Red Fisher Conference Prelim Round - Kenora Thistles vs Guelph Platers

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Kenora THISTLES
1907 Stanley Cup Champions

Home Rink: Thistle Rink (1920), Kenora, Ontario
GM's: papershoes & SchultzSquared
Coach: Viktor Tikhonov
Assistant Coach: Harry Sinden
Captain: Niklas Lidstrom
Alternates: Dale Hawerchuk, Ted Harris, Igor Larionov

#17 Valery Kharlamov - #10 Dale Hawerchuk (A) - #8 Ken Hodge
#9 Vladimir Krutov - #11 Igor Larionov (A) - #24 Sergei Makarov
Hec Kilrea - #21 Doug Jarvis - #15 Eric Nesterenko
Johnny Wilson - Paul Ronty - #14 Rene Robert
extra: Gary Unger

#5 Niklas Lidstrom (C) - #2 Cy Wentworth
#5 Alexander Ragulin - Babe Pratt
Ian Turnbull - #10 Ted Harris (A)
extra: Benny Woit (D/RW)

Hap Holmes
Viktor Konovalenko
Ryan Miller

Powerplay:
PP1: Valery Kharlamov - Dale Hawerchuk - Sergei Makarov - Niklas Lidstrom - Rene Robert
PP2: Vladimir Krutov - Igor Larionov - Ken Hodge - Babe Pratt - Ian Turnbull

Penalty Kill:
PK1: Doug Jarvis - Eric Nesterenko - Niklas Lidstrom - Alexander Ragulin
PK2: Igor Larionov - Hec Kilrea - Ted Harris - Cy Wentworth

The Kenora Thistles
"...an early amateur men's ice hockey team based in Kenora, Ontario, Canada and formed in 1885 as a senior team by a group of 'Lake of the Woods' lumbermen. The club is notable for winning the Stanley Cup as an amateur team in 1907. The town is the smallest in population to have ever won the Stanley Cup"

VS



Guelph Platers
1986 Memorial Cup Champions

Home Rink: Guelph Memorial Gardens (1948)
GM: BraveCanadian

Coaches: Fred Shero, Bruce Boudreau
Captain: Ron Francis
Alternates: Rod Brind'Amour, Sprague Cleghorn

Rick Nash - Ron Francis - Jaromir Jagr
Wayne Cashman - Nels Stewart - Bill Mosienko
Rod Brind'Amour - Bernie Nicholls - Kevin Dineen
Gaetan Duchesne - Bobby Gould - Kelly Miller

Sprague Cleghorn - Harry Howell
Craig Ludwig - Dan Boyle
Charlie Huddy - Bert Corbeau

Vladislav Tretiak
Jean-Sebastien Giguere

Reserves
Rick Vaive
Dion Phaneuf
John Ogrodnick


Powerplay:
PP1: Bernie Nicholls - Nels Stewart - Jaromir Jagr
Ron Francis - Dan Boyle

PP2: Rick Nash - Rod Brind'Amour - Bill Mosienko
Sprague Cleghorn - Bert Corbeau

Penalty Kill:
PK1: Rod Brind'Amour - Kelly Miller - Craig Ludwig - Harry Howell
PK2: Ron Francis - Bobby Gould - Sprague Cleghorn - Charlie Huddy​

Click to read more...

 

[BraveCanadian]

I'll get into some more specifics later but for now here is more general info:


Forward Line Play:

Our first line features a top of the line two-way, playmaking center in Francis. His faceoff prowess along with Jagr and Nash's puck possession should mean that this line is going to have the puck an awful lot. Not to mention the size of this line is imposing even though they are not overly physical except in shielding the puck.

Our second line is constructed to maximize Nels Stewart. Cashman performed a similar role for Esposito that he will be called upon to revisit here. Mosienko gives the line speed and he is a balanced player, being able to make a play or give the line another trigger so that the opposition cannot focus exclusively on Stewart. The line will have the option of playing dump and chase with Cashman's boardplay and Mosienko's speed to run out loose pucks, or having our puck moving defensemen gain the zone and let Stewart setup shop to do what he does best.

The third line features Rod Brind'amour who is really a 2nd line talent in this thing both ways. I've decided to move him to the wing to allow us to move Nicholls up and take advantage of Brind'amour's offense some more. Brind'amour and Dineen give the line a ton of grit and determination, good and decent offense, and great and decent defense. Nicholls has the talent to make use of the pucks they will free up. And while not being great defensively he isn't a minus either. Brind'amour will take the draws.

