Round 2, Vote 4 (2009 update)

[MXD]

As far as I am concerned, Kharlamov's peak was on the LaFleur/Bossy level, and he most certainly deserves to be nearer them on the list.

Makarov and Mikhailov are close for me now, but Firsov will top both of them on my list.

hUMM....

I had them Mihailov-Firsov-Makarov, but Makarov leaped ahead of Firsov since. I do have Aleksandr Maltsev at the tail end of my list, when I added like 6 right wingers at the bottom end of my list which I feel were worth mentionning.

I'm afraid I'm pretty convinced for Kharlamov - Having a Lafleur-like prime doesn't mean that much too me (as far, let's say, Top-30 ranking...) is concerned as I don't even think it was that impressive (it's impressive that he edged Trottier and Dionne, though, something Kharlamov doesn't have a claim at).

As I said earlier, he'll be behind Mahovlich, Moore in my next update, and if haven't mentionned it enough, I'll have problems ranking him ahead of guys that had more AST teams berths than Kharlamov had seasons. (that's worth for Mr. Moore as well).

 

[Dark Shadows]

hUMM....

I had them Mikhailov-Firsov-Makarov, but Makarov leaped ahead of Firsov since. I do have Aleksandr Maltsev at the tail end of my list, when I added like 6 right wingers at the bottom end of my list which I feel were worth mentioning.

I have since moved Makarov ahead of Mikhailov. I am open to conversations about why. Firsov I have always had ahead of them, but behind Kharlamov. I added a full game of Firsov in my video thread for those who have never seen him(Also a chance to see Stanshinov/Vikulov/Davydov).

I'm afraid I'm pretty convinced for Kharlamov - Having a Lafleur-like prime doesn't mean that much too me (as far, let's say, Top-30 ranking...) is concerned as I don't even think it was that impressive (it's impressive that he edged Trottier and Dionne, though, something Kharlamov doesn't have a claim at).

That's fine. I just think that given the chance, Kharlamov would have edged both a few times too. I think he was that good, and I won't punish him just because he did not play in the NHL. His games against NHL competition are fewer and harder to use as definitive proof because of the sample size, but I saw the greatness there and in the many international games I watched him play, and he was always their most important player and the guy everyone was trying to double team and neutralize, thus, I rank him on that level.

We have had this conversation enough times to agree to disagree

As I said earlier, he'll be behind Mahovlich, Moore in my next update, and if haven't mentionned it enough, I'll have problems ranking him ahead of guys that had more AST teams berths than Kharlamov had seasons. (that's worth for Mr. Moore as well).

All star teams(Midway through season all star game)? Or all star selections?

I have been rethinking Moore's position myself. In retrospect, too high.

 

[MXD]

That's fine. I just think that given the chance, Kharlamov would have edged both a few times too. I think he was that good, and I won't punish him just because he did not play in the NHL. His games against NHL competition are fewer and harder to use as definitive proof because of the sample size, but I saw the greatness there and in the many international games I watched him play, and he was always their most important player and the guy everyone was trying to double team and neutralize, thus, I rank him on that level.

You're right... But at the same time, I cannot credit Kharlamov for something he hasn't done.

The problem with Lafleur's prime? A few great players (edging Trottier and Dionne is impressive, not matter how you put it), but a lot of mediocre ones, not to mention really, really mediocre teams.

All star teams(Midway through season all star game)? Or all star selections?

All Star Teams. I was obviously refering to Earl Seibert.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Andy Bathgate PartII

Andy Bathgate did indeed have the qualities of a Dynasty player. He was always putting the team in ahead of personal accomplishments, and doing everything he could to get them to the playoffs. He was the NYR. The problem was the caliber of players he was given to play with, not him.

Bathgate was a key component of their Stanley cup win in 64.
Punch Imlach moved Bathgate because #1 his knee injuries were affecting his performance and causing him to miss games, and #2, Bathgate sided against Imlach in a public grievance several times about the way eh ran the team. A crime which always warranted a fine or trade.

