Round 2, Vote 4 (2009 update)

[ck26]

All this talk of statistical smoke and mirrors just obscures the most important point.

Fighting.

Larry Robinson > Brad Park

... and dare I say, "by a long shot?"

 

[MXD]

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.

Good luck Jekyll.

 

[seventieslord]

Park had 3.4 fights per season throughout his career. Not much W/L info is given at dropyourgloves.com, but he is 7-5-2 in tracked bouts. Robinson had 1.5 fights per season but is apparently 20-2-0 in known bouts.

Not sure what relevance this has but I thought I'd prolong the conversation...

 

[FissionFire]

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.

Just say it. Three little words. I know they are supremely difficult for you to utter. "I was wrong". Swallow your damn pride and say it or get lost because if you can't admit to being wrong about anything then you don't belong here.

 

[lextune]

Boy....some of this thread is just exhausting....

Remember folks, no one is right all the time. This debate is supposed to be about all of us with knowledge of hockey's history sharing it with one another. To teach what we know, and learn what we don't, so we can come up with the best possible result and glorify the game we all so obviously love.

It should not be about proving every opinion you have is the correct one.

....anyway....

Seems like there wasn't a ton of debate about Dryden. It'll be interesting to see where he ends up. I had him 5th this round and I am starting to suspect that most of the voters will have him lower than myself.

If he doesn't make the top ten this round I am going to have to make a big push for him to top the next list.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Your Own Words

Just say it. Three little words. I know they are supremely difficult for you to utter. "I was wrong". Swallow your damn pride and say it or get lost because if you can't admit to being wrong about anything then you don't belong here.

FissionFire,

Try reading your own words with understanding. Copy and paste from your own seminal post in this and other threads below. Yet who is constantly breaking his own guidelines ?

So by your own standards and words there is no right or wrong just opinions. Live by the rules you set and stop with the blatant bias.
_________________________________________________________
Before we begin, just a recap on how Round 2 will operate:

Round 2

* The top 15 ranked players from the aggregate list will be posted in a thread
* Players will be listed in alphabetical order to avoid creating bias
* Player merits and rankings will be open for discussion and debate for a period of five (5) days
* Final voting will occur for two (2) days by private message
* Final results will be posted and the process repeated for the next 10 places with remaining players until a list of 100 players is obtained

These might be tweaked to allow longer or shorter debating periods depending on how the process moves along.

Additionally, there are a couple guidelines I'd ask that everyone agree to abide by:
1. Please try to stay on-topic in the thread
2. Please remember that this is a debate on opinions and there is no right or wrong. Please try to avoid words like "stupid" "dumb" "wrong" etc. when debating.
3. Please treat other debaters with respect
4. Please don't be a wallflower. All eligible voters are VERY HIGHLY encouraged to be active participants in the debate.
5. Please maintain an open mind. The purpose of the debate is to convince others that your views are more valid. If nobody is willing to accept their opinions as flexible there really is no point in debating.

 

[Pear Juice]

Not directed at anyone in particular but to a number of posters who hopefully know who you are. With all due respect, some people in here (that includes both sides of the argument) should stop being overly provocative. We're not competing here, we're discussing, listening and learning. This "I won the argument!" hysteria puts a shade over the entire thread. When discussion deteriorates into pie-throwing, whoever comes down victorious in the end, the readers are always on the losing end.

Trust your readers, they will see your point as legitimate if it is legitimate, despite if you win the argument or not.

 

[Dark Shadows]

FissionFire,

Try reading your own words with understanding. Copy and paste from your own seminal post in this and other threads below. Yet who is constantly breaking his own guidelines ?

So by your own standards and words there is no right or wrong just opinions. Live by the rules you set and stop with the blatant bias.
_________________________________________________________
Before we begin, just a recap on how Round 2 will operate:

Round 2

* The top 15 ranked players from the aggregate list will be posted in a thread
* Players will be listed in alphabetical order to avoid creating bias
* Player merits and rankings will be open for discussion and debate for a period of five (5) days
* Final voting will occur for two (2) days by private message
* Final results will be posted and the process repeated for the next 10 places with remaining players until a list of 100 players is obtained

These might be tweaked to allow longer or shorter debating periods depending on how the process moves along.

