Round 2, Vote 4 (Stanley Cup Playoff Performers)

[quoipourquoi]

Being the clear-cut #1 center coming and going for a dynasty, for one. There was no 1B option here like Messier, Fedorov, Forsberg etc.

How does that make him better or worse? It doesn't even make him necessarily more responsible for his team's production, as in his five best runs, he recorded points on 117 of their 400 goals (29.3%). In Forsberg's five best, he had points on 35.2% of their goals despite playing on a different line than Sakic and that's including the goals they scored in the two rounds he missed in 2001.

And while the Avalanche did not have a dynasty from 1999-2002, they made it deep all four years with Peter Forsberg scoring 28-52-80 in 66 games (1.21) with a +29. You would have to look at players with half as many points in that time-frame to even find one at a point-per-game average.

That Trottier is a part of a dynasty while Forsberg is not has more to do with their teams' scoring depth. You can't criticize the effect of scoring distribution across lines and simultaneously flaunt Trottier as his team's #1 while deriding Forsberg for being #1B. Trottier isn't the Islanders dynasty; he was part of it. That a non-dynasty player performed better in losses than Trottier did in victory does not invalidate the Islanders' accomplishments as a whole. And celebrating Trottier because Bossy is a winger and Sakic is a center makes no sense. Playing with Bossy is a monstrous advantage.

The guy scored a point in 27(28? can't remember) straight playoff games over three playoffs (during the Isles streak of 19 series wins), won the Smythe, was tremendous both ways and hit everything that moved.

And what were the best defensive teams he played against during the dynasty? 1980 Buffalo (who kept him off the board in half their games)? During his point streak, he was shooting on teams that allowed 263, 317, 327, and 367 goals. He never had to carry his scoring streak into a matchup with the ~160-170 GA Dallas Stars.

You're assigning weight to something that would be substantially less likely to be replicated against teams that allowed fewer goals. Is there a single Stanley Cup champion that faced worse defensive competition than the 1981 New York Islanders? Maybe the 1982 New York Islanders.

And even if you think that not looking at the respective scoring environment whatsoever is preferable, Forsberg has better numbers than Trottier without the adjustment. Because Forsberg is not Trottier-Lite; he's Cherry Vanilla Trottier. He's Ruby Red Trottier. He's Trottier Voltage.

 

[Canadiens1958]

So.....

Winning is all that matters? Lidstrom won 4 Cups in a 21-30 team league that had 4 playoff rounds. Harvey won 6 Cups in a 6 team league with 2 playoff rounds. Is anyone here sure which one is actually more impressive? If you look at their contemporaries it makes you wonder.

That still doesn't change the fact that Harvey totally lacked in the goal scoring department. Comparing Lidstrom's own higher regular season totals with Harvey's lower regular season totals looks good but the fact is that Lidstrom produced far more offense in both the regular season and playoffs.

And team defensive stats are heavily reliant on goaltending. You know, Plante, who has already appeared in this project, versus the merry go round of Detroit goalies during Lidstrom's career?

And team offensive stats are heavily reliant on scoring forwards. You know, like Beliveau, Richard, and all the others who will appear in this project. Again, it's 6 Cups versus 4 with extremely different league situations if winning is all the matters.

As if the goalscoring by a defenceman matters. Prime 1956 to 1960 Harvey, in the playoffs, his team went 40-9, over 10 series. Lidstrom never came close to a string of 10 consecutive playoff series where his team approached 40 and 9.Other five playoff years in his 10 finals string, the team went 33-30, while winning one SC.Lidstrom never approached such levels of team performance over a string of 10 playoffs.Neither did Lidstrom ever produce a string of five seasons where the team won the first two rounds.

Harvey went to the SC finals twice with rookie goalies - McNeil(1951) and Plante(1953). Lidstrom, never did. Stevens came close with Brodeur.

 

[BraveCanadian]

How does that make him better or worse? It doesn't even make him necessarily more responsible for his team's production, as in his five best runs, he recorded points on 117 of their 400 goals (29.3%). In Forsberg's five best, he had points on 35.2% of their goals despite playing on a different line than Sakic and that's including the goals they scored in the two rounds he missed in 2001.

I'm willing to bet that front line players tended to score more as a percentage of their team's offense during Forsberg's time than during Trottier's time.

The point is, Trottier had more responsibility to the Isles than Forsberg did the Avs. Period.