Our new fourth line is a real life checking line that I have reconstructed here. Duchesne-Gould-Miller all have good Selke recognition and regularly went up against the Gretzky's/Bossy's/Hull's/Lemieux's in real life and had some success. They are all good penalty killers as well and will be doing that for us.

Defensive Play:

All our defensive pairings are constructed with a primary puck mover and a primary stay at home player. Sort of the cookie cutter approach but it is proven. This lets them work somewhat interchangeably with the forwards so that the forwards aren't adapting.

That being said, we're relying on our 1st pairing heavily to make up for our somewhat weaker 2nd and 3rd pairings. This is why Cleghorn isn't on our first PP or PK for example -- we are saving him for ES where he can have a bigger impact on our overall fortunes.

Protecting Close Lead

If we're protecting a close lead in the last couple minutes of the game, we'll shorten the bench:

Miller - Francis - Gould
Duchesne - Brind'amour - Dineen

Cleghorn - Howell
Ludwig - Huddy

Offensive Hero Lines

If we need a goal very late in the game (again taking advantage of our faceoff prowess):

Stewart - Francis - Jagr
Nicholls - Brind'amour - Mosienko


General Strategies:

- We are going to roll three lines for the most part and use our fourth as a checking line.

- One of Francis or Brind'amour will take all of our important draws no matter which zone. If need be (late in a game and behind), Brind'amour will play on the second line to do so with more offensive oriented players. Francis/Brind'amour will sub on lines for the draw and then come to the bench. We will start with the puck most of the time.

- Jagr will be double shifted at times with Brind'amour / Nicholls' line (in Dineen's spot) to shake off his checkers and to take advantage of our center depth. We will take advantage of one of the greatest even strength scorers in NHL history.


Estimated Minutes:

Forward|ES|PP|PK|Total
Jaromir Jagr|17|4|0|21
Ron Francis|14|4|3|21
Rick Nash|14|3|0|17
Wayne Cashman|12|0|0|12
Nels Stewart|12|4|0|16
Bill Mosienko|12|3|0|15
Rod Brind'amour|10|3|4|17
Bernie Nicholls|10|4|0|14
Rick Vaive|10|0|0|10
Gaetan Duchesne|9|0|0|9
Bobby Gould|9|0|3|12
Kelly Miller|9|0|4|13
Totals|138|25|14|

Defense|ES|PP|PK|Total
Sprague Cleghorn|19|3|3|25
Harry Howell|19|0|4|23
Craig Ludwig|15|0|4|19
Dan Boyle|15|4|0|19
Charlie Huddy|12|0|3|15
Bert Corbeau|12|3|0|15
Totals|92|10|14|

 

[BraveCanadian]

Preliminary thoughts before I get into player details:


First thought looking at this matchup is that I still find it extremely cool you guys were able to reuinte the KLM line!


Coaching

We have a definite advantage here with Shero vs. Tikhonov, imo.

Having the KLM line and some other players who showed they could work in that autocratic or highly disciplined coaching system is good.. but I'm not sure everyone is going to buy into what Tikhonov is selling. Especially without fear as a motivation.

Tikhonov has definite strengths too.. especially tactically, but I feel that Shero is at least a match for him in that department.

This is even before considering Harry Sinden and Ken Hodge having apparently clashed.


Goaltending

We have a definite advantage here as well. Tretiak is considered top 10 of all time by most people here -- in the recent HOH Top 40 Goaltenders project, Tretiak was 8th and Hap Holmes 30th.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Kharlamov - Hawerchuk - Hodge

vs

Nash - Francis - Jagr

​

Kharlamov vs Nash: Kharlamov is hard to peg since the legend is greater than the actual evidence. Interestingly people also feel that Nash is overhyped. That being said, it is safe to say that Kharlamov trounces Rick Nash in hockey history. Nash is on the first line here simply for his size, skating, puck possession and shot.

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


Hawerchuk vs Francis: This one is interesting but in the end an easy win for us. Francis outproduced Hawerchuk, produced longer than Hawerchuk, and was better defensively -- although Dale was still pretty decent when called upon to play that role like in the CC '87.

The boo birds here will say Francis benefited disproportionately while playing with Jagr and discount some of that offense.

Lets have a look:

Hawerchuk (Top 10 Adjusted seasons)
103, 101, 86, 85, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77 = 85.2 pts/season

Francis (Top 10 Adjusted seasons)
115, 102, 100, 94, 88, 85, 84, 80, 79, 79 = ~ 90.6 pts/season

Now, lets completely discount Francis' top three seasons that people always question:

Francis (Top 4-13 Adjusted seasons)
94,88,85,84,80,79,79,78,73,69 = ~80.9 pts/season

So even completely removing Francis' three best seasons he is within about 4 adjusted points per season of Hawerchuk's peak offense.

