Player | ES | PP | PK | Total |
Cyclone Taylor | 15 | 5 | 0 | 20 |
Charlie Conacher | 15 | 5 | 0 | 20 |
Patrik Elias | 15 | 2 | 0 | 17 |
Norm Ullman | 14 | 5 | 0 | 19 |
Cecil Dillon | 14 | 0 | 4 | 18 |
Sweeny Schriner | 14 | 5 | 0 | 19 |
Cooney Weiland | 10 | 2 | 0 | 12 |
Corey Perry | 10 | 2 | 0 | 12 |
Ed Sandford | 7 | 0 | 0 | 7 |
Derek Sanderson | 7 | 0 | 4 | 11 |
Ron Stewart | 7 | 0 | 3 | 10 |
Tony Leswick | 10 | 0 | 3 | 13 |
Totals | 138 | 26 | 14 |
Player | ES | PP | PK | Total |
Doug Harvey | 18 | 5 | 4 | 27 |
Ivan Johnson | 18 | 0 | 4 | 22 |
Ebbie Goodfellow | 16 | 2 | 3 | 21 |
Cy Wentworth | 16 | 0 | 3 | 19 |
Art Duncan | 12 | 2 | 0 | 14 |
Bobby Rowe | 12 | 0 | 0 | 12 |
Totals | 92 | 9 | 14 |
Noble - ? (in my research I've never been impressed with his offence)
Taylor - 100ish with my fudge.
It's bad... really bad for a 1st liner, even as a glue guy. I forget the exact number, but his 7 season vs. x score was just above 60. I'll calculate it again if you care about the exact number.
And without the arbitrarily added points?
The definition of arbitrary
"based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system."
It's not random and it's not personal whim, so it's not particularly "arbitrary"
Appendicitis is a non hockey related issue that with modern medicine wouldn't have been nearly as severe and he managed to outdo that season the preceding and following two seasons.
2x 2nd in NHA Points Among Defensemen
2nd in ECAHA Points Among Defensemen, 06-07
3rd in ECAHA Points Among Defensemen, 07-08
Arbitrary has several different definitions.
That doesn't mean you arbitrarily add numbers to his resume.
Add those to his total. Don't just make stuff up.
He shouldnt make up numbers, but we shouldn't necessarily use 7 years as the standard for pre-1926 player. 7 years was picked as the VsX standard, as it was considered a normal length for the prime of a post-consolidation, pre-expansion player.
Lach's PPG VsX is better than Petr Forsberg's 7-year peak!
Ullman is better than Gilmour?
Noble was the NHL leader in career assists when he retired (and we know how underreported assists were, so that fact should bolster not shoo away his impressive career stats).
RB, Dreaks and TDMM... "uncle!"
Gilmour was listed ahead of Crosby, Esposito and every forward my team faces this round in the HfBoards HOH project Stanley Cup performers project.I would say Ullman is better than Gilmour from a career perspective.
Gilmour was listed ahead of Crosby, Esposito and every forward my team faces this round in the HfBoards HOH project Stanley Cup performers project.
Gilmour was listed ahead of Crosby, Esposito and every forward my team faces this round in the HfBoards HOH project Stanley Cup performers project.
You of course can say what you want.... they are at best equal... please don't be flippant about your judgements here.
Let's not posture, and instead talk about hockey history and facts of the matter.
since when did i say that?Gilmour was listed ahead of Crosby, Esposito and every forward my team faces this round in the HfBoards HOH project Stanley Cup performers project.
You of course can say what you want.... they are at best equal... please don't be flippant about your judgements here.
Let's not posture, and instead talk about hockey history and facts of the matter.
1. Defense wins championships.
2. I cited Gilmour's better HOH ranking in the Stanley Cup performers project, you in the regular season project. Er,... given the context, my saying they are about equal is kinda generous.
RB, you know well that my 'defense wins championship' was part of my reply to your idea that Ullman is better than Gilmour in everything but defense. I cited the HOH ranking of Gilmour as among the greatest playoff performers ever as a shorthand reference to a lot of people's opinion that Gilmour was not less than Ullman in playoff prowess. I wasn't being reductive, just didn't have time to do much more than provide some evidence that your opinion was far from universal.
And citing Harvey would outright silliness if I was uncharitable and thought your reference to someone who plays less than 50% of the ice time was evidence of a better defense when the goalie plays 100% of the minutes and the Railers have a clearly better goalie (to wit, a better playoff goalie).
I haven't enjoyed writing a single thing in this post, but felt the frustrated need to reply to some argumentative tactics. It's Thursday night here. I'll be back on Friday night or Saturday morning, and hope to take a fresh and historically-reflective look at the series.
Before I go.... There are historical references to Seibert as equal to Shore but less flashy, not getting the Hart trophy votes but being the only defenseman other than Harvey to have ten consecutive 1st/2nd team all-star selections. So, if Seibert=Shore (or at least close if one isn't just Hart trophy counting) and Shore=Harvey (or at least close, given the long history of their relative equalness in the eyes of ATDers) then there is no huge gap between underrated Seibert and Harvey. But why make individual player comparisons like this when defensemen play as a pairing and Seibert with Chara is clearly at least as strong as Harvey with Johnson. I see no competitive advantage with the 1st pairings!!