That Trottier is a part of a dynasty while Forsberg is not has more to do with their teams' scoring depth. You can't criticize the effect of scoring distribution across lines and simultaneously flaunt Trottier as his team's #1 while deriding Forsberg for being #1B.

Uh, yes I can. As I said, I'm sure that there was more depth scoring during Trottier's day in general. In Forsberg's case in a lower scoring environment this tends to become even more pronounced as PP scoring usually ends up accounting for more of the scoring.

Al Arbour's teams are always defense first, offense second. So it isn't like Trottier was being let loose.

Trottier isn't the Islanders dynasty; he was part of it.

An instrumental part of it.

Meanwhile the Avs were capable of winning the cup with Forsberg on the IR and a replacement player in the lineup for a while.

That a non-dynasty player performed better in losses than Trottier did in victory does not invalidate the Islanders' accomplishments as a whole. And celebrating Trottier because Bossy is a winger and Sakic is a center makes no sense. Playing with Bossy is a monstrous advantage.

And playing with Sakic, who is higher on the list of all time playoff performers than Forsberg, Trottier and Bossy is not a monstrous advantage?

They didn't split both offensive and defensive assignments that Trottier shouldered more heavily?

And what were the best defensive teams he played against during the dynasty? 1980 Buffalo (who kept him off the board in half their games)? During his point streak, he was shooting on teams that allowed 263, 317, 327, and 367 goals. He never had to carry his scoring streak into a matchup with the ~160-170 GA Dallas Stars.

Ok? He still did it. Like actually. Not adjusted, or compared to averages.. he did it.

In 1980-81 (I think it was?) Bryan Trottier scored a point in every single playoff game he played.. all the way through to winning the Stanley Cup.

You're assigning weight to something that would be substantially less likely to be replicated against teams that allowed fewer goals. Is there a single Stanley Cup champion that faced worse defensive competition than the 1981 New York Islanders? Maybe the 1982 New York Islanders.

Yes a streak is harder to maintain in lower scoring environments.

However, simply comparing regular season GA from different eras isn't going to convince me when I know we have seen in the past that scoring distribution changes and playoffs =/= regular season.

And even if you think that not looking at the respective scoring environment whatsoever is preferable, Forsberg has better numbers than Trottier without the adjustment. Because Forsberg is not Trottier-Lite; he's Cherry Vanilla Trottier. He's Ruby Red Trottier. He's Trottier Voltage.

Absolutely not. I know Forsberg is the most overrated player on these boards (with an HM to Fedorov) and he actually comes closest to his myth in the playoffs.. but Trottier was superior defensively, laid out more punishment, and just plain got it done. It isn't just points.

The only thing Trottier suffers from (which he usually does in these all-time rankings) is that he had nothing left in the tank after 5 straight Finals and his career as an elite scorer was relatively short like Lafleurs.

However, Forsberg doesn't really have any playoffs outside his prime years, anyways.

Anyways, I'll let you guys get back to barrage of numbers.. just putting in my 2 cents for the Isles dynasty which has apparently become Potvin + some lucky guys here in recent times.

 

[MXD]

The one thing on Trottier that I would say but nobody did so far (QPQ and BC, you're bringing up interesting and relevant facts by the way, even if you're on the opposite side of the spectrum) : I did peruse the game logs for the playoffs when looking up where were the missing points for both Trottier and Bossy and mostly... ended up being less than impressed by Trottier's discipline, or lack thereof, during the dynasty.

I don't know if there's anything to do with this. His PIM level really shot up.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Opposition

The one thing on Trottier that I would say but nobody did so far (QPQ and BC, you're bringing up interesting and relevant facts by the way, even if you're on the opposite side of the spectrum) : I did peruse the game logs for the playoffs when looking up where were the missing points for both Trottier and Bossy and mostly... ended up being less than impressed by Trottier's discipline, or lack thereof, during the dynasty.

I don't know if there's anything to do with this. His PIM level really shot up.

Playing upwards of seven games against the likes of Clarke, Bridgman, Hunter at center and a host of physical d-men has such a result. Gillies and Trottier buffered Bossy whose PIMs were rather low or lower during the playoffs during the same period.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I'm willing to bet that front line players tended to score more as a percentage of their team's offense during Forsberg's time than during Trottier's time.