I think this decisively demonstrates that Francis is a better career value offensively than Dale Hawerchuk if we give any credit to Francis for his 3 best seasons.

Francis' intangibles are also better.

----------


Hodge vs Jagr: Here is we return the favour. Jagr trounces Hodge by a country mile. Hodge is a decent scorer and physical presence but he doesn't have Esposito and Orr on his team here (or even a reasonable facsimile) and Jagr is Jagr.

-----------


I feel pretty confident that our first line is better overall than our opponents.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Krutov - Larionov - Sergei Makarov

vs

Cashman - Stewart - Mosienko
​

This one is hard for me to analyze. Two completely different line makeups. The KLM line is a known commodity and features two outstanding talents in Makarov and Krutov. Larionov is also a great player who didn't burn as brightly (imo) but burned much longer.

Makarov should be in the Hall of Fame. Krutov I don't view as harshly as others do around here -- he had a real hard time with the culture and language adjustment and fell off the wagon.

I tried to reproduce the situation that Cashman enjoyed his success in with Stewart playing the Esposito role and I also tried to inject some speed, playmaking, and a second scoring threat to the line with Mosienko. Stewart, like Esposito, you have to build around to take full advantage of and I think I did a decent job of that -- he'll pot us a bunch of goals. But the KLM line is the KLM line.

In a vacuum at the end I have to give the edge to them when comparing these lines to one another strictly.

We won't be looking to match up 2nds.

We'll be using our coaching advantage to try and get our checking line against these guys for a good chunk of their ES time to slow them down and limit the damage they do. Duchesne on our checking line was often assigned to top right wingers in real life (Brett Hull and Bossy for example) and Makarov is the most talented player on the KLM line imo.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Kilrea - Jarvis - Nesterenko

vs.

Brind'amour - Nicholls - Dineen

​

Two lines that are both capable of grinding it out on the boards. Theirs even a moreso than ours, primarily because Nicholls didn't do it as often, but even he liked getting his nose dirty at times.

Our line has a lot more offense while still having some very good defensive responsibility.

Meanwhile their 3rd line is slanted very heavily towards defense and grinding with some offensive ability (basically Kilrea) thrown in.

I think that Brind'amour is easily the best all around player on either line considering careers. Nicholls is the best offensive player. Most people here would probably say Dineen is the worst player on either line but I think he's a bit underrated like most Whalers. I like what he brings.

By contrast, over their careers, Jarvis and Nesterenko are in the same (adjusted) offensive ballpark as our fourth line checkers at ES.

Player|ESP/S|ES%
Nesterenko|31|23
Miller|30|24
Gould|29|21
Duchesne|29|22
Jarvis|26|19

Therefore the success of our opponent's third line is going to depend more on the matchup they get. They are here for their defense.

Since we also have a coaching advantage here helping us elude whatever matchup they are looking for - I'm going to say I favour our more balanced and much more talented third line.

 

[Hobnobs]

Kilrea - Jarvis - Nesterenko

vs.

Brind'amour - Nicholls - Dineen

​

Two lines that are both capable of grinding it out on the boards. Theirs even a moreso than ours, primarily because Nicholls didn't do it as often, but even he liked getting his nose dirty at times.

Our line has a lot more offense while still having some very good defensive responsibility.

Meanwhile their 3rd line is slanted very heavily towards defense and grinding with some offensive ability (basically Kilrea) thrown in.

I think that Brind'amour is easily the best all around player on either line considering careers. Nicholls is the best offensive player. Most people here would probably say Dineen is the worst player on either line but I think he's a bit underrated like most Whalers. I like what he brings.

By contrast, over their careers, Jarvis and Nesterenko are in the same (adjusted) offensive ballpark as our fourth line checkers at ES.

Player|ESP/S|ES%
Nesterenko|31|23
Miller|30|24
Gould|29|21
Duchesne|29|22
Jarvis|26|19

Therefore the success of our opponent's third line is going to depend more on the matchup they get. They are here for their defense.

Since we also have a coaching advantage here helping us elude whatever matchup they are looking for - I'm going to say I favour our more balanced and much more talented third line.

Im pretty sure that Hartfords stats with or without Dineen was pretty telling for how important he were during the '96 season.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Im pretty sure that Hartfords stats with or without Dineen was pretty telling for how important he were during the '96 season.