Additionally, there are a couple guidelines I'd ask that everyone agree to abide by:
1. Please try to stay on-topic in the thread
2. Please remember that this is a debate on opinions and there is no right or wrong. Please try to avoid words like "stupid" "dumb" "wrong" etc. when debating.
3. Please treat other debaters with respect
4. Please don't be a wallflower. All eligible voters are VERY HIGHLY encouraged to be active participants in the debate.
5. Please maintain an open mind. The purpose of the debate is to convince others that your views are more valid. If nobody is willing to accept their opinions as flexible there really is no point in debating.

They are guidelines, not rules, and your posting falls outside of expected cordial responses more often than not because you bring it upon yourself.

 

[MXD]

I support lextune and Der Kaiser.

And I ******* like my new avatar.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

*** PLEASE NOTE THE VOTING DEADLINE ***

Vote 3 will begin now and debates will run through Sunday 8/23. Any extension to this time frame will be annouced prior to the deadline. Votes must be submitted no later than midnight EST on Sunday 8/23, and voting will run until this time or until all voters have sent their vote in, whichever comes first. THESE DEADLINES ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE SO PLEASE READ THROUGH THE ENTIRE THREAD.

I will be sending out confirmations when I receive ballots from the voters now. Any voter who does not get a confirmation within 24 hours of submitting a ballot should assume I never received it and should either resubmit it or contact me to arrange a different method to submit the ballots. Please submit all ballots via PM to FissionFire or email them to [email protected]

PLEASE NOTE THAT YOU WILL VOTE FOR YOUR TOP 15 OUT OF THE POOL OF ELIGIBLE PLAYERS.

Vote 4 will be for places 31 through 40 on the Top 100 list.

Here are the candidates, listed alphabetically:
Syl Apps Sr.
Martin Brodeur
Chris Chelios
Paul Coffey
Bill Cook
Ken Dryden
Viacheslav Fetisov
Bernard Geoffrion
Valeri Kharlamov
Brad Park
Larry Robinson
Joe Sakic
Milt Schmidt
Vladislav Tretiak
Steve Yzerman

Just got in from vacation in time to vote.

Only 7 of these players were in my top 40, so its a tough one for me.
Kharlamov & Robinson were in my top 30, so they'll be 1 & 2.
Park, Sakic, Fetisov, Dryden and Yzerman are next.
To me Dryden, Brodeur and Tretiak were all somewhat products of great defensive teams, with Dryden being the best of the 3.
Still too soon for Coffey.

 

[FissionFire]

FissionFire,

Try reading your own words with understanding. Copy and paste from your own seminal post in this and other threads below. Yet who is constantly breaking his own guidelines ?

So by your own standards and words there is no right or wrong just opinions. Live by the rules you set and stop with the blatant bias.
_________________________________________________________
Before we begin, just a recap on how Round 2 will operate:

Round 2

* The top 15 ranked players from the aggregate list will be posted in a thread
* Players will be listed in alphabetical order to avoid creating bias
* Player merits and rankings will be open for discussion and debate for a period of five (5) days
* Final voting will occur for two (2) days by private message
* Final results will be posted and the process repeated for the next 10 places with remaining players until a list of 100 players is obtained

These might be tweaked to allow longer or shorter debating periods depending on how the process moves along.

Additionally, there are a couple guidelines I'd ask that everyone agree to abide by:
1. Please try to stay on-topic in the thread
2. Please remember that this is a debate on opinions and there is no right or wrong. Please try to avoid words like "stupid" "dumb" "wrong" etc. when debating.
3. Please treat other debaters with respect
4. Please don't be a wallflower. All eligible voters are VERY HIGHLY encouraged to be active participants in the debate.
5. Please maintain an open mind. The purpose of the debate is to convince others that your views are more valid. If nobody is willing to accept their opinions as flexible there really is no point in debating.

Whatever. You know, I'm pretty much to the point where I don't care anymore. I just want this to be over so I can shut it down for 4 or 5 years. You can be sure that in the future those guidelines will be very different.

 

[Dark Shadows]

Just got in from vacation in time to vote.

Only 7 of these players were in my top 40, so its a tough one for me.
Kharlamov & Robinson were in my top 30, so they'll be 1 & 2.
Park, Sakic, Fetisov, Dryden and Yzerman are next.
To me Dryden, Brodeur and Tretiak were all somewhat products of great defensive teams, with Dryden being the best of the 3.
Still too soon for Coffey.

I was lucky and the Hurricane passed us by, so i am not missing my vote

 

[Kyle McMahon]

This was a tough vote. I could probably wake up tomorrow and come up with a different ranking entirely.

Don't still have my original list, but I know that Nighbor, Benedict, and Frank Boucher are probably my top three not yet added.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

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.