The point is, Trottier had more responsibility to the Isles than Forsberg did the Avs. Period.

Do you not see how these statements are in conflict? If Forsberg scores a higher percentage than Trottier - despite having Joe Sakic whittling away at that percentage on the other line - then is his team not more dependent upon his production than Trottier's is on his? To borrow your line, "not adjusted or compared to averages" - Forsberg's production was of a greater percentage. (Exclamation Point.)

Uh, yes I can. As I said, I'm sure that there was more depth scoring during Trottier's day in general. In Forsberg's case in a lower scoring environment this tends to become even more pronounced as PP scoring usually ends up accounting for more of the scoring.

And yet Bryan Trottier has a marginally higher percentage of his playoff goals on the powerplay than Forsberg does.

Al Arbour's teams are always defense first, offense second. So it isn't like Trottier was being let loose.

So what happened when Terry Simpson took over? Because it looked like Trottier put up more minuses (-16) than he did points (15) from the ages of 29-31. Was that him being let loose?

Meanwhile the Avs were capable of winning the cup with Forsberg on the IR and a replacement player in the lineup for a while.

I know, it's like the highlight of every anti-Forsberg argument that a team went 8-4 with .940 goaltending for a few weeks. But unless you have evidence that Forsberg saps the life force out of goaltenders, I wouldn't read too much into it when we have 151 playoff games to look at instead of the 12 he didn't play in. Detroit won a Stanley Cup without Gordie Howe. The Islanders won in 1980 with Bossy missing half of two different series. Teams pull through sometimes. Just like the Avalanche pulled through Round 2 in 2001 when Sakic separated his shoulder.

And playing with Sakic, who is higher on the list of all time playoff performers than Forsberg, Trottier and Bossy is not a monstrous advantage?

No. I do not believe playing on a different line from Joe Sakic was as advantageous to his offensive production as playing with Mike Bossy would be.

Ok? He still did it. Like actually. Not adjusted, or compared to averages.. he did it.

In 1980-81 (I think it was?) Bryan Trottier scored a point in every single playoff game he played.. all the way through to winning the Stanley Cup.

29 points in 18/18 games against teams that allowed 263, 317, 327, 367
24 points in 15/19 games against teams that allowed 202, 191, 168

It would be great if Forsberg wasn't blanked three times by a team that let in less than half of what one of Trottier's competitors let in. But your binary Trottier had a streak and Forsberg didn't means nothing to me with the context of who they played against. Only one team in the entire 1999 season allowed as many goals as Trottier's best opponent in the 1981 playoffs.

The only thing Trottier suffers from (which he usually does in these all-time rankings) is that he had nothing left in the tank after 5 straight Finals and his career as an elite scorer was relatively short like Lafleurs.

I don't buy deep playoff runs in an era with a short first round as an excuse for 36 points in 81 playoff games in a high-scoring era from the ages of 28-35. They played 75 games in their four championships; Colorado played 80 playoff games in four years (1999-2002).

However, Forsberg doesn't really have any playoffs outside his prime years, anyways.

Forsberg, too, played playoff hockey after his 28th birthday. In fact, Forsberg was in the playoffs every year from 21-34. That Forsberg was a good hockey player from 1995-2008 should be to his credit. And his worst/13th-best playoff of his career - 5 points in 7 games - has a higher points-per-game than all but six of Trottier's playoffs.

Anyways, I'll let you guys get back to barrage of numbers.. just putting in my 2 cents for the Isles dynasty which has apparently become Potvin + some lucky guys here in recent times.

Thinking a hockey player with better raw numbers, better adjusted numbers, better prime numbers, better longevity, and better clutch scoring than Bryan Trottier is better is not an affront to the Islanders dynasty. It just isn't.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Guy Lafleur, Bernie Geoffrion, Yvan Cournoyer

Compare the three, career wise in the playoffs:

Cournoyer:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/c/cournyv01.html

Geoffrion:
http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/g/geoffbe01.html

Lafleur:
http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/l/laflegu01.html

Cournoyer and Lafleur each won a Conn Smythe - with Lemaire as their center.

Geoffrion had an offensive advantage as the 4th forward on a strong PP, so like Fred Stanfield his stats are higher offensively.

Other than the relatively short eye-catching phase of their career, the numbers are relatively equal over the full career. Cournoyer was on 8 SC winning teams.