That was why Dick Duff and Bob Nevin were sent packing, according to Frank Mahovlich's biography. Mahovlich himself avoided that fate because he just kept his mouth shut and accepted the fines Imlach kept throwing at him.

Ironically. Punch Imlach was the guy running around praising Bathgate as a key component in that cup win. The only time I have heard someone questioning Bathgate's play or making comments such as your from the Leafs was from C George Armstrong, Whom was not happy that Bathgate had replaced him on the first line.

Andy Bathgate joined the Rangers for the 1952-53 season as part of the best rookie crop a team ever produced. Bathgate, Harry Howell, Gump Worsley - three HHOFers plus Dean Prentice and Ron Murphy.

Starting with the 1955-56 season the Rangers always had two HHof quality defensemen - Howell and Gadsby, plus Bathgate, Prentice, Camille Henry, Andy Hebenton,Sullivan, the toughness of Fontinato and a HHOF goaltender - Gump Worsley as their core thru 1960. They were comparable to the 1957-1958 finalist Bruins. On paper the Rangers had better goaltending Worsely over Simmons, the best defenseman Gadsby over any one of Flaman/Stanley/Boivin and the best forward Bathgate over whoever you choose from the Bruins. The same comparison may be made with the Rangers to the 1959 Leafs. Yet the Rangers did not get a sniff of the finals spiraling downwards from 1957 until Doug Harvey came over from Montreal in 1961.

Granted they had the worst NHL coach of the era - Phil Watson, from the "I coached great but they played lousy school of coaching" but it does not change the fact that Andy Bathgate was a periphial player in an era where you had to play in the traffic, a soft player when toughness was required who did not have the defensive guile of a Keon, Marshall,Kelly that allowed them to play a non-physical style of defense.

As for Imlach moving Bathgate because of his knees. Makes little sense given that Imlach brought in Dickie Moore who had a worse history of knee injuries BUT was a character and team player.

You do not specify who you view to be the Leafs first line. in the early sixties it was generally considered to be Mahovlich/Kelly/Nevin
trio but Nevin on the RW was streaky and players tended to rotate thru so the Armstrong interpretation that you spin makes little sense given the history and varied roles that George Armstrong had with the Leafs.

After Andy Bathgate left the Leafs he played in Detroit. 1966 Finals
Detroit vs Montreal. Detroit wins the first two games in Montreal and Bathgate is a force !G 2A but then the Canadiens win four straight including three in Detroit as Bathgate tanks adding just one assist over the last four games, a meaningless goal with the RedWings down 4-0 in game 5.

http://www.flyershistory.com/cgi-bin/hsppogames.cgi

He basically disappeared after game 2.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Let's try to keep the discussions on topic. There's no need to have a long, detailed discussion of Bathgate when he's not eligible for voting yet.

This will be a useful discussion when Bathgate is eligible (which could be as soon as next round).

 

[lextune]

Just submitted my vote.

It was an interesting round with two players that would have been significantly higher if not for losing prime years to WWII. Another player, (at the top of my list this round), that would have been higher if not tragic accidents, and a fourth that retired in his prime after only 7 full seasons.

I am looking forward to being more involved again in the next vote since I will be home from a business trip I've been on during this round.

 

[seventieslord]

Quick offensive comparison of Brad Park, Chris Chelios, and Larry Robinson

With 896, 958, and 948 points, respectively, it's too easy to say "these guys are even offensively". Take a look:

Park played 17 seasons. Robinson played 20, and Chelios will play about 36 by the time he's done. Let's look at all 17 of Park's placements in the points race among defensemen:

2, 2, 2, 3, 6, 6, 6, 6, 7, 8, 10, 15, 16, 22, 27, 38, 65.

Not including Orr:

1, 1, 2, 2, 5, 5, 6, 6, 7, 7, 10, 15, 15, 22, 27, 38, 65.

What about Robinson? Here are his 17 best points placements from the 20 seasons he has to choose from:

1, 2, 2, 4, 5, 7, 11, 13, 14, 15, 22, 25, 29, 30, 31, 36, 44.

