Playoff Performers Voting Record - Canadiens1958

[ImporterExporter]

Fair enough fellas! I enjoy the mature banter.

But I must say that regardless of whatever you say C58, your lists would generally fall under the "outlier" category next to almost every other public voting record. I'm not saying it is definitively "wrong", just well outside the norm. And there are some other very respected folks here who have lists vastly different.

 

[Canadiens1958]

False

Gretzky didn't need to bring elite defense though. It wasn't a priority in the 80's. That wasn't how the league was structured or, for the most part coached. Teams weren't winning many games 2-1.

And quite frankly Gretzky's offense is so much better than anyone else it offsets his lack of defensive prowess in my mind. His offensive production is beyond absurd, era be damned.

Pavel Datsyuk never really killed penalties that I can ever remember. That doesn't mean he loses points for being arguably the most talented two way player of the last 20 years, especially defensively at even strength. The guy who coached him most of his career didn't believe it was prudent to put him out there.

Your last point focuses solely on a few specific players instead of the entire team. I agree Henri Richard is largely underappreciated, even on this sub forum, but blaming a 30 year old Beliveau directly seems harsh. Ralph Backstrom was basically a point per game player in the regular season and led the team in scoring, yet only had 1 point against Chicago. Same thing with Geoffrion. The team/Plante gave up 19 goals in 6 games. Lots of folks seemed to under perform that year.

False lack of defensive hockey is a conscious choice. Overlooking the obvious that proper defensive hockey actually generates more offenc. See Toe Blake's and Bowman's Canadiens.

Pavel Datsyuk, somewhat of the Toe Blake approach to the PK still scored 6 SHGs and had 5 SG assists.

So finally the truth comes out you do not understand defensive hockey so it does not matter.

No one was blaming Beliveau. Henri Richard provided the necessary speed and established the defensive geometry for the team from which all the pieces fit in a manner that allowed the team to perform.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Best

Talking the best hockey players.

Best as opposed to productive. Players have to contribute to winning.

 

[ImporterExporter]

False lack of defensive hockey is a conscious choice. Overlooking the obvious that proper defensive hockey actually generates more offenc. See Toe Blake's and Bowman's Canadiens.

Pavel Datsyuk, somewhat of the Toe Blake approach to the PK still scored 6 SHGs and had 5 SG assists.

So finally the truth comes out you do not understand defensive hockey so it does not matter.

No one was blaming Beliveau. Henri Richard provided the necessary speed and established the defensive geometry for the team from which all the pieces fit in a manner that allowed the team to perform.

I understand hockey and defensive hockey just fine. I appreciate the hell out of it. It's why I rate a player like Nighbor higher than most. It's why I can appreciate the hell out of Bobby Clarke, even though he played on the team i despise the most, because he WAS a dominant 200 foot player, and was equally dominant as a face off man.

I drafted Toe Blake as a coach, twice in the ATD and did an extensive bio/research on him. Also draft Scotty B. Why? Because they're the two greatest coaches in hockey history (to me) and their approach to the game is something I greatly admire.

Wayne Gretzky has 73 SH goals, most all time. I guess that makes him a dominant PK'er and cognizant defensive mind relative to other defensive stalwarts! I say that, because you bring up Datsyuk's 11 SH points. Datsyuk could have played the PK, and played it at an elite level. But yet he wasn't used there, like a Toe Blake (coach) as you brilliantly put it. Datsyuk's value came at ES and he was damn fine in his own end. I applaud that loudly.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Best as opposed to productive. Players have to contribute to winning.

Best is not opposed to productive.

If you don't want to answer the question, that's fine.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Prolific

I understand hockey and defensive hockey just fine. I appreciate the hell out of it. It's why I rate a player like Nighbor higher than most. It's why I can appreciate the hell out of Bobby Clarke, even though he played on the team i despise the most, because he WAS a dominant 200 foot player, and was equally dominant as a face off man.

I drafted Toe Blake as a coach, twice in the ATD and did an extensive bio/research on him. Also draft Scotty B. Why? Because they're the two greatest coaches in hockey history (to me) and their approach to the game is something I greatly admire.

Wayne Gretzky has 73 SH goals, most all time. I guess that makes him a dominant PK'er and cognizant defensive mind relative to other defensive stalwarts! I say that, because you bring up Datsyuk's 11 SH points. Datsyuk could have played the PK, and played it at an elite level. But yet he wasn't used there, like a Toe Blake (coach) as you brilliantly put it. Datsyuk's value came at ES and he was damn fine in his own end. I applaud that loudly.