In this particular case, 896 is better than 916, although not by much. You need to consider the context.

Park's career spanned 1969 to 1985. During these years, there were 6.89 goals per game (link to data source, this is a simple (unweighted) average).

You counted Robinson's points from 1974 to 1990. During these years, there were 7.29 goals per game (link to data source, this is a simple (unweighted) average).

Robinson outscored Park by 2.2% but played in an era with 5.9% more offense. This isn't a huge difference but it tells me that Park was the superior scorer because he produced more offense than Robinson relative to the league average.

 

[lextune]

This would be a case of Canadiens1958 being factually wrong.

Here is where those of us who are trying to have a real debate would say, "wow I didn't realize that", or something similar, be happy for having learned something we didn't know, and move on.

When FissionFire asked us to try to avoid words like "stupid" "dumb" "wrong" etc. he was referring to our debate on opinions (he says as much). But in this, and other "debates", (most notably the Benedict situation), Canadiens1958 is in fact, wrong. And his stubborn refusal to simply accept it is bogging down the discussions.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Context

In this particular case, 896 is better than 916, although not by much. You need to consider the context.

Park's career spanned 1969 to 1985. During these years, there were 6.89 goals per game (link to data source, this is a simple (unweighted) average).

You counted Robinson's points from 1974 to 1990. During these years, there were 7.29 goals per game (link to data source, this is a simple (unweighted) average).

Robinson outscored Park by 2.2% but played in an era with 5.9% more offense. This isn't a huge difference but it tells me that Park was the superior scorer because he produced more offense than Robinson relative to the league average.

Again you are not adjusting for all the factors that contribute to offense. Robinson scored 66 powerplay goals during his 20 year career while Park scored 93 powerplay goals during his 17 year career which generates a 40.9% raw differential with out adjusting per season. Which would point in the direction of Larry Robinson generating more offense at even strength.

Powerplay offense vs even strength offense. How do we value the Mark Streit's of hockey.

 

[FissionFire]

Again you are not adjusting for all the factors that contribute to offense. Robinson scored 66 powerplay goals during his 20 year career while Park scored 93 powerplay goals during his 17 year career which generates a 40.9% raw differential with out adjusting per season. Which would point in the direction of Larry Robinson generating more offense at even strength.

Powerplay offense vs even strength offense. How do we value the Mark Streit's of hockey.

Bobby Orr (76/270) - 28.1%
Larry Robinson (66/208) - 31.7%
Paul Coffey (135/396) - 34.1%
Chris Chelios (69/185) - 37.3%
Denis Potvin (127/310) - 41.0%
Ray Bourque (173/410) - 42.2%
Brad Park (93/213) - 43.7%
Nicklas Lidstrom (115/228) - 50.9%

Using this criteria (which I think is ridiculous), Orr > Robinson > Coffey > Chelios > Potvin > Bourque > Park > Lidstrom at even strength offense. Does this mean Ray Bourque was just a compiler since his stats don't reflect team play and he scored alot on the PP? And I'm sure you'll agree that Chris Chelios is a far superior even strength offensive player to Potvin, Bourque, and Lidstrom right?

The way I see it, Robinson's pedestrian PP numbers reflect poorly on him as a PP QB. It seems that in open ice when he could rush the puck he excelled but his skillset was not very adaptable to a set offense like a PP where the defense is already back and not having to adjust to him on the rush. Sounds more like a weakness in Robinson's game, not a strength.

Since you love raw numbers so much, how could a good offensive player like Robinson struggle to score on the PP? He's 30th amongst defenseman in career PP goals, behind guys like Dave Babych (86), Jeff Brown (80), Rob Ramage (75), and Fredrik Olausson (72). Career PPG for Defensemen (and no I think this metric is an awful way to measure players but I'm giving you something using your own criteria to show you how poor raw stats are in judging players)

Oh, and comparing Park to Streit is a blatant attempt to influence people with intentional misinformation. Under your own criteria Brad Park was an excellent ES scorer, placing 17th on the career list of ES defensemen goals, one behind Scott Stevens. Considering the percentage of goals from the PP, it seems that you are implying that Park, Potvin, Lidstrom, and Bourque are the equivalents of Streit.