Not including Orr:

1, 2, 2, 5, 5, 7, 11, 13, 14, 15, 22, 25, 29, 30, 31, 37, 44.

Here are Chelios' best 17 points placements:

4, 4, 5, 8, 8, 9, 9, 10, 12, 13, 17, 19, 19, 21, 30, 38, 43, 70.

You don't even have to be generous to Park and remove Orr to show he's the best offensive blueliner of the three. He was in the top-10 eleven times, with Robinson and Chelios doing it six times each. He was in the top-20 thirteen times, more than either of them as well.

In Park's 10th-best offensive season, he ranked 8th among blueliners. In Robinson's 10th-best, he ranked 15th. Chelios ranked 13th. Park just didn't hang on for 4-10 extra seasons to put up 100-200 extra points.

You want to compare them in smarts, physical play, defensive play, and overall value? Leave that to the guys who have seen them all play extensively. Offensively? It's Park by a long shot.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Total Nonsense

Quick offensive comparison of Brad Park, Chris Chelios, and Larry Robinson

With 896, 958, and 948 points, respectively, it's too easy to say "these guys are even offensively". Take a look:

Park played 17 seasons. Robinson played 20, and Chelios will play about 36 by the time he's done. Let's look at all 17 of Park's placements in the points race among defensemen:

2, 2, 2, 3, 6, 6, 6, 6, 7, 8, 10, 15, 16, 22, 27, 38, 65.

Not including Orr:

1, 1, 2, 2, 5, 5, 6, 6, 7, 7, 10, 15, 15, 22, 27, 38, 65.

What about Robinson? Here are his 17 best points placements from the 20 seasons he has to choose from:

1, 2, 2, 4, 5, 7, 11, 13, 14, 15, 22, 25, 29, 30, 31, 36, 44.

Not including Orr:

1, 2, 2, 5, 5, 7, 11, 13, 14, 15, 22, 25, 29, 30, 31, 37, 44.

Here are Chelios' best 17 points placements:

4, 4, 5, 8, 8, 9, 9, 10, 12, 13, 17, 19, 19, 21, 30, 38, 43, 70.

You don't even have to be generous to Park and remove Orr to show he's the best offensive blueliner of the three. He was in the top-10 eleven times, with Robinson and Chelios doing it six times each. He was in the top-20 thirteen times, more than either of them as well.

In Park's 10th-best offensive season, he ranked 8th among blueliners. In Robinson's 10th-best, he ranked 15th. Chelios ranked 13th. Park just didn't hang on for 4-10 extra seasons to put up 100-200 extra points.

You want to compare them in smarts, physical play, defensive play, and overall value? Leave that to the guys who have seen them all play extensively. Offensively? It's Park by a long shot.

The above post is a classic blend of cuteness and a beautiful statistical misdirect that is truly a tribute to his agenda.

Larry Robinson:
http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/r/robinla01.html

Brad Park
http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/p/parkbr01.html


The facts. During his 20 year NHL career Larry Robinson totaled 958 posted per the link supplied above. During his seventeen year NHL career Brad Park totaled 896 points.

What seventieslord does is rank the seasons after dropping Robinson's three worst seasons then concludes that Brad Park was by "a long shot" the offensively superior force.

Now let's look at the three seasons that are not part of the comparison: Larry Robinson's three weakest seasons were
1972-73 (mid season call-up) 2G 4 A = 6PTS
1990-91 .............................1G 22A =23 PTS
1991-92 .............................3G 10A =13 PTS

so the three weakest seasons contributed a grand total of 42 points to Larry Robinson's total. Subtracting 42 from 958 yields 916 points which by any mathematical system is superior to Brad Park's 896 points. Yet by using a clever smoke and mirrors technique, rankings not actual raw data, seventieslord will have you believing that Brad Park is offensively superior by a "long shot" . Total nonsense.

 

[seventieslord]

Are you trying to tell these intelligent people that 916 is discernably different from 896?