 

[MXD]

Playing upwards of seven games against the likes of Clarke, Bridgman, Hunter at center and a host of physical d-men has such a result. Gillies and Trottier buffered Bossy whose PIMs were rather low or lower during the playoffs during the same period.

We'll see. Possible. It's not like the logs aren't available.

 

[BraveCanadian]

29 points in 18/18 games against teams that allowed 263, 317, 327, 367
24 points in 15/19 games against teams that allowed 202, 191, 168

It would be great if Forsberg wasn't blanked three times by a team that let in less than half of what one of Trottier's competitors let in. But your binary Trottier had a streak and Forsberg didn't means nothing to me with the context of who they played against. Only one team in the entire 1999 season allowed as many goals as Trottier's best opponent in the 1981 playoffs.

Except that Trottier did it 27 games in a row. It is a trivia thing, obviously, but very impressive.

I don't buy deep playoff runs in an era with a short first round as an excuse for 36 points in 81 playoff games in a high-scoring era from the ages of 28-35.

Then you disagree with a lot of the people who actually watched his career.

Forsberg, too, played playoff hockey after his 28th birthday. In fact, Forsberg was in the playoffs every year from 21-34. That Forsberg was a good hockey player from 1995-2008 should be to his credit.

Forsberg played a grand total of 18 games in the playoffs after the age of 30.. come on..

And his worst/13th-best playoff of his career - 5 points in 7 games - has a higher points-per-game than all but six of Trottier's playoffs.

No one cares about a 5 point 7 game playoff.

Thinking a hockey player with better raw numbers, better adjusted numbers, better prime numbers, better longevity, and better clutch scoring than Bryan Trottier is better is not an affront to the Islanders dynasty. It just isn't.

You're welcome to your opinion, of course, but the problem with your constant team GA arguments and adjustments is that you run into a reality check where your adjustments start putting Forsberg up against the best offensive player of all time.

If Trottier is a 29 point playoff player in the 80s and that is supposedly trash (while leading the NHL and winning the Conn Smythe) because of his competition, how much better is Forsberg?.. because the best offensive player of all time (and the best playoff performer as voted here) was a 35-47 point player during the same era on the best offensve team of all time.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Except that Trottier did it 27 games in a row. It is a trivia thing, obviously, but very impressive.

Of course it's impressive, and this is as good a place as any to address your overall commentary (if only Trottier was this defensive in the late-1980s playoffs). No one is calling Bryan Trottier "trash". Pointing out advantages that he had on the way to this impressive trivia (particularly a 1vs16 playoff system that resulted in the Islanders playing the 16th, 14th, 13th, and 9th place teams in 1981) is not the same as calling him "trash".

Then you disagree with a lot of the people who actually watched his career.

And what evidence is there to support that 75 extra GP over 4 years - 5 less than the Colorado Avalanche played in a 4-year span from 1999-2002, 3 less than the Detroit Red Wings played from 1995-1998, 1 more than the New Jersey Devils played from 2000-2003, and just 2 more games than the Dallas Stars played from 1998-2001 - is a career-killer?

He was 26 at the end of the dynasty. 14 points in 21 playoff games the next season is incredibly low relative to Peter Forsberg - whose absolute worst was 5 points in 7 games in his 13th playoff.

Forsberg played a grand total of 18 games in the playoffs after the age of 30.. come on..

And in those 18 playoff games from 31-34, Peter Forsberg outscored Bryan Trottier's 31-35 career by 2 points despite Trottier playing 54 games. If Forsberg played on teams that advanced deeper than Philadelphia, Nashville, and Colorado did (Trottier was underneath Mario Lemieux for much of this), was he somehow going to score even less?

No one cares about a 5 point 7 game playoff.

Nor should they. It was the worst playoff of Forsberg's career. But ~0.7 points-per-game was higher than all but six of Trottier's playoffs without even adjusting for Trottier's higher scoring environment. That's how consistently excellent Forsberg was offensively.

You're welcome to your opinion, of course, but the problem with your constant team GA arguments and adjustments is that you run into a reality check where your adjustments start putting Forsberg up against the best offensive player of all time.

Or get this: maybe Peter Forsberg should be among the best offensive players of all-time. And especially when looking specifically at the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Or get this: maybe Peter Forsberg should be among the best offensive players of all-time. And especially when looking specifically at the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

Forsberg is definitely one of the best playoff performers of all time -- I just question how much wiggle room you think you have when you say Forsberg is so much better than Trottier based on era arguments when you would presumably be very shortly capped by someone like Gretzky in comparisons to that era.

