Round 2, Vote 8 (HOH Top Wingers)

[seventieslord]

How valuable was Recchi to his Cup winners? In 1991, he was behind Lemieux, Stevens, and Francis among forwards at least. Definitely behind Barrasso. Then you get to Coffey, Murphy, and Ulf all who played big roles. In 2006, he was more of a secondary player, a good one, but still a secondary guy. He never had a playoffs where he was as important to a Cup winner as Schriner in 1942, I don't think.

this seems like a major exaggeration re: stevens, francis, murphy and ulf, but regardless, no, i don't think he was ever as important to a cup as Schriner was in 1942. Still, that can't define both of their playoff legacies in and of itself, can it?

Are you forgetting that Recchi specifically enraged Scottie Bowman by telling the media that, as a scoring line forward, he didn't have to care about his plus/minus? The article I posted specifically mentioned lots of goals being scored against both teams when Recchi was on the ice. Recchi became an adequate defensive player late, but early in his career, he was very bad (Tocchet was way better).

even by 1994 he was being described in average terms. It appears clear that in 1992 he was lackluster defensively (strangely, this is the year he made the AST!) but that does not represent his whole career - which was very, very long.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

He was as good as Stevens in 1991, he outscored him by a point and we know from how history played out that one was a great player in his own right and one wasn't.

Recchi went 10-24-34 while providing nothing but scoring at that point in his career, while Stevens went 17-16-33 while being the line's tough guy, clearing space and protecting Lemieux and Recchi, back when that was an important part of hockey.

Recchi was the Penguins MVP in the 1991 regular season (due to injuries to Lemieux), but you are really going for the hard sell if you want us to believe he was better in the playoffs than Kevin Stevens.

 

[seventieslord]

After the way the last two rounds went, the last thing I want to read is this kind of ridiculous oversell about another player.

Recchi went 10-24-34 while providing nothing but scoring at that point in his career, while Stevens went 17-16-33 while being the line's tough guy, clearing space and protecting Lemieux and Recchi, back when that was an important part of hockey.

Recchi was the Penguins MVP in the 1991 regular season (due to injuries to Lemieux), but you are really going for the hard sell if you want us to believe he was better in the playoffs than Kevin Stevens.

Stevens and recchi were the same players they were in the regular season. the difference is one really cashed in on Lemieux's presence in the playoffs (went from a PPG to 1.4) and one scored 1.4 PPG with and without.

and I didn't say "better", I said "as good".

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Stevens and recchi were the same players they were in the regular season. the difference is one really cashed in on Lemieux's presence in the playoffs (went from a PPG to 1.4) and one scored 1.4 PPG with and without.

and I didn't say "better", I said "as good".

I disagree that he was as good, but anyway, sorry for misreading your post.

Edit: anyway, I agree with you that Recchi was generally a strong playoff performer, even if he didn't really have that one defining run. He did get lots of opportunities, playing for generally good teams, though you could say he's part of the reason those teams were usually good

 

[sr edler]

Meaning both goalies trembled when Recchi's shift came.

I'm quite a fan of this quote. It kind of shows, indirectly, how many high scoring wingers in the early 90s played when scoring was sometimes sky high. Sometimes in threads around here particular 90s wingers get blasted for their suspect defense but the truth is most, or at least many, of the high scoring wingers from this era played like that, 92–93 style. I don't think we'll find any defensive specialists 5-on-5 in the group of Jagr, Selänne, Hull, Bure, Neely, Recchi, Robitaille, Mogilny, etc.

I kind of like Theo Fleury in that sense, that he was kind of good defensively, and I hope he'll show up somewhere on the list? Will he?

Saying Recchi was average defensively is kind of generous.

 

[seventieslord]

I'm quite a fan of this quote. It kind of shows, indirectly, how many high scoring wingers in the early 90s played when scoring was sometimes sky high. Sometimes in threads around here particular 90s wingers get blasted for their suspect defense but the truth is most, or at least many, of the high scoring wingers from this era played like that, 92–93 style. I don't think we'll find any defensive specialists 5-on-5 in the group of Jagr, Selänne, Hull, Bure, Neely, Recchi, Robitaille, Mogilny, etc.