The fact that Robinson played through the entire 1980s more than accounts for those 20 points.

Looking at raw point totals is smoke and mirrors. You want to know how special a player was, how much he stood out? Look at where he ranked.

Agenda? very interesting. I demonstrated that a longtime Montreal Canadien was not as good offensively as another player (without even giving the other player the benefit of dropping his worst seasons) and your reply was titled "total nonsense".

hmmmmm.....

 

[Canadiens1958]

The Numbers

Are you trying to tell these intelligent people that 916 is discernably different from 896?

The fact that Robinson played through the entire 1980s more than accounts for those 20 points.

Looking at raw point totals is smoke and mirrors. You want to know how special a player was, how much he stood out? Look at where he ranked.

Agenda? very interesting. I demonstrated that a longtime Montreal Canadien was not as good offensively as another player (without even giving the other player the benefit of dropping his worst seasons) and your reply was titled "total nonsense".

hmmmmm.....

Intelligent people realize that 916 is better than 896.You are the one who tried telling the readers that 896 is vastly superior than 916.

If you want to talk adjusted numbers for the 1980's be my guest but that is not the same thing as rankings which you manipulated without disclosing that the actual raw numbers supported another conclusion that seriously impacted the one you preferred.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

The above post is a classic blend of cuteness and a beautiful statistical misdirect that is truly a tribute to his agenda.

Larry Robinson:
http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/r/robinla01.html

Brad Park
http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/p/parkbr01.html


The facts. During his 20 year NHL career Larry Robinson totaled 958 posted per the link supplied above. During his seventeen year NHL career Brad Park totaled 896 points.

What seventieslord does is rank the seasons after dropping Robinson's three worst seasons then concludes that Brad Park was by "a long shot" the offensively superior force.

Now let's look at the three seasons that are not part of the comparison: Larry Robinson's three weakest seasons were
1972-73 (mid season call-up) 2G 4 A = 6PTS
1990-91 .............................1G 22A =23 PTS
1991-92 .............................3G 10A =13 PTS

so the three weakest seasons contributed a grand total of 42 points to Larry Robinson's total. Subtracting 42 from 958 yields 916 points which by any mathematical system is superior to Brad Park's 896 points. Yet by using a clever smoke and mirrors technique, rankings not actual raw data, seventieslord will have you believing that Brad Park is offensively superior by a "long shot" . Total nonsense.

You've got to be kidding. Raw point totals are next to useless if not put into context. Rankings are far more valuable. Would you suggest Charlie Huddy's offensive value was similar to Red Kelly's? Point totals would indicate as much.

 

[seventieslord]

OK.....

Park's 10 best seasons for adjusted points. (keep in mind these are relatively unadjusted as the shecule length barely changed throughout their careers, as did roster sizes and assists per goal - only league offense levels fluctuated)

78, 73, 71, 61, 51, 51, 49, 49, 46, 41.

Robinson:

77, 64, 64, 58, 53, 51, 51, 43, 42, 38.

Comparing 1st to 1st, 2nd to 2nd, and so on, Park wins this comparison 7-2, with one tie, with a total advantage of 29 points.

for anyone wondering, here are Chlios' ten best:

69, 66, 60, 59, 57, 54, 51, 51, 49, 49.

He comes out 5 behind Park and 24 ahead of Robinson.

Interesting that his adjusted points were about the same as Park's, but his overall rankings among the league's defensemen far inferior. There were many more 60-70 point defensemen in Chelios' time. Park was scoring relatively about the same compared to league scoring levels, but compared to other defensemen, he dominated much more than Robinson or Chelios offensively.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Another Misdirect

You've got to be kidding. Raw point totals are next to useless if not put into context. Rankings are far more valuable. Would you suggest Charlie Huddy's offensive value was similar to Red Kelly's? Point totals would indicate as much.

Best you could do was find a comparison separated by thirty years.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Best you could do was find a comparison separated by thirty years.