 

[Canadiens Fan]

Bobby Orr (76/270) - 28.1%
Larry Robinson (66/208) - 31.7%
Paul Coffey (135/396) - 34.1%
Chris Chelios (69/185) - 37.3%
Denis Potvin (127/310) - 41.0%
Ray Bourque (173/410) - 42.2%
Brad Park (93/213) - 43.7%
Nicklas Lidstrom (115/228) - 50.9%

Using this criteria (which I think is ridiculous), Orr > Robinson > Coffey > Chelios > Potvin > Bourque > Park > Lidstrom at even strength offense. Does this mean Ray Bourque was just a compiler since his stats don't reflect team play and he scored alot on the PP? And I'm sure you'll agree that Chris Chelios is a far superior even strength offensive player to Potvin, Bourque, and Lidstrom right?

The way I see it, Robinson's pedestrian PP numbers reflect poorly on him as a PP QB. It seems that in open ice when he could rush the puck he excelled but his skillset was not very adaptable to a set offense like a PP where the defense is already back and not having to adjust to him on the rush. Sounds more like a weakness in Robinson's game, not a strength.

Since you love raw numbers so much, how could a good offensive player like Robinson struggle to score on the PP? He's 30th amongst defenseman in career PP goals, behind guys like Dave Babych (86), Jeff Brown (80), Rob Ramage (75), and Fredrik Olausson (72). Career PPG for Defensemen (and no I think this metric is an awful way to measure players but I'm giving you something using your own criteria to show you how poor raw stats are in judging players)

Oh, and comparing Park to Streit is a blatant attempt to influence people with intentional misinformation. Under your own criteria Brad Park was an excellent ES scorer, placing 17th on the career list of ES defensemen goals, one behind Scott Stevens. Considering the percentage of goals from the PP, it seems that you are implying that Park, Potvin, Lidstrom, and Bourque are the equivalents of Streit.

Good stuff. May I suggest and this is without statistical evidence but just through what I saw. While Robinson played the power play for the Canadiens, Guy Lapointe would probably fit out definition of the power play quarterback more, while if you watch the majority of the power plays at that time, Guy Lafleur controlled the puck a tremendous amount.

In other words the power play flowed through and was mostly based on Lafleur.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Oh Well.......................

Bobby Orr (76/270) - 28.1%
Larry Robinson (66/208) - 31.7%
Paul Coffey (135/396) - 34.1%
Chris Chelios (69/185) - 37.3%
Denis Potvin (127/310) - 41.0%
Ray Bourque (173/410) - 42.2%
Brad Park (93/213) - 43.7%
Nicklas Lidstrom (115/228) - 50.9%

Using this criteria (which I think is ridiculous), Orr > Robinson > Coffey > Chelios > Potvin > Bourque > Park > Lidstrom at even strength offense. Does this mean Ray Bourque was just a compiler since his stats don't reflect team play and he scored alot on the PP? And I'm sure you'll agree that Chris Chelios is a far superior even strength offensive player to Potvin, Bourque, and Lidstrom right?

The way I see it, Robinson's pedestrian PP numbers reflect poorly on him as a PP QB. It seems that in open ice when he could rush the puck he excelled but his skillset was not very adaptable to a set offense like a PP where the defense is already back and not having to adjust to him on the rush. Sounds more like a weakness in Robinson's game, not a strength.

Since you love raw numbers so much, how could a good offensive player like Robinson struggle to score on the PP? He's 30th amongst defenseman in career PP goals, behind guys like Dave Babych (86), Jeff Brown (80), Rob Ramage (75), and Fredrik Olausson (72). Career PPG for Defensemen (and no I think this metric is an awful way to measure players but I'm giving you something using your own criteria to show you how poor raw stats are in judging players)

Oh, and comparing Park to Streit is a blatant attempt to influence people with intentional misinformation. Under your own criteria Brad Park was an excellent ES scorer, placing 17th on the career list of ES defensemen goals, one behind Scott Stevens. Considering the percentage of goals from the PP, it seems that you are implying that Park, Potvin, Lidstrom, and Bourque are the equivalents of Streit.

Some more of your typical bias and misinformation.

First I never compared Mark Streit to Brad Park. I asked a rhetorical question choosing a player far removed from being viewed as a contemporary of Brad Park or Larry Robinson but you managed to draw some inference regardless.

It is rather obvious from your post above that you never saw the 1970's Canadiens play since you managed to completely omit Guy Lapointe and his role on the Canadiens power play where he contributed 47 PPG during the time frame in question.

Now you seem to have watched Scotty Bowman coach the Red Wings so you should have noticed a few of his tendencies that are part of the Canadiens tradition of playing hockey.