I kind of like Theo Fleury in that sense and I hope he'll show up somewhere on the list? Will he?

Saying Recchi was average defensively is kind of generous.

Fleury will get a shot for sure. I think his career-wise defensive advantage over that group (through Kariya and Shanahan in there) is marginal, personally.

As for Recchi, I'd call him average for the balance of his career, not average circa 1992. There's no defending the +/- versus points and what was written about him. (much like Coffey's 1990-91).

 

[ted2019]

someone will have to confirm who Recchi's linemates were in every season for me to say for sure, but let's give it a shot:

1991: Carried Pittsburgh in Lemieux's absence. Best player on his line.

1992: All I know for sure is that Stevens played with Lemieux. There were three high scoring RWs including Recchi, so I have no idea how this worked. If Recchi was on Lemieux's line he was the third wheel this one time. If not, he could have been the best player on the line. I think this is a team that switched lines a lot for these three RWs to get those totals. And I recall when NHL '93 came out, the much-ballyhooed first line included Jagr.

Then, in a rather small sample, he led Philadelphia in PPG by a very wide margin, and had to have been the best player on his line.

1993: Definitely the best player on his line. 10th in NHL scoring with 123 points, Lindros was assumedly his center for the 2/3 of the season that he played; he was on pace to just 103 points.

1994: 5th in the NHL with 107 points. Led his team. Can hardly be called a passenger, or a third wheel, or really even a 2nd wheel. Lindros scored at a higher pace, but played 65 games. Recchi was listed as a center for this season on HR, no idea if that's correct, but if it's not, and Recchi was Lindros' winger, then Lindros was the marginally better player when he was in the lineup. regardless, scouting reports from after this season call him the Flyers' MVP.

1995: not even counting his 5 points pre-trade, Recchi led the habs with 43 points in 39 games - the most points and highest PPG on the team. How was he not the top player on his line?

1996: what was the habs' top line this year? in any case it appears the center outperformed him, but the LW didn't come close, whoever it was. Keep in mind this is not one of his finest years.

1997: Recchi's center was assumedly Damphousse, and it appears they were pretty even this year. Whether their LW was Savage or Rucinsky, they carried him.

1998: Recchi led the team in points by a wide margin. Easily the team's best forward and therefore his line's best forward.

1999: Just a horrible year. No idea why. Can anyone explain? Regardless, if you look at the team stats... Recchi led the team in points and PPG, he was no passenger!

2000: 3rd in points in the NHL. Led the Flyers. Lindros (did he center Recchi when healthy?) did not even score at Recchi's pace. Leclair, who played the full season, was well behind. Recchi was more or less on par with Lindros when he was healthy, and when he was not, I assume Langkow was in his place, being carried by Recchi. Can easily be called the best player on his line this season.

2001: Led the team in points and PPG. was his line's best player without a doubt.

2002: Assuming the top line was Roenick/Recchi/Gagne, they were all approximately equals this season.

2003: Looks like Gagne and Leclair, in their injury shortened seasons, shared first line LW duties. those two, Recchi and Roenick were approximately equals.

2004: Led the Flyers in scoring by 17 points. Runaway PPG leader. Easily the best player on his line.

After the lockout he turned into a complementary first line player (which is what you think he was in his prime) and then into a complementary 2nd liner for the last few seasons. Not that relevant to his prime, only in a longevity conversation.

So we have:

best player on his line no doubt: 1991, 1992 post trade, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2004

suffered the indignity of being moderately outperformed by Turgeon/Damphousse: 1996

was a 1a/1b linemate with Damphousse/Roenick/LeClair/Gagne: 1997, 2002, 2003

unsure: 1992 pre trade

I'd like to see a similar analysis for Shanahan and Robitaille in particular.



Yes, of course scoring isn't everything. what's your point? Recchi was as close to Jarome Iginla in intangibles as he was to Brett Hull. He was often said to be "all heart", very competitive, a hard worker, and average defensively. Nothing special, but his intangibles shouldn't work against him unless you compare him to Shanahan.