Or is the claim going to become that Forsberg is like prime-Gretzky-on-the-Oilers good?

In any case, I would consider that Trottier in addition to pure offense, had more responsibilities, was better defensively, more physical, and was more accomplished.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Or is the claim going to become that Forsberg is like prime-Gretzky-on-the-Oilers good?

Absolutely not. He's not close to Wayne Gretzky or Mario Lemieux statistically - by raw statistics, adjusted statistics, or eye test. But on the spectrum of Gretzky to Trottier, there is plenty of room for Peter Forsberg. Plenty.

 

[danincanada]

As if the goalscoring by a defenceman matters. Prime 1956 to 1960 Harvey, in the playoffs, his team went 40-9, over 10 series. Lidstrom never came close to a string of 10 consecutive playoff series where his team approached 40 and 9.Other five playoff years in his 10 finals string, the team went 33-30, while winning one SC.Lidstrom never approached such levels of team performance over a string of 10 playoffs.Neither did Lidstrom ever produce a string of five seasons where the team won the first two rounds.

Harvey went to the SC finals twice with rookie goalies - McNeil(1951) and Plante(1953). Lidstrom, never did. Stevens came close with Brodeur.

Those are all team accomplishments. A team with the top goaltender (Plante) and centre (Beliveau) and more quality depth than anyone else for most of that era. Harvey was a part of it, but he had far more help than even Lidstrom. The goaltending difference was the biggest between their two teams. Harvey's goalie was winning Vezina's along side his Norris'. From what I remember Lidstrom's Wings only had 1 AS nomination with Osgood in '96 and that was it. That's a huge difference.

Going to the finals with a rookie goalie is impressive but it depends on who that goalie is. In hindsight if it's Plante, or Dryden, or Roy it's not really impressive. I'll give you McNeil though.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Absolutely not. He's not close to Wayne Gretzky or Mario Lemieux statistically - by raw statistics, adjusted statistics, or eye test. But on the spectrum of Gretzky to Trottier, there is plenty of room for Peter Forsberg. Plenty.

Strictly offense.. and since you brought up eras so much all the time.. a prime Gretzky's lowest totals on extended runs during that time were a half dozen points more than Trottier's top end.. which is a fair bit in that number of games but not a lot of room to slot Forsberg in between.. are we saying that Forsberg would be a 32 or 34 point scorer then? Cause I'll maintain until my dying breath that Trottier was better defensively and more punishing physically, too.

Forsberg made great use of his body for puck possession but Trottier would go right through you.

Someone needs to champion Mike Bossy a bit in this project too. The guy was money in the bank.

 

[Black Gold Extractor]

The thing with Trottier is that for this round, I can't see him as being superior to Nighbor. Nighbor could seemingly turn on the offense when it was needed, or absolutely shut down the opposition at will. The HHOF website says Nighbor was an excellent playmaker (in an era before forward passing) and a master of poke-checking. It also lists a bunch of his playoff accomplishments if anyone is wondering.

(As an aside, I wish the HHOF website didn't put quotation marks around "poke-checking" every time it was mentioned. It's bizarrely distracting. If someone is reading about Frank Nighbor in 2017, I guarantee that person knows what a "poke-check" is.)

Frank Boucher versus Mike Bossy might be interesting as well. Three straight 17-goal post-seasons is definitely impressive, but I'm pretty sure Boucher had the better peak. In the 1928 playoffs, Boucher led scoring with 10 points (the next best had 5). On the Rangers, Boucher's 7 goals was as much as his next best four teammates combined, three of whom are in the HHOF. That's more akin to a peak Gretzky or Lemieux level of performance than a peak Bossy. If you want to know how rare 10 playoff points in that era was, it was the only double-digit playoff campaign between 1919 (Lalonde with 13) and 1933 (Dillon with 10). Dillon's 10-point campaign also came after forward passing in the offensive zone was allowed. Boucher's 7 goals was also the most between 1919 (Lalonde with 11) and 1933 (Dillon with 8).

Boucher also led the league once more in playoff scoring in 1932... but the Rangers were swept by the Leafs in 3 straight. I guess it depends on if you prefer Bossy's wider peak, but I should note that longevity is also affected by era.