Scotty Bowman, like Toe Blake and other Canadiens coaches, believed that powerplay goals were very important BUT not at the cost of even strength goals. So your powerplay line-up is determined by who you want out on the ice AFTER the powerplay. Unless the team is in the midst of a comeback,then if you score a PPG you want your best defensive players out on the ice to sustain the momentum advantage. Likewise if the powerplay does not produce a goal you want your best defensive line-up out there to prevent the other team from building on their momentum.

Larry Robinson was used within this context. During the 1985-86 season after Guy Lapointe was long gone and Larry Robinson was doing a great job on the Canadiens powerplay - 10PPG and quarterbacking the power play the Canadiens went and added Gaston Gingras(7 PPG) a powerplay specialist from the point in mid season so that Larry Robinson's powerplay time could be reduced while his even strength time could be increased.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/MTL/1986.html

Trust this explains Larry Robinson's role by putting things in perspective.

As for your statistical presentation where you use raw data about defensemen it simply reflects the type of powerplay the team ran or runs and each defenseman's role, playing time. The type of powerplay - Orr with the Bruins played on a powerplay with a fourth forward, Fred Stanfield on the other point contributing 42 PPG.

BTW who were the 16 ahead of Brad Park on the ES list? You raised a point kindly support it.

 

[Canadiens1958]

The Canadiens Powerplay 1974-75 thru 1979-80

Good stuff. May I suggest and this is without statistical evidence but just through what I saw. While Robinson played the power play for the Canadiens, Guy Lapointe would probably fit out definition of the power play quarterback more, while if you watch the majority of the power plays at that time, Guy Lafleur controlled the puck a tremendous amount.

In other words the power play flowed through and was mostly based on Lafleur.

Some interesting data about the Canadiens powerplay from the 1974-75 regular season thru the 1979-80 regular season.

1974-75 season 92 PPG
1975-76 season 75 PPG*
1976-77 season 59 PPG*
1977-78 season 73 PPG*
1978-79 season 68 PPG*
1979-80 season 77 PPG

Data culled from hockey-reference.com.

The four Stanley Cup winning seasons* had the least productive powerplays.In fact the season with the best overall record 1976-77 had the lowest number of PPG.The first five seasons with Scotty Bowman coaching saw 12-14 different players score on the powerplay.

Lafleur would score 16-24% of the PPG.

The Canadiens powerplay featured puck movement and reaction as opposed to setting-up set plays

 

[Dark Shadows]

This would be a case of Canadiens1958 being factually wrong.

Here is where those of us who are trying to have a real debate would say, "wow I didn't realize that", or something similar, be happy for having learned something we didn't know, and move on.

When FissionFire asked us to try to avoid words like "stupid" "dumb" "wrong" etc. he was referring to our debate on opinions (he says as much). But in this, and other "debates", (most notably the Benedict situation), Canadiens1958 is in fact, wrong. And his stubborn refusal to simply accept it is bogging down the discussions.

Yes. Every debate is being dragged on weird tangents which have little/nothing to do with anything.

Its not surprising that the first 2 rounds of voting had twice as many pages as last year. What is surprising is that those extra pages consist mostly of the rest of the History section arguing with one person looking to be the center of attention.

 

[Canadiens Fan]

Some interesting data about the Canadiens powerplay from the 1974-75 regular season thru the 1979-80 regular season.

1974-75 season 92 PPG
1975-76 season 75 PPG*
1976-77 season 59 PPG*
1977-78 season 73 PPG*
1978-79 season 68 PPG*
1979-80 season 77 PPG

Data culled from hockey-reference.com.

The four Stanley Cup winning seasons* had the least productive powerplays.In fact the season with the best overall record 1976-77 had the lowest number of PPG.The first five seasons with Scotty Bowman coaching saw 12-14 different players score on the powerplay.

Lafleur would score 16-24% of the PPG.

The Canadiens powerplay featured puck movement and reaction as opposed to setting-up set plays

Yet it all ran through Lafleur.

Scoring on the PPG does not indicate who controlled the power play. Using the year's that you selected, I have taken the power play goals scored by the Canadiens when Lafleur was on the ice. So for example, in 1974-75 the Habs scored 92 PPG of which Guy Lafleur was on the ice for 59 of them, a percentage of 64%.

1974-75 season 92 PPG - 59 goals - 64%
1975-76 season 75 PPG* - 63 goals - 84%
1976-77 season 59 PPG* - 47 goals - 80%
1977-78 season 73 PPG* - 57 goals - 78%
1978-79 season 68 PPG* - 59 goals - 87%
1979-80 season 77 PPG - 70 goals - 91%

Total (1974/75 - 1979/80)

- Canadiens scored 444 PPG
- Guy Lafleur was on the ice for 355 of those goals or 80% of the time.