He's got the peak, he's got the longevity, vsX shows it, he wasn't a passenger, he's got the best accumulated numbers, he's got the playoff record, he's got the cups, his intangibles don't hurt him. He's unimpeachable in this round, IMO.

Point is that He had a major part in the firing of a coach who's Wife passed away 5 months prior. For me, that's ******* material and it means that He was a bad locker room guy.

 

[seventieslord]

Point is that He had a major part in the firing of a coach who's Wife passed away 5 months prior. For me, that's ******* material and it means that He was a bad locker room guy.

who says his part was any more major than anyone else?

and that coach was on his way out, there's no doubt about that. Clarke fired Neilson shortly before and famously said "it's not our fault he got cancer". he wasn't going to be spared after that playoff.

Secondly, even if this is bad for Recchi, it's bad for a bunch of players, and are there other examples of Recchi being a bad locker room guy?

 

[matnor]

I don't want to derail the thread with this post, so mods can feel free to move it if they want to.

As you may have seen in other threads, I have been working a bit with data on players that score a lot together. Because of that, I was asked about how good Mark Recchi's linemates were. I have been toying around with the idea of creating some sort of measurement of the offensive prowess of a player's linemates by measuring the average points per game of all players that collaborate with a given player during a season. A short example will perhaps make it clearer.

Suppose player X scores four points during a season and there are three other players (let's call them A, B and C) who also had points on those goals. Player A has a 1.2 Pts/GP for the season, player B 0.7 and player C 0.4. The players have points together with X in the following way:

Goal 1: A and B
Goal 2: A
Goal 3: B and C
Goal 4: Unassisted

I calculate the average Pts/GP of the collaborators for each goal, and then take the overall average. That is, the calculation is:
((1.2 + 0.7) / 2 + 1.2 + (0.7 + 0.4) / 2) / 3 = 0.9

I have data for some of the players up for voting this time which are presented below. A couple of things should be noted. First, if the player has a positive effect on the linemates' probability of getting points, then obviously the Pts/GP of the linemates will be higher. Second, I have not differentiated between special teams, but even strength scoring is bundled together with PP and SH scoring. Third, these numbers are unadjusted, which means that scoring levels of different eras are not taken into account. This data is very experimental, so take it for what it is. I don't have time to go into a more detailed description of the data, so I'll leave it up to you to make sense of it.

Player | Season | GP | Pts | Pts/GP | Pts/GP Collab
John Bucyk | 55/56 | 38 | 9 | 0.24 | 0.48
John Bucyk | 56/57 | 66 | 21 | 0.32 | 0.48
John Bucyk | 57/58 | 68 | 50 | 0.74 | 0.78
John Bucyk | 58/59 | 69 | 60 | 0.87 | 0.71
John Bucyk | 59/60 | 56 | 52 | 0.93 | 0.98
John Bucyk | 60/61 | 70 | 39 | 0.56 | 0.61
John Bucyk | 61/62 | 67 | 59 | 0.88 | 0.57
John Bucyk | 62/63 | 69 | 66 | 0.96 | 0.64
John Bucyk | 63/64 | 62 | 54 | 0.87 | 0.66
John Bucyk | 64/65 | 68 | 55 | 0.81 | 0.49
John Bucyk | 65/66 | 63 | 55 | 0.87 | 0.60
John Bucyk | 66/67 | 59 | 47 | 0.80 | 0.53
John Bucyk | 67/68 | 72 | 68 | 0.94 | 0.80
John Bucyk | 68/69 | 70 | 66 | 0.94 | 0.91
John Bucyk | 69/70 | 76 | 69 | 0.91 | 1.03
John Bucyk | 70/71 | 78 | 116 | 1.49 | 1.24
John Bucyk | 71/72 | 78 | 84 | 1.08 | 1.13
John Bucyk | 72/73 | 78 | 91 | 1.17 | 1.12
John Bucyk | 73/74 | 76 | 74 | 0.97 | 1.24
John Bucyk | 74/75 | 78 | 80 | 1.03 | 1.10
John Bucyk | 75/76 | 77 | 82 | 1.06 | 0.96
John Bucyk | 76/77 | 49 | 43 | 0.88 | 0.88
John Bucyk | 77/78 | 53 | 18 | 0.34 | 0.90