Alright, howabout a couple contemporaries then. Mark Messier was better offensively than Mario Lemieux because he has more career points. Yet a smoke and mirrors argument involving rankings within single seasons would fool you into thinking Lemieux had the upper hand.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Justifying a Conclusion

OK.....

Park's 10 best seasons for adjusted points. (keep in mind these are relatively unadjusted as the shecule length barely changed throughout their careers, as did roster sizes and assists per goal - only league offense levels fluctuated)

78, 73, 71, 61, 51, 51, 49, 49, 46, 41.

Robinson:

77, 64, 64, 58, 53, 51, 51, 43, 42, 38.

Comparing 1st to 1st, 2nd to 2nd, and so on, Park wins this comparison 7-2, with one tie, with a total advantage of 29 points.

for anyone wondering, here are Chlios' ten best:

69, 66, 60, 59, 57, 54, 51, 51, 49, 49.

He comes out 5 behind Park and 24 ahead of Robinson.

Interesting that his adjusted points were about the same as Park's, but his overall rankings among the league's defensemen far inferior. There were many more 60-70 point defensemen in Chelios' time. Park was scoring relatively about the same compared to league scoring levels, but compared to other defensemen, he dominated much more than Robinson or Chelios offensively.

Now you are simply trying to justify a conclusion. We have gone from a seventeen season comparison that did not quite work to a ten year comparison that you hope works to illustrate your pre conceived conclusion.

Do not have the time to do this right now but I am strongly suspicious that if a head to head analysis was done of the common regular seasons that Larry Robinson and Brad Park were NHL contemporaries, 1972-73 thru 1984-85, then Larry Robinson would have a marginally higher point total, even though such a comparison would drop Robinson's 1985-86, 19G 63A from consideration.

 

[foame]

Looking at raw point totals is smoke and mirrors. You want to know how special a player was, how much he stood out? Look at where he ranked.

Chelios competed against ~40-60 1st Ds while Robinson had ~30-40 1st Ds and Park 15-40 1st Ds during their eras. Your comparision is based on that the defensemen of both eras was the same and the teams played the same style.

Maybe a comparision between the players points/TGF vs his teams total points/TGF paints another picture:

A quick table, with 3 seasons of each player (I just pick the best pointswise)

APP = All Players total Points on the team, APTGF = All Players Total Goals Forward on the team:

Player | Team | Year | Points | APP | P/APP | TGF | APTGF | TGF/APTGF
Larry Robinson | MTL | 1976-77 | 85 | 1008 | 8,43% | 218 | 1921 | 11,34%
Larry Robinson | MTL | 1979-80 | 75 | 853 | 8,79%| 173 | 1627 | 10,63%
Larry Robinson | MTL | 1985-86 | 82 | 865 | 9,47% | 191 | 1635 | 11,68%
| | | 242 | 2726 | 8,87% | 582 | 5183 | 11,22%
Brad Park | NYR | 1971-72 | 73 | 848 | 8,60% | 159 | 1560 | 10,19%
Brad Park | NYR | 1973-74 | 82 | 809 | 10,13% | 168 | 1451 | 11,57%
Brad Park | BOS | 1977-78 | 79 | 891 | 8,86% | 199 | 1645 | 12,09%
| | | 234 | 2548 | 9,18% | 526 | 4656 | 11,29%
Chris Chelios | MTL | 1988-89 | 73 | 841 | 8,68% | 167 | 1564 | 10,67%
Chris Chelios | CHI | 1992-93 | 73 | 757 | 9,64% | 165 | 1375 | 12,00%
Chris Chelios | CHI | 1995-96 | 72 | 748 | 9,62% | 151 | 1343 | 11,24%
| | | 218 | 2346 | 9,29% | 483 | 4282 | 11,27%

Park, Robinson, Chelios contribution offensively was pretty much the same during their peak which overpass showed in his post (taken the teams offense in account)

 

[Canadiens1958]

Assuming .......................