Here are the on-ice PPG numbers for the other Canadiens during the same time period.

Lafleur - 355 goals
Lapointe - 302 goals
Lemaire - 227 goals (did not play in 1979/80)
Robinson - 212 goals
Shutt - 182 goals
Lambert - 176 goals
Savard - 127 goals
Cournoyer - 119 goals (did not play in 1979/80)

As I stated before, Lafleur controlled the power play and was the focal point. After all he was in on 80% of the team's power play goals during that six year span.

 

[Jungosi]

I support lextune and Der Kaiser.

And I ******* like my new avatar.

This is like Seventh Son of a Seventh Son meets ice hockey right? Certainly a great combination.

 

[BM67]

Some interesting data about the Canadiens powerplay from the 1974-75 regular season thru the 1979-80 regular season.

1974-75 season 92 PPG
1975-76 season 75 PPG*
1976-77 season 59 PPG*
1977-78 season 73 PPG*
1978-79 season 68 PPG*
1979-80 season 77 PPG

Data culled from hockey-reference.com.

The four Stanley Cup winning seasons* had the least productive powerplays.In fact the season with the best overall record 1976-77 had the lowest number of PPG.The first five seasons with Scotty Bowman coaching saw 12-14 different players score on the powerplay.

Lafleur would score 16-24% of the PPG.

The Canadiens powerplay featured puck movement and reaction as opposed to setting-up set plays

Much more to the story than the raw PPG total.

Year|M PPG|M PPO|M PP%|NHL Avg PPG|NHL Avg PPO|NHL Avg PP%
1974-75|92|350|26.29|64|316|20.33
1975-76|75|282|26.60|66|321|20.54
1976-77|59|237|24.89|53|265|19.83
1977-78|73|229|31.88|54|255|21.15
1978-79|68|240|28.33|62|271|22.72
1979-80|77|264|29.17|61|280|21.86

Montreal totals expressed as a percentage of the league average.

Year|PPG|PPO|PP%
1974-75|143.75|110.76|129.32
1975-76|113.64|88.85|129.50
1976-77|111.32|89.43|125.52
1977-78|135.19|89.80|150.73
1978-79|109.68|88.56|124.69
1979-80|126.23|94.29|133.44

As you can see, the total number of PP opportunities had more to do with the total number of PPG than PP efficiency as expressed by PP%. Both Montreal and the NHL as a whole took a big drop in PPO in the latter 70s.

 

[overpass]

Again you are not adjusting for all the factors that contribute to offense. Robinson scored 66 powerplay goals during his 20 year career while Park scored 93 powerplay goals during his 17 year career which generates a 40.9% raw differential with out adjusting per season. Which would point in the direction of Larry Robinson generating more offense at even strength.

Powerplay offense vs even strength offense. How do we value the Mark Streit's of hockey.

Park was a far better scorer on the power play.

Brad Park - top 10 seasonal rankings in PP scoring among defensemen
2, 2, 2, 3, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 8, 8, 8, 10

Larry Robinson - top 10 seasonal rankings in PP scoring among defensemen
1, 3

Park was top 5 in power play points among defencemen every year from 1969-70 to 1975-76, and was top 10 in every full season he played until 1982-83. Robinson led defencemen in power play points in 1980-81 (when Potvin was injured), placed 3rd in 1985-86, and otherwise typically scored between 15 and 20 points on the PP, ranking 10th to 30th among defencemen.

If we remove Orr's numbers, Park would have led defensemen in PP scoring three times.

At even-strength, Robinson does have an edge, but it's a lot closer.

Brad Park - top 10 seasonal rankings in EV scoring among defensemen
1, 2, 2, 4, 6, 9

Larry Robinson - top 10 seasonal rankings in EV scoring among defensemen
1, 2, 3, 3, 5, 5, 6

Park was a top 10 EV scorer in 6 of 8 years from 1970-71 to 1977-78, but not before or after those years. Robinson's top-10s came from 1974-75 to 1981-82, as well as a 6th place finish in 1985-86. Robinson led defensemen with 68 EV points in 1976-77 (which is the season high for all D-men not named Orr or Coffey), and Park led with 55 EV points in 1977-78.

If we remove Orr's numbers, Park would have led defencemen in EV scoring in 1971-72 and 1973-74, and Robinson would have led in 1974-75.