Player | Season | GP | Pts | Pts/GP | Pts/GP Collab
Yvan Cournoyer | 63/64 | 5 | 4 | 0.80 | 0.85
Yvan Cournoyer | 64/65 | 55 | 19 | 0.35 | 0.64
Yvan Cournoyer | 65/66 | 65 | 29 | 0.45 | 0.91
Yvan Cournoyer | 66/67 | 69 | 40 | 0.58 | 0.68
Yvan Cournoyer | 67/68 | 64 | 60 | 0.94 | 0.80
Yvan Cournoyer | 68/69 | 76 | 88 | 1.16 | 0.78
Yvan Cournoyer | 69/70 | 72 | 63 | 0.88 | 0.61
Yvan Cournoyer | 70/71 | 65 | 73 | 1.12 | 0.78
Yvan Cournoyer | 71/72 | 73 | 83 | 1.14 | 0.80
Yvan Cournoyer | 72/73 | 67 | 80 | 1.19 | 0.87
Yvan Cournoyer | 73/74 | 67 | 72 | 1.07 | 0.79
Yvan Cournoyer | 74/75 | 76 | 74 | 0.97 | 0.97
Yvan Cournoyer | 75/76 | 71 | 68 | 0.96 | 0.94
Yvan Cournoyer | 76/77 | 60 | 53 | 0.88 | 0.78
Yvan Cournoyer | 77/78 | 68 | 52 | 0.76 | 0.82
Yvan Cournoyer | 78/79 | 15 | 7 | 0.47 | 0.79

Player | Season | GP | Pts | Pts/GP | Pts/GP Collab
Michel Goulet | 79/80 | 77 | 54 | 0.70 | 0.68
Michel Goulet | 80/81 | 76 | 71 | 0.93 | 0.90
Michel Goulet | 81/82 | 80 | 82 | 1.02 | 0.89
Michel Goulet | 82/83 | 80 | 104 | 1.30 | 0.81
Michel Goulet | 83/84 | 75 | 121 | 1.61 | 0.84
Michel Goulet | 84/85 | 69 | 95 | 1.38 | 0.76
Michel Goulet | 85/86 | 75 | 103 | 1.37 | 0.85
Michel Goulet | 86/87 | 75 | 96 | 1.28 | 0.67
Michel Goulet | 87/88 | 80 | 106 | 1.33 | 0.88
Michel Goulet | 88/89 | 69 | 64 | 0.93 | 0.73
Michel Goulet | 89/90 | 65 | 50 | 0.77 | 0.75
Michel Goulet | 90/91 | 74 | 65 | 0.88 | 0.96
Michel Goulet | 91/92 | 75 | 63 | 0.84 | 0.88
Michel Goulet | 92/93 | 63 | 44 | 0.70 | 0.80
Michel Goulet | 93/94 | 56 | 30 | 0.54 | 0.85

Player | Season | GP | Pts | Pts/GP | Pts/GP Collab
Paul Kariya | 94/95 | 47 | 39 | 0.83 | 0.50
Paul Kariya | 95/96 | 82 | 108 | 1.32 | 0.56
Paul Kariya | 96/97 | 69 | 99 | 1.43 | 0.87
Paul Kariya | 97/98 | 22 | 31 | 1.41 | 0.71
Paul Kariya | 98/99 | 82 | 101 | 1.23 | 0.91
Paul Kariya | 99/00 | 74 | 86 | 1.16 | 0.72
Paul Kariya | 00/01 | 66 | 67 | 1.02 | 0.58
Paul Kariya | 01/02 | 82 | 57 | 0.70 | 0.45
Paul Kariya | 02/03 | 82 | 81 | 0.99 | 0.57
Paul Kariya | 03/04 | 51 | 36 | 0.71 | 0.78
Paul Kariya | 05/06 | 82 | 85 | 1.04 | 0.65
Paul Kariya | 06/07 | 82 | 76 | 0.93 | 0.72
Paul Kariya | 07/08 | 82 | 65 | 0.79 | 0.59
Paul Kariya | 08/09 | 11 | 15 | 1.36 | 0.75
Paul Kariya | 09/10 | 75 | 43 | 0.57 | 0.54