Prolific is not a synonym for dominant. Playing the PK is not an indication of defensive skills but illustrates usage. Example 1983-84 when Gretzky scored 23 PK points = 12G and 11A, the Oilers were below average on the PK, allowing 77 PPGA while the league average was 74. SO Gretzky was below average on the PK. He was excellent at mitigating the damages that the opposing PP would cause.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/EDM/1984.html

Now we transition from observation to understanding. Explain why Blake avoided using H.Richard and Beliveau on the PK with few exceptions? Why Blake would have avoided using Datsyuk and Gretzky on the PK?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Best

Best is not opposed to productive.

If you don't want to answer the question, that's fine.

Best is opposed to productive. Watch Mario Lemieux on the David Volek goal in OT of game 7, 1993 that ended the Penguins chances for a 3-peat for an example.

Could see Gretzky and Lemieux slipping to the 5 to 10 range as the understanding and appreciation of hockey evolves.

 

[GuineaPig]

Prolific is not a synonym for dominant. Playing the PK is not an indication of defensive skills but illustrates usage. Example 1983-84 when Gretzky scored 23 PK points = 12G and 11A, the Oilers were below average on the PK, allowing 77 PPGA while the league average was 74. SO Gretzky was below average on the PK. He was excellent at mitigating the damages that the opposing PP would cause.

The Oilers allowing more powerplay goals than average probably had something to do with them being the second-most penalized team. That they allowed only 3 more PPGs than average while being on the penalty kill 50 more times than average should be a boon to Gretzky's reputation by this logic.

EDIT: The Oilers had the sixth best PK% that year, at 80%

 

[Canadiens1958]

Bobby Clarke

The Oilers allowing more powerplay goals than average probably had something to do with them being the second-most penalized team. That they allowed only 3 more PPGs than average while being on the penalty kill 50 more times than average should be a boon to Gretzky's reputation by this logic.

Not when compared to Bobby Clarke and the 1974 Flyers:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/PHI/1974.html

1975 Flyers were weaker.

 

[GuineaPig]

Not when compared to Bobby Clarke and the 1974 Flyers:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/PHI/1974.html

1975 Flyers were weaker.

So Gretzky is a poor PKer because his team didn't perform as well as one of the best penalty killing teams of all-time? That's a big stretch.

I eagerly anticipate your first-place vote for Ilya Kovalchuk when the "Best Defensive Forwards" list gets done.

 

[steve141]

Pavel Datsyuk never really killed penalties that I can ever remember. That doesn't mean he loses points for being arguably the most talented two way player of the last 20 years, especially defensively at even strength. The guy who coached him most of his career didn't believe it was prudent to put him out there.

This isn't really the topic of this thread, but I must point out that prime Datsyuk killed plenty of penalties. He was generally on the 2nd short handed unit, and on the 1st 3-5 unit. Datsyuk was an excellent PKer, it's just that Detroit was filled with defensively capable guys like Draper, Maltby and Zetterberg, who could play a more complete defensive game than Datsyuk.

 

[MadLuke]

Prolific is not a synonym for dominant. Playing the PK is not an indication of defensive skills but illustrates usage. Example 1983-84 when Gretzky scored 23 PK points = 12G and 11A, the Oilers were below average on the PK, allowing 77 PPGA while the league average was 74. SO Gretzky was below average on the PK. He was excellent at mitigating the damages that the opposing PP would cause.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/EDM/1984.html

That is not at all how I would evaluated a PK performance, PK percentage is a much better indicative than absolute goal and Edmonton were better average in that regard.

But a even better metric would be (ppga - short handed goal for)/PK, oilers scored 36 goal short handed, 24 g better than average.

So they were only negative 41 during the penalty killing that season, but better than the league average minus 62 while having faced 50 more penalty than the league average.

Would not surprise me if they were one if not the best team short handed that year.

 

[unknown33]

Performance balanced against results - winning the SC.

Gretzky won 4 cups and 2 conn symthes. Better results than Orr, Parent, Hall...

 

[sr edler]

As this list is tilted towards defensive players, did you not consider Jack Walker? You have Happy Holmes at 12, and also Foyston on the list, but no Walker, which makes me a bit curious.