I don't have error rates versus expectations for before 1953, but Turk Broda had the best GAA for four straight post-seasons and won Cups in three of them. In 1950, when the Wings beat the Leafs in 7 games, Broda had shutouts in every Leafs win. (He also won a couple Cups before his four-year peak.)

Geoffrion and Henri Richard remain a tough choice for me. From my playoff point allocation test runs, I can't directly do the pre-expansion era teams until I come up with reasonable TOI estimates (stupid special teams... ). However, the early-70's Bruins do have an analogue between Stanfield (PP point-man with Orr... thanks to Canadiens1958 for the insight) and Sanderson (shutdown center). On a per-minute basis, Sanderson is the more effective player mostly due to his defensive play (although offensively, Sanderson is actually roughly on par with Stanfield, just without the beneficial deployment).... but Stanfield has greater actual contribution. Yes, it was due to beneficial deployment, but a PP goal or assist on the score sheet is a very real contribution.

Between defensemen this round, it's basically Robinson versus Lidstrom. I'm not even going to wade into that vat of worms, aside from saying that it's between those two for sure.

 

[BraveCanadian]

The thing with Trottier is that for this round, I can't see him as being superior to Nighbor.
Nighbor could seemingly turn on the offense when it was needed, or absolutely shut down the opposition at will. The HHOF website says Nighbor was an excellent playmaker (in an era before forward passing) and a master of poke-checking. It also lists a bunch of his playoff accomplishments if anyone is wondering.

(As an aside, I wish the HHOF website didn't put quotation marks around "poke-checking" every time it was mentioned. It's bizarrely distracting. If someone is reading about Frank Nighbor in 2017, I guarantee that person knows what a "poke-check" is.)

Actually I think it was hook checking or sweep checking that he was famous for.. and yes he was a playmaker in a time that assists weren't counted as well.

The problem with Nighbor is separating legend from myth from fact.

People's opinions of him outside his defense game vary a lot.

 

[Black Gold Extractor]

Actually I think it was hook checking or sweep checking that he was famous for.. and yes he was a playmaker in a time that assists weren't counted as well.

That would make the fact that the website kept referring to Nighbor's "poke-checking" (quotation marks included) even more hilarious!

The problem with Nighbor is separating legend from myth from fact.

People's opinions of him outside his defense game vary a lot.

If everyone knows that Nighbor's defense was superb, wouldn't the other side of the equation (offense) be easy to figure out since that was recorded? Nighbor led post-season scoring in 1921 (winning the Cup) and 1922.

As for challenges, in 1915 he had 4 goals and 6 assists in 3 games (Cyclone Taylor had 8 goals and 2 assists). In 1920 he had 6 goals and 1 assist in 5 games. The HHOF website explicitly mentions Nighbor's checking as being instrumental in 1921. Punch Broadbent was probably the key to the 1923 victory rather than Nighbor.

Nighbor might have been the retro Conn Smythe winner in 1921. He would have been the MVP of the 1920 challenge, and possibly the 1915 challenge if you weighed Nighbor's defense over Taylor's goals since they both had 10 points.

Ultimately, though, Nighbor was probably the most important player on the 1920's Senators dynasty, which is the likely tie-breaker with Trottier.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Strictly offense.. and since you brought up eras so much all the time.. a prime Gretzky's lowest totals on extended runs during that time were a half dozen points more than Trottier's top end.. which is a fair bit in that number of games but not a lot of room to slot Forsberg in between.. are we saying that Forsberg would be a 32 or 34 point scorer then?

There's a significant gap between Gretzky and Trottier offensively.

Career

Player | GP | G | A | PTS | +/- | GWG | GWA | GWP | Opp-GA | Adj PTS | Adj P/GP Wayne Gretzky | 208 | 122 | 260 | 380 | | 24 | 43 | 67 | 282.1 | 269.9 | 1.30
Peter Forsberg | 151 | 64 | 107 | 171 | 54 | 14 | 23 | 37 | 208.1 | 165.1 | 1.09
Phil Esposito | 130 | 61 | 76 | 137 | | 12 | 12 | 24 | 222.3 | 127.2 | 0.98
Mike Bossy | 129 | 85 | 75 | 160 | | 17 | 8 | 25 | 285.6 | 113.7 | 0.88
Sergei Fedorov | 183 | 52 | 124 | 176 | 38 | 12 | 23 | 35 | 225.6 | 155.1 | 0.85
Bryan Trottier | 221 | 71 | 113 | 184 | | 12 | 16 | 28 | 273.9 | 134.4 | 0.61