Player | Season | GP | Pts | Pts/GP | Pts/GP Collab
Mark Recchi | 88/89 | 15 | 2 | 0.13 | 1.48
Mark Recchi | 89/90 | 74 | 67 | 0.91 | 0.90
Mark Recchi | 90/91 | 78 | 113 | 1.45 | 1.00
Mark Recchi | 91/92 | 80 | 97 | 1.21 | 0.89
Mark Recchi | 92/93 | 84 | 123 | 1.46 | 0.81
Mark Recchi | 93/94 | 84 | 107 | 1.27 | 0.86
Mark Recchi | 94/95 | 49 | 48 | 0.98 | 0.65
Mark Recchi | 95/96 | 82 | 78 | 0.95 | 0.82
Mark Recchi | 96/97 | 82 | 80 | 0.98 | 0.76
Mark Recchi | 97/98 | 82 | 74 | 0.90 | 0.67
Mark Recchi | 98/99 | 71 | 53 | 0.75 | 0.52
Mark Recchi | 99/00 | 82 | 91 | 1.11 | 0.64
Mark Recchi | 00/01 | 69 | 77 | 1.12 | 0.74
Mark Recchi | 01/02 | 80 | 64 | 0.80 | 0.64
Mark Recchi | 02/03 | 79 | 52 | 0.66 | 0.51
Mark Recchi | 03/04 | 82 | 75 | 0.91 | 0.59
Mark Recchi | 05/06 | 83 | 64 | 0.77 | 0.71
Mark Recchi | 06/07 | 82 | 68 | 0.83 | 0.93
Mark Recchi | 07/08 | 72 | 48 | 0.67 | 0.68
Mark Recchi | 08/09 | 80 | 61 | 0.76 | 0.57
Mark Recchi | 09/10 | 81 | 43 | 0.53 | 0.50
Mark Recchi | 10/11 | 81 | 48 | 0.59 | 0.55

Player | Season | GP | Pts | Pts/GP | Pts/GP Collab
Luc Robitaille | 86/87 | 79 | 84 | 1.06 | 0.73
Luc Robitaille | 87/88 | 80 | 111 | 1.39 | 0.86
Luc Robitaille | 88/89 | 78 | 98 | 1.26 | 1.23
Luc Robitaille | 89/90 | 80 | 101 | 1.26 | 0.97
Luc Robitaille | 90/91 | 76 | 91 | 1.20 | 0.95
Luc Robitaille | 91/92 | 80 | 107 | 1.34 | 0.81
Luc Robitaille | 92/93 | 84 | 125 | 1.49 | 0.90
Luc Robitaille | 93/94 | 83 | 86 | 1.04 | 0.84
Luc Robitaille | 94/95 | 46 | 42 | 0.91 | 0.93
Luc Robitaille | 95/96 | 77 | 69 | 0.90 | 0.80
Luc Robitaille | 96/97 | 69 | 48 | 0.70 | 0.86
Luc Robitaille | 97/98 | 57 | 40 | 0.70 | 0.61
Luc Robitaille | 98/99 | 82 | 74 | 0.90 | 0.45
Luc Robitaille | 99/00 | 71 | 74 | 1.04 | 0.73
Luc Robitaille | 00/01 | 82 | 88 | 1.07 | 0.75
Luc Robitaille | 01/02 | 81 | 50 | 0.62 | 0.62
Luc Robitaille | 02/03 | 81 | 31 | 0.38 | 0.61
Luc Robitaille | 03/04 | 80 | 51 | 0.64 | 0.56
Luc Robitaille | 05/06 | 65 | 24 | 0.37 | 0.58