When it comes to longevity Walker seems to have been more relevant than Foyston when the Cougars won in 1925, at least offensively, despite being the older guy. Foyston kinda fizzled out as an offensive playoff performer in his 30s.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Results

The Oilers allowing more powerplay goals than average probably had something to do with them being the second-most penalized team. That they allowed only 3 more PPGs than average while being on the penalty kill 50 more times than average should be a boon to Gretzky's reputation by this logic.

EDIT: The Oilers had the sixth best PK% that year, at 80%

Games are decided by actual goals, not percentages.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Bobby Clarke

So Gretzky is a poor PKer because his team didn't perform as well as one of the best penalty killing teams of all-time? That's a big stretch.

I eagerly anticipate your first-place vote for Ilya Kovalchuk when the "Best Defensive Forwards" list gets done.

Simply Gretzky was far from the PKer that Bobby Clarke was.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Happy

Gretzky won 4 cups and 2 conn symthes. Better results than Orr, Parent, Hall...

Happy for him. Still you illustrate the inadequacies of one dimensional offensive dominance. Potential was there to win many more.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Considered

As this list is tilted towards defensive players, did you not consider Jack Walker? You have Happy Holmes at 12, and also Foyston on the list, but no Walker, which makes me a bit curious.

When it comes to longevity Walker seems to have been more relevant than Foyston when the Cougars won in 1925, at least offensively, despite being the older guy. Foyston kinda fizzled out as an offensive playoff performer in his 30s.

Holmes was a very underrated goalie. Successful est and west.

Walker was considered but Foyston was preferred due to his diversity, playing rover and all forward positions.

 

[BM67]

Holmes was a very underrated goalie. Successful est and west.

Walker was considered but Foyston was preferred due to his diversity, playing rover and all forward positions.

Walker also played rover and all forward positions, and won Cups both in the East and the West.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Best is opposed to productive. Watch Mario Lemieux on the David Volek goal in OT of game 7, 1993 that ended the Penguins chances for a 3-peat for an example.

Could see Gretzky and Lemieux slipping to the 5 to 10 range as the understanding and appreciation of hockey evolves.

That's what I wanted to see!

But I doubt I'll see that in my lifetime.

 

[GuineaPig]

Games are decided by actual goals, not percentages.

The percentages aren't arbitrary numbers. They reflect the rate at which teams allow actual goals.

Unless Gretzky was gooning it up and causing his team dozens of extra powerplays, it's absolutely asinine to hold a good penalty-killing rate against him.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Show Me

The percentages aren't arbitrary numbers. They reflect the rate at which teams allow actual goals.

Unless Gretzky was gooning it up and causing his team dozens of extra powerplays, it's absolutely asinine to hold a good penalty-killing rate against him.

Show me were a game was won by a team with better percentages but fewer goals than the opposing team and we will talk.

 

[unknown33]

Happy for him. Still you illustrate the inadequacies of one dimensional offensive dominance. Potential was there to win many more.

The Oilers would have potentially won none or not even be close to in position to win one without him which can't be said for the all the habs who benefit from double dipping.

 

[Doctor No]

Show me were a game was won by a team with better percentages but fewer goals than the opposing team and we will talk.

That's not the point. Percentages help to explain *why* something happened.

Take two teams that each allow two PP goals in a game. One allows two PP goals on two power plays; the other allows two PP goals on ten power plays.

Speaking broadly, the first team didn't kill penalties well, and the second team took too many penalties. That information is lost when you just see the total number of goals allowed.

And if "why" doesn't matter, but just career goals, then here's your list of the best NHL playoff performers:

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

I thought the general topic of "why" was why we do these things with an informed group discussion, and not by ranked database outputs. Is that not the case?

 

[ESH]

Happy for him. Still you illustrate the inadequacies of one dimensional offensive dominance. Potential was there to win many more.

As an outside perspective, I really don't think you're giving Gretzky enough credit saying something like this. Gretzky didn't need to be a lock-down defensive player, because he and his team outscored the opposition by absurd amounts when he was on the ice. In 84-85 he had a +/- of +28 (which I think is the highest since it's been tracked?); I'm pretty sure the Oilers weren't worried about his so-called "one-dimensional" play then. I see a problem with thinking about hockey as purely offensive+defensive, black and white, 50/50. A player's overall impact is what matters most. I don't know how people feel about advanced stats in this section of the forums, but I'm sure if they were tracked in Gretzky's time that he would have had incredible possession numbers, corsi, you name it. Any sort of defensive shortcomings Gretzky might have had didn't matter because he had the puck all the time and his team was better with him on the ice than with any other player there was.