Alright, howabout a couple contemporaries then. Mark Messier was better offensively than Mario Lemieux because he has more career points. Yet a smoke and mirrors argument involving rankings within single seasons would fool you into thinking Lemieux had the upper hand.

Kyle,

Assuming you could come up with such a ranking.

Regardless if you do a study of the regular seasons where they were actually contemporaries the conclusion would not be supported. Seeing that I have never posited that Mark Messier was better offensively than Mario Lemieux and would never do so, your projections show more about your positions than anything else.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Kyle,

Assuming you could come up with such a ranking.

Regardless if you do a study of the regular seasons where they were actually contemporaries the conclusion would not be supported. Seeing that I have never posited that Mark Messier was better offensively than Mario Lemieux and would never do so, your projections show more about your positions than anything else.

Nor have I posited that I felt Park was better than Robinson offensively. My purpose was to point out that using career point totals and raw data without providing a context is a very poor way to go about evaluating players.

 

[FissionFire]

Do not have the time to do this right now but I am strongly suspicious that if a head to head analysis was done of the common regular seasons that Larry Robinson and Brad Park were NHL contemporaries, 1972-73 thru 1984-85, then Larry Robinson would have a marginally higher point total, even though such a comparison would drop Robinson's 1985-86, 19G 63A from consideration.

I would strongly suspect you are wrong, but that shouldn't be anything new to you. Maybe this time you will actually admit it?

1972-73 through 1984-85 total points for defensemen

Brad Park - 168 goals
Larry Robinson - 155 goals
+13 goals for Park

Brad Park - 548 assists
Larry Robinson - 526 assists
+22 assists for Park

Brad Park - 716 points
Larry Robinson - 681 points
+35 points for Park

For the record Borje Salming over that same time period had 680 points, 1 behind Robinson.

How 'bout them smoke and mirrors? (For the record, this search took me 30 seconds to perform + 2 minutes to write this post. You really didn't have enough time for that?)

 

[seventieslord]

Now you are simply trying to justify a conclusion. We have gone from a seventeen season comparison that did not quite work to a ten year comparison that you hope works to illustrate your pre conceived conclusion.

You wanted it sliced a different way. So I did. Anyway you slice it, Park is the superior offensive defenseman.

Chelios competed against ~40-60 1st Ds while Robinson had ~30-40 1st Ds and Park 15-40 1st Ds during their eras. Your comparision is based on that the defensemen of both eras was the same and the teams played the same style.

For Park, I think you meant to say 24-40.

Regardless, what does this show besides that the size of the NHL changed. Does the size of the NHL make an impact on the ability of an elite player to place higly on the leaderboard?

I would strongly suspect you are wrong, but that shouldn't be anything new to you. Maybe this time you will actually admit it?

1972-73 through 1984-85 total points for defensemen

Brad Park - 168 goals
Larry Robinson - 155 goals
+13 goals for Park

Brad Park - 548 assists
Larry Robinson - 526 assists
+22 assists for Park

Brad Park - 716 points
Larry Robinson - 681 points
+35 points for Park

For the record Borje Salming over that same time period had 680 points, 1 behind Robinson.

How 'bout them smoke and mirrors? (For the record, this search took me 30 seconds to perform + 2 minutes to write this post. You really didn't have enough time for that?)

Nice.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Raw Data

I would strongly suspect you are wrong, but that shouldn't be anything new to you. Maybe this time you will actually admit it?

1972-73 through 1984-85 total points for defensemen

Brad Park - 168 goals
Larry Robinson - 155 goals
+13 goals for Park

Brad Park - 548 assists
Larry Robinson - 526 assists
+22 assists for Park

Brad Park - 716 points
Larry Robinson - 681 points
+35 points for Park

For the record Borje Salming over that same time period had 680 points, 1 behind Robinson.

How 'bout them smoke and mirrors? (For the record, this search took me 30 seconds to perform + 2 minutes to write this post. You really didn't have enough time for that?)