Player | Season | GP | Pts | Pts/GP | Pts/GP Collab
Brendan Shanahan | 87/88 | 65 | 26 | 0.40 | 0.55
Brendan Shanahan | 88/89 | 68 | 50 | 0.74 | 0.83
Brendan Shanahan | 89/90 | 73 | 72 | 0.99 | 0.80
Brendan Shanahan | 90/91 | 75 | 66 | 0.88 | 0.65
Brendan Shanahan | 91/92 | 80 | 69 | 0.86 | 0.84
Brendan Shanahan | 92/93 | 71 | 94 | 1.32 | 0.95
Brendan Shanahan | 93/94 | 81 | 102 | 1.26 | 0.88
Brendan Shanahan | 94/95 | 45 | 41 | 0.91 | 0.68
Brendan Shanahan | 95/96 | 74 | 78 | 1.05 | 0.55
Brendan Shanahan | 96/97 | 81 | 88 | 1.09 | 0.71
Brendan Shanahan | 97/98 | 75 | 57 | 0.76 | 0.60
Brendan Shanahan | 98/99 | 81 | 58 | 0.72 | 0.64
Brendan Shanahan | 99/00 | 78 | 78 | 1.00 | 0.68
Brendan Shanahan | 00/01 | 81 | 76 | 0.94 | 0.62
Brendan Shanahan | 01/02 | 80 | 75 | 0.94 | 0.63
Brendan Shanahan | 02/03 | 78 | 68 | 0.87 | 0.72
Brendan Shanahan | 03/04 | 82 | 53 | 0.65 | 0.57
Brendan Shanahan | 05/06 | 82 | 81 | 0.99 | 0.79
Brendan Shanahan | 06/07 | 67 | 62 | 0.93 | 0.70
Brendan Shanahan | 07/08 | 73 | 46 | 0.63 | 0.61
Brendan Shanahan | 08/09 | 34 | 14 | 0.41 | 0.45

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

one thing about recchi and the playoffs is even as an old man, in his very last season, he was murder. the boston PP, which was terrible that playoffs, came alive in the finals and it was recchi who keyed it. it was the bergeron - marchand - recchi line that beat us -- badly -- and while bergeron pulled an enormous amount of weight at both ends and marchand scored those huge goals, old man recchi still looked like the best offensive player on both that line and on that revived PP that ate us alive.

not to say that he was a top guy on that team, which he wasn't, but he was on the best line of the SCF as a 42 year old. i think some of us are acting like 42 year old recchi's role as complementary offensive wizard role on the 2011 bruins was his role in his prime.

 

[seventieslord]

one thing about recchi and the playoffs is even as an old man, in his very last season, he was murder. the boston PP, which was terrible that playoffs, came alive in the finals and it was recchi who keyed it. it was the bergeron - marchand - recchi line that beat us -- badly -- and while bergeron pulled an enormous amount of weight at both ends and marchand scored those huge goals, old man recchi still looked like the best offensive player on both that line and on that revived PP that ate us alive.

not to say that he was a top guy on that team, which he wasn't, but he was on the best line of the SCF as a 42 year old. i think some of us are acting like 42 year old recchi's role as complementary offensive wizard role on the 2011 bruins was his role in his prime.

he was 43 by then!

 

[seventieslord]

I don't want to derail the thread with this post, so mods can feel free to move it if they want to.

As you may have seen in other threads, I have been working a bit with data on players that score a lot together. Because of that, I was asked about how good Mark Recchi's linemates were. I have been toying around with the idea of creating some sort of measurement of the offensive prowess of a player's linemates by measuring the average points per game of all players that collaborate with a given player during a season. A short example will perhaps make it clearer.

Suppose player X scores four points during a season and there are three other players (let's call them A, B and C) who also had points on those goals. Player A has a 1.2 Pts/GP for the season, player B 0.7 and player C 0.4. The players have points together with X in the following way:

Goal 1: A and B
Goal 2: A
Goal 3: B and C
Goal 4: Unassisted

I calculate the average Pts/GP of the collaborators for each goal, and then take the overall average. That is, the calculation is:
((1.2 + 0.7) / 2 + 1.2 + (0.7 + 0.4) / 2) / 3 = 0.9

I have data for some of the players up for voting this time which are presented below. A couple of things should be noted. First, if the player has a positive effect on the linemates' probability of getting points, then obviously the Pts/GP of the linemates will be higher. Second, I have not differentiated between special teams, but even strength scoring is bundled together with PP and SH scoring. Third, these numbers are unadjusted, which means that scoring levels of different eras are not taken into account. This data is very experimental, so take it for what it is. I don't have time to go into a more detailed description of the data, so I'll leave it up to you to make sense of it.

Player | Season | GP | Pts | Pts/GP | Pts/GP Collab
John Bucyk | 55/56 | 38 | 9 | 0.24 | 0.48
John Bucyk | 56/57 | 66 | 21 | 0.32 | 0.48
John Bucyk | 57/58 | 68 | 50 | 0.74 | 0.78
John Bucyk | 58/59 | 69 | 60 | 0.87 | 0.71
John Bucyk | 59/60 | 56 | 52 | 0.93 | 0.98
John Bucyk | 60/61 | 70 | 39 | 0.56 | 0.61
John Bucyk | 61/62 | 67 | 59 | 0.88 | 0.57
John Bucyk | 62/63 | 69 | 66 | 0.96 | 0.64
John Bucyk | 63/64 | 62 | 54 | 0.87 | 0.66
John Bucyk | 64/65 | 68 | 55 | 0.81 | 0.49
John Bucyk | 65/66 | 63 | 55 | 0.87 | 0.60
John Bucyk | 66/67 | 59 | 47 | 0.80 | 0.53
John Bucyk | 67/68 | 72 | 68 | 0.94 | 0.80
John Bucyk | 68/69 | 70 | 66 | 0.94 | 0.91
John Bucyk | 69/70 | 76 | 69 | 0.91 | 1.03
John Bucyk | 70/71 | 78 | 116 | 1.49 | 1.24
John Bucyk | 71/72 | 78 | 84 | 1.08 | 1.13
John Bucyk | 72/73 | 78 | 91 | 1.17 | 1.12
John Bucyk | 73/74 | 76 | 74 | 0.97 | 1.24
John Bucyk | 74/75 | 78 | 80 | 1.03 | 1.10
John Bucyk | 75/76 | 77 | 82 | 1.06 | 0.96
John Bucyk | 76/77 | 49 | 43 | 0.88 | 0.88
John Bucyk | 77/78 | 53 | 18 | 0.34 | 0.90

Player | Season | GP | Pts | Pts/GP | Pts/GP Collab
Yvan Cournoyer | 63/64 | 5 | 4 | 0.80 | 0.85
Yvan Cournoyer | 64/65 | 55 | 19 | 0.35 | 0.64
Yvan Cournoyer | 65/66 | 65 | 29 | 0.45 | 0.91
Yvan Cournoyer | 66/67 | 69 | 40 | 0.58 | 0.68
Yvan Cournoyer | 67/68 | 64 | 60 | 0.94 | 0.80
Yvan Cournoyer | 68/69 | 76 | 88 | 1.16 | 0.78
Yvan Cournoyer | 69/70 | 72 | 63 | 0.88 | 0.61
Yvan Cournoyer | 70/71 | 65 | 73 | 1.12 | 0.78
Yvan Cournoyer | 71/72 | 73 | 83 | 1.14 | 0.80
Yvan Cournoyer | 72/73 | 67 | 80 | 1.19 | 0.87
Yvan Cournoyer | 73/74 | 67 | 72 | 1.07 | 0.79
Yvan Cournoyer | 74/75 | 76 | 74 | 0.97 | 0.97
Yvan Cournoyer | 75/76 | 71 | 68 | 0.96 | 0.94
Yvan Cournoyer | 76/77 | 