I just did this quickly so I could be wrong but they were:

With Dineen: 12 - 6 - 2 (1 OT loss, 1 OT tie)

Without Dineen: 22 - 32 - 7


Pretty small sample though. And Dineen wasn't really like he used to be by that time.. but still something.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Wilson - Ronty - Robert

vs

Duchesne - Gould - Miller

​

Here we have the opposite of our 3rd lines. Our fourth line is a strict checking line for the most part and their fourth line is very strong offensively for a fourth line. Hard to compare because these two lines are even more apples and oranges than the 3rd lines.

The reason I compare them in order like this is that generally the order of the lines is indicative of how much ice time they will get.

Obviously the players they have on their fourth line played bigger roles in real life so their production won't translate exactly to playing fourth line minutes -- but they are definitely more offensively talented than our fourth line by a wide margin. Which is why our line is a fourth line.

Personally, I think it is great that our opponents have a bunch of offensive talent riding the pines for a good chunk of the game, although I understand the reasoning if their goal is to have their 3rd line play a lot of minutes against Jagr or Stewart.

As I said above, we're going to try and match our checking line against the KLM line for a good portion of their ES ice time. And Fred Shero should help us make that happen.

 

[Hobnobs]

I just did this quickly so I could be wrong but they were:

With Dineen: 12 - 6 - 2 (1 OT loss, 1 OT tie)

Without Dineen: 22 - 32 - 7


Pretty small sample though. And Dineen wasn't really like he used to be by that time.. but still something.

I could remember it wrong but I think I recall reading that Hartford was on its way to playoffs but then Dineen got injured and went on a losing streak from hell which was snapped the game he came back in.

I think ppl view Dineen wrong on this board. With him it wasnt stats only, he brought so much more with his leadership and willingness to do battle.

Now Dineen might be a bit over his head in the ATD, I dont know need more research to pass judgement on that. I used to love his play with Sanderson and Cassels tho. It was a good line.

 

[BraveCanadian]

I could remember it wrong but I think I recall reading that Hartford was on its way to playoffs but then Dineen got injured and went on a losing streak from hell which was snapped the game he came back in.

I think ppl view Dineen wrong on this board. With him it wasnt stats only, he brought so much more with his leadership and willingness to do battle.

Now Dineen might be a bit over his head in the ATD, I dont know need more research to pass judgement on that. I used to love his play with Sanderson and Cassels tho. It was a good line.

He was a gritty sob that is for sure.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Defense

1st. Niklas Lidstrom - Cy Wentworth / Sprague Cleghorn - Harry Howell

Lidstrom is one of the best ever. Cleghorn is an average to slightly above average #1 in this.. Howell and Wentworth I think are similar in playing styles. I think Howell is a bit better based on what I have read. All in all the first pairing is an advantage to the Thistles with a guy like Lidstrom there. A little bit soft for clearing guys like Nels Stewart from the front of the net though.


2nd. Alexander Ragulin - Babe Pratt / Craig Ludwig - Dan Boyle

So similar! Ragulin and Ludwig are both big burly defensive defensemen who weren't notable skaters, and Pratt and Boyle are more offensively oriented. I'll be honest I have no idea how to compare Ragulin playing Soviet hockey in the 60s and 70s vs. Ludwig in the NHL. Based on stature Ragulin would appear to be better but I dunno.

Pratt is huge compared to Boyle, and has a Hart trophy to his name. However his best seasons came during the war and he was no where near the same outside the war.. so it is hard to gauge.

Maybe someone more knowledgeable about them all could do some input into this.. at face value it looks like an advantage to the Thistles but that depends on how you value 60s Soviet hockey and the war years to some degree.


3rd. Turnbull - Harris / Huddy - Corbeau

I think defensively these pairs are about equal overall - both have a question mark in Corbeau and even moreso Turnbull - but I think that our more well rounded defensemen are better offensively than Turnbull is on his own.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Kharlamov - Hawerchuk - Hodge

vs

Nash - Francis - Jagr

​

Kharlamov vs Nash: Kharlamov is hard to peg since the legend is greater than the actual evidence. Interestingly people also feel that Nash is overhyped. That being said, it is safe to say that Kharlamov trounces Rick Nash in hockey history. Nash is on the first line here simply for his size, skating, puck possession and shot.

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


Hawerchuk vs Francis: This one is interesting but in the end an easy win for us. Francis outproduced Hawerchuk, produced longer than Hawerchuk, and was better defensively -- although Dale was still pretty decent when called upon to play that role like in the CC '87.