Top-5 Playoffs (Minimum Two Rounds)

Player | GP | G | A | PTS | +/- | GWG | GWA | GWP | Opp-GA | Adj PTS | Adj P/GP | Years Included Wayne Gretzky | 73 | 53 | 118 | 169 | | 10 | 17 | 27 | 288.4 | 118.3 | 1.62 | 1981, 1983, 1985, 1988, 1989
Phil Esposito | 73 | 47 | 56 | 103 | | 11 | 11 | 22 | 213.3 | 97.2 | 1.33 | 1969, 1970, 1972, 1974, 1979
Peter Forsberg | 75 | 30 | 63 | 93 | 20 | 7 | 15 | 22 | 198.4 | 93.3 | 1.24 | 1997, 1999, 2001, 2002, 2004
Mike Bossy | 82 | 66 | 56 | 122 | | 12 | 6 | 18 | 288.6 | 85.9 | 1.05 | 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1985
Bryan Trottier | 87 | 39 | 78 | 117 | | 6 | 10 | 16 | 282.4 | 84.0 | 0.97 | 1977, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983
Sergei Fedorov | 92 | 31 | 61 | 92 | 25 | 5 | 11 | 16 | 209.3 | 85.9| 0.93 | 1995, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2002

So in terms of things I have not said

• Never said 29 points in the 1980s was "trash"
• Never said that Forsberg is "like prime-Gretzky"
• Never said the Islanders were "Potvin + some lucky guys"

But I do maintain that raw statistical comparisons between players when one's average opponent is at 208.1 GA and another's is at 273.9 GA requires acknowledgment that the former is in a disadvantageous position to record both points and point-streaks. That Forsberg has better unadjusted numbers than Trottier too is really just the cherry on the top of my argument.

As for whether Peter Forsberg, who had runs of 24 points in 19 games in 1999 and 27 points in 20 games in 2002 could have had 32-34 point runs against teams that allowed sometimes up to double the amount of goals... some people don't feel like crediting players for extra points or extra games. But we know the circumstances under which Forsberg recorded the many, many goals and points he had. If he had easier opponents than he did, he would have been in a more advantageous position, just like any other player.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

I'll re-post the write-up I did on Nighbor in the previous voting thread. I think he should be a very relevant candidate in this round.

We've got seven centers up for discussion now, with no clear favorite it would seem. No other player from Nighbor's dynasty has become available yet, whereas Forsberg, Trottier, Richard, and Esposito all have a teammate on the list already and Fedorov has a teammate up for discussion. This might speak to the value of Nighbor as his team's go-to guy.

Some more information on Nighbor from the Trail of the Stanley Cup:

1915, Nighbor was on the Vancouver Millionaires club that smoked Ottawa in the Cup Challenge series. Reference is made to his outstanding defensive play even at this early stage of his career, and he produced strong offense as well. Nighbor was playing RW on this great team (Cyclone Taylor was at C during eastern rules games, Mickey Mackay C during western rules when Taylor shifted to rover).

1917, Ottawa lost the NHA Final to Montreal. Newsy Lalonde butt-ended Nighbor in the head in the first game, injuring him. He continued to play, but was apparently not his usual self as Ottawa narrowly lost the series.

1919, Nighbor missed the first three games of the best-of-7 NHL Final, and the Senators got pumped for 19 goals against, falling behind 3-0. He returned in Game 4, and Ottawa won 6-3. They bowed out with a 4-2 loss in the next game, but Nighbor was described as their best player in the game.

1920, Nighbor led the Senators will 6 goals in the Cup Final as they defeated Seattle 3-2 in the best-of-5. There were no NHL playoffs this year as Ottawa finished first in both halves of the schedule.

1921, Ottawa advanced to the Stanley Cup series by defeating Toronto without allowing a goal against. They won the Cup 3-2 over Vancouver. Jack Darragh seems to have been the star of this particular series, and little mention is made of Nighbor.

1922, Ottawa lost the NHL final to Toronto, 5 goals to 4. Nighbor had two goals for Ottawa.

