it's a credit to Naldy that he's not overpimping here.

So the Five "top-5" that you see Nalyd referring to are his five PCHA points titles which I certainly wouldn't equate to mere top-10 finishes post-merger. I assume you wouldn't either; I think you just misunderstood how the conversation got to that point.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

HO: The assist records of Taylor's time (1910-1923) are definitely good enough to go off of, and all sources that I know of agree on what he got.

I would love to get a copy of this file if you have it in Excel or Access. Could you please email it to thehockeyoutsider [at] yahoo.com?

So the Five "top-5" that you see Nalyd referring to are his five PCHA points titles which I certainly wouldn't equate to mere top-10 finishes post-merger. I assume you wouldn't either; I think you just misunderstood how the conversation got to that point.

Okay, fair enough. I misunderstood. That's a very impressive statistic for Taylor.

 

[seventieslord]

I would gladly email it to you if I had it in some kind of a file, but I don't. It's quite readily available. www.hockey-reference.com has full career stats of any player who played in the NHL or is in the HHOF. Taylor of course is the latter.

As for being able to see in one place, the PCHA/NHA leaderboards year by year, you have two free options. The first is The Hockey Compendium, which has brief leaderboards in its addendum section. Secondly, EB showed me a link a few months ago but I forget the address. You'll need to ask him. Joining www.sihrhockey.org is what I'd recommend. In a hockeydb.com-style setup you can dance from one player's bio, to a team or a full league leaderboard, to another player's bio, to another team that guy played for in another season. It's more complete than any other source I've seen, and like I said, it's the only "fully linked" data set out there. (as in, at hockey-reference you can say "wow, Taylor had 30 assists in 1922, who else was in the league at that time?" it's not linked in that way) The downside? It costs $30/year. It's worth every penny. EB and Jekyll have both joined, and thanked me for directing them there.