The boo birds here will say Francis benefited disproportionately while playing with Jagr and discount some of that offense.

Lets have a look:

Hawerchuk (Top 10 Adjusted seasons)
103, 101, 86, 85, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77 = 85.2 pts/season

Francis (Top 10 Adjusted seasons)
115, 102, 100, 94, 88, 85, 84, 80, 79, 79 = ~ 90.6 pts/season

Now, lets completely discount Francis' top three seasons that people always question:

Francis (Top 4-13 Adjusted seasons)
94,88,85,84,80,79,79,78,73,69 = ~80.9 pts/season

So even completely removing Francis' three best seasons he is within about 4 adjusted points per season of Hawerchuk's peak offense.

I think this decisively demonstrates that Francis is a better career value offensively than Dale Hawerchuk if we give any credit to Francis for his 3 best seasons.

Francis' intangibles are also better.

----------


Hodge vs Jagr: Here is we return the favour. Jagr trounces Hodge by a country mile. Hodge is a decent scorer and physical presence but he doesn't have Esposito and Orr on his team here (or even a reasonable facsimile) and Jagr is Jagr.

-----------


I feel pretty confident that our first line is better overall than our opponents.

I don't understand why you would do this type of comparison. I'm not trying to pick on you, a lot of GM's do the exact same thing, but there is a clear 1st, 2nd, and 3rd best player on each line here...why wouldn't you compare them that way (i.e. Jagr vs. Kharlamov, Francis vs. Hawerchuk, and Nash vs. Hodge). Many GM's really seem to be dead set on comparing lines straight across positionally without taking a player's role on the line into consideration. I can understand when GM's want to compare center vs. center, because usually the center has different responsibilities than the wings, but does it really matter which side wings get compared to each other? Don't you get a lot better comparison doing it the way I suggested, instead of trying to decide who has the bigger monster advantage: Kharlamov over Nash or Jagr over Hodge?

In this case, I don't think the end conclusion will change, so I'm really just trying to get people to think about how they compare lines. And again, I'm not singling you out BC, I see this all the time...this was just a perfect example to make my case.

 

[BraveCanadian]

I don't understand why you would do this type of comparison. I'm not trying to pick on you, a lot of GM's do the exact same thing, but there is a clear 1st, 2nd, and 3rd best player on each line here...why wouldn't you compare them that way (i.e. Jagr vs. Kharlamov, Francis vs. Hawerchuk, and Nash vs. Hodge). Many GM's really seem to be dead set on comparing lines straight across positionally without taking a player's role on the line into consideration. I can understand when GM's want to compare center vs. center, because usually the center has different responsibilities than the wings, but does it really matter which side wings get compared to each other? Don't you get a lot better comparison doing it the way I suggested, instead of trying to decide who has the bigger monster advantage: Kharlamov over Nash or Jagr over Hodge?

In this case, I don't think the end conclusion will change, so I'm really just trying to get people to think about how they compare lines. And again, I'm not singling you out BC, I see this all the time...this was just a perfect example to make my case.

I agree with you but it gets complicated when players aren't playing the same role.

In this case it would be fine because it ends up being winger and winger, center and center etc. In this case it also doesn't change anything like you say.

Also it is difficult when lines are setup for very different purposes like our 3rd and 4th lines here.

You can say compare them against one another but they are playing different minutes and will have different impacts based on that.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I don't understand why you would do this type of comparison. I'm not trying to pick on you, a lot of GM's do the exact same thing, but there is a clear 1st, 2nd, and 3rd best player on each line here...why wouldn't you compare them that way (i.e. Jagr vs. Kharlamov, Francis vs. Hawerchuk, and Nash vs. Hodge). Many GM's really seem to be dead set on comparing lines straight across positionally without taking a player's role on the line into consideration. I can understand when GM's want to compare center vs. center, because usually the center has different responsibilities than the wings, but does it really matter which side wings get compared to each other? Don't you get a lot better comparison doing it the way I suggested, instead of trying to decide who has the bigger monster advantage: Kharlamov over Nash or Jagr over Hodge?

In this case, I don't think the end conclusion will change, so I'm really just trying to get people to think about how they compare lines. And again, I'm not singling you out BC, I see this all the time...this was just a perfect example to make my case.

I was all set to post the same thing, until I saw that you did.