So the actual raw data for common seasons supports a conclusion that Brad Park was slightly better offensively than Larry Robinson over a common span while the same raw data supports the view that Larry Robinson was slightly better over a seventeen year period. Somewhat of a wash that is nowhere near the bogus claim that Brad Park enjoyed a tremendous offensive advantage.

The wash position has been supported by another study previously posted which also marginalized the difference between the three subjects.

The initial claim was what I suspected, never claimed it was true.
On the other hand if I present a raw data study then all the anti-raw data factions jump in. Whereas when you do it they keep quiet.

Thanks for doing the work.

 

[FissionFire]

So the actual raw data for common seasons supports a conclusion that Brad Park was slightly better offensively than Larry Robinson over a common span while the same raw data supports the view that Larry Robinson was slightly better over a seventeen year period. Somewhat of a wash that is nowhere near the bogus claim that Brad Park enjoyed a tremendous offensive advantage.

The wash position has been supported by another study previously posted which also marginalized the difference between the three subjects.

The initial claim was what I suspected, never claimed it was true.
On the other hand if I present a raw data study then all the anti-raw data factions jump in. Whereas when you do it they keep quiet.

Thanks for doing the work.

They are quiet because unlike you, they realize I am simply providing exactly what you asked for and it just so happens to blow your hypothesis out of the water. Nowhere do I present any conclusions in my post. Had I stated that the raw numbers proved Park was better than Robinson those factions you speak of (of which I'm a proud member) would gleefully jump all over me too.

Also, this is one of the rare cases where the raw numbers are actually somewhat relevant because it is for the same seasons where both players played so you don't need to adjust for league scoring levels. That said, the raw data is only partially useful since you still need to account for quality of teammates (strong offensive teammates versus weak ones) and competition (strong divisions versus weak ones), two factors which can have a definite affect of a players scoring level.

P.S. Still waiting for you to say "I was wrong". You can't really bring yourself to say that, can you?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Conclusions

They are quiet because unlike you, they realize I am simply providing exactly what you asked for and it just so happens to blow your hypothesis out of the water. Nowhere do I present any conclusions in my post. Had I stated that the raw numbers proved Park was better than Robinson those factions you speak of (of which I'm a proud member) would gleefully jump all over me too.

Also, this is one of the rare cases where the raw numbers are actually somewhat relevant because it is for the same seasons where both players played so you don't need to adjust for league scoring levels. That said, the raw data is only partially useful since you still need to account for quality of teammates (strong offensive teammates versus weak ones) and competition (strong divisions versus weak ones), two factors which can have a definite affect of a players scoring level.

P.S. Still waiting for you to say "I was wrong". You can't really bring yourself to say that, can you?

Your post follows:

I would strongly suspect you are wrong, but that shouldn't be anything new to you. Maybe this time you will actually admit it?

1972-73 through 1984-85 total points for defensemen

Brad Park - 168 goals
Larry Robinson - 155 goals
+13 goals for Park

Brad Park - 548 assists
Larry Robinson - 526 assists
+22 assists for Park

Brad Park - 716 points
Larry Robinson - 681 points
+35 points for Park

For the record Borje Salming over that same time period had 680 points, 1 behind Robinson.

How 'bout them smoke and mirrors? (For the record, this search took me 30 seconds to perform + 2 minutes to write this post. You really didn't have enough time for that?)
_________________________________________________________

Once you calculated the differences between goals, assists, total points, and elsewhere in your post you stepped over the line between presenting raw data and drawing conclusions. And of course your first phrase is a conclusion.

 

[Dark Shadows]

Hurricane is hitting the Maritimes now. Category 2 its being classified as now.

Chance I will be out of power soon. Depending on how long Power goes down. Last hurricane was 6 days without Power.

 

[God Bless Canada]

My top 10 not added yet (now that I have my list in front of me)

1. Max Bentley
2. Frank Mahovlich
3. Henri Richard
4. Charlie Conacher
5. Dickie Moore
6. Marcel Dionne
7. Dit Clapper
8. Andy Bathgate
9. Pierre Pilote
10. Tim Horton