1923, Ottawa won the Cup for the third time in four years. Nighbor isn't described in much detail, other than to say Duke Keats went up against him in the Cup Final and made little headway against "the peerless Ottawa center". The Senators only allowed 10 goals against in 8 playoff games.

1924, Senators defeated in the NHL final by Montreal. Morenz seems to have won the match-up with Nighbor, scoring three goals while Frank was held off the scoresheet.

1925, Ottawa again lost the NHL final, this time to the Maroons, losing the total goals series 2-1. Montreal had little trouble scoring in their other playoff games but Ottawa held them in relatively in check.

1927, Nighbor's defensive play was lauded in the semi-final against Montreal, this time out-dueling Morenz. Ottawa defeated Boston to win the Cup, the Bruins held to three goals in the four games.

1928, Ottawa lost two game/total goals to the Maroons, 3-1. Nighbor is described as still being a top notch defensive player, but starting to lose pace offensively.

Nighbor seems to have been a driving force behind his teams' success in the early portion of his career. His defensive play seems to have seldom wavered. Denneny, Darragh, and Broadbent seemed to get more mention than Nighbor when describing Ottawa's victories in the mid-to-late part of his career. He seems to have taken more of a back seat offensively at this point. It doesn't appear that Nighbor ever had a bad playoff, if he may be forgiven for losing a match-up to Morenz in 1924. 1915 and 1920 might have seen him win a Conn Smythe had such a thing existed.

Nighbor is by far the earliest candidate available, but he has a large body of work considering the era he played in. I think I can put him ahead of Sakic among centers. Both had two Smythe-caliber runs. Both had seasons where they were over-shadowed by teammates. Nighbor's defensive play is the determining factor. I'd say Forsberg tops him offensively, but does that make up for the defensive gap? That's a close call. Forsberg never had a Smythe-quality playoff on a Cup winner either. Lemieux and Nighbor is such an apples and oranges comparison. I really don't like how lousy Lemieux appears to have been defensively though, and his results late in playoff series aren't spectacular either. I might lean towards Nighbor in that one as well. Richard seems to be a good comparison in a lot of ways. Both could be valuable contributors without scoring. I think the 1915-1920 version of Nighbor might have been better. He seems very Richard-like from 1921 onwards.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Personally I've always been impressed by Jack Darragh's scoring in 1920 and 1921 (the latter series requiring Ottawa's mayor to request the Ottawa Dairy Company give him the time off work to even play). Game winners in all three victories in 1920, including a hat trick in the final game of a 3-2 series. The GTG and GWG in the 2-1 win of Game 5 in 1921 to win another 3-2 series.

Not saying that Nighbor doesn't belong on the board this round, because I'll be giving him a top-3 or top-5 vote, but I also wouldn't say he stands alone as Ottawa's go-to guy.

 

[MXD]

Nighbor had, what, one point during the 1921 SC Finals? That's... well, absolutely terrible, regardless of IF's and BUT's that are certainly going to follow.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Nighbor had, what, one point during the 1921 SC Finals? That's... well, absolutely terrible, regardless of IF's and BUT's that are certainly going to follow.

BUT two of their three victories did require holding Vancouver scoreless for long stretches on GWGs scored in the 2nd period. Depending on how much of that responsibility was shouldered by Nighbor, it might not have been terrible.

 

[MXD]

BUT two of their three victories did require holding Vancouver scoreless for long stretches on GWGs scored in the 2nd period. Depending on how much of that responsibility was shouldered by Nighbor, it might not have been terrible.

...If Nighbor had contributed more to offense, there wouldn't have been a need for Benedict and whoever manned the Senators blueline to shut down Vancouver for a game and a half. Twice.

 

[quoipourquoi]

...If Nighbor had contributed more to offense, there wouldn't have been a need for Benedict and whoever manned the Senators blueline to shut down Vancouver for a game and a half. Twice.

Touché.

 

[MXD]

Touché.

...Which isn't to say that Nighbor played badly or didn't contribute to the defensive effort. I mean, it's Frank Nighbor, who's widely perceived as one of the three best defensive centers to ever play the game. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we have to assume that Nighbor was ... well, Nighbor, and thus someone who can contribute to a shutdown effort.

Let's just not forget that Clint Benedict, Eddie Gerard and Georges Boucher could play hockey.

(Offtopic : what the hell happened with Eddie Gerard during those SC playoffs? 5 games, 44 PIMs. Not exactly typical)