 

[overpass]

Key player for Kenora: Doug Jarvis

Guelph has several outstanding face-off takers (Francis, Stewart, Brind'Amour). Kenora has less depth there, but Jarvis is one of the greatest players on the face-off of all time. He'll take a lot of big draws for Kenora.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Key player for Kenora: Doug Jarvis

Guelph has several outstanding face-off takers (Francis, Stewart, Brind'Amour). Kenora has less depth there, but Jarvis is one of the greatest players on the face-off of all time. He'll take a lot of big draws for Kenora.

Did Tikhonov care about faceoffs?

 

[overpass]

Did Tikhonov care about faceoffs?

Hmm...you may be right that Tikhonov wouldn't use Jarvis in the same way that Scotty Bowman did. He may be content to let Guelph win 55% of the faceoffs.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I would actually love to see a comparison between Ken Hodge and Rick Nash based on even strength scoring. Hodge's overall numbers were so up-and-down, I get the feeling that the ups were largely the result of playing on a dominant Bruins powerplay (the Bruins would play Hodge on RW of the PP some years, and McKenzie there other years). But I haven't done anything like a close analysis.

 

[BraveCanadian]

I would actually love to see a comparison between Ken Hodge and Rick Nash based on even strength scoring. Hodge's overall numbers were so up-and-down, I get the feeling that the ups were largely the result of playing on a dominant Bruins powerplay (the Bruins would play Hodge on RW of the PP some years, and McKenzie there other years). But I haven't done anything like a close analysis.

In 71 Hodge had a big year with only 11 powerplay points according to hockey-reference which seems ridiculously low for a 105 point scorer.

In 74 he had 34 powerplay points out of his 105.

Hodge is really all over the map.


Nash is a good goal scorer period but especially at ES so far. His teams/powerplays were so awful up until this year he hasn't been much of a point producer on either.

 

[SchultzSquared*]

I would actually love to see a comparison between Ken Hodge and Rick Nash based on even strength scoring. Hodge's overall numbers were so up-and-down, I get the feeling that the ups were largely the result of playing on a dominant Bruins powerplay (the Bruins would play Hodge on RW of the PP some years, and McKenzie there other years). But I haven't done anything like a close analysis.

Ken Hodge, age 23- 47 ESP
Rick Nash, age 23- 43 ESP

Ken Hodge, age 24- 73 ESP
Rick Nash, age 24- 54 ESP

Ken Hodge, age 25- 41 ESP
Rick Nash, age 25- 41 ESP

Ken Hodge, age 26- 94 ESP
Rick Nash, age 26- 52 ESP

Ken Hodge, age 27- 49 ESP
Rick Nash, age 27- 38 ESP

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Ken Hodge, age 23- 47 ESP
Rick Nash, age 23- 43 ESP

Ken Hodge, age 24- 73 ESP
Rick Nash, age 24- 54 ESP

Ken Hodge, age 25- 41 ESP
Rick Nash, age 25- 41 ESP

Ken Hodge, age 26- 94 ESP
Rick Nash, age 26- 52 ESP

Ken Hodge, age 27- 49 ESP
Rick Nash, age 27- 38 ESP

Are these adjusted for era?

 

[BraveCanadian]

Are these adjusted for era?

It doesn't appear so but Hodge also played in the 70s so I doubt it would change a large amount when he played for Boston.

That one season in particular he had a ton of even strength scoring. A Lemieux/ Gretzky / Jagr amount... its silly.. someone needs to look into that season in more detail

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

It doesn't appear so but Hodge also played in the 70s so I doubt it would change a large amount when he played for Boston.

That one season in particular he had a ton of even strength scoring. A Lemieux/ Gretzky / Jagr amount... its silly.. someone needs to look into that season in more detail

Scoring levels were definitely higher during the 70's than when Nash played

 

[SchultzSquared*]

Are these adjusted for era?

Not sure why you would for first three years....

Ken Hodge- age 23, NHL 5.57 GPG
Rick Nash, age 23, NHL 5.44 GPG

Ken Hodge, age 24, NHL 5.96 GPG
Rick Nash, age 24, NHL 5.69 GPG

Ken Hodge, age 25, NHL 5.80 GPG
Rick Nash, age 25, NHL 5.53 GPG

But last two years of that segment yes you would want to... not that it changes or explains that ridiculous 94 points season or the gap there...

Ken Hodge, age 26- 94 ESP, NHL 6.24 GPG
Rick Nash, age 26- 52 ESP, NHL 5.46 GPG

Ken Hodge, age 27, NHL 6.132 GPG
Rick Nash, age 27, NHL 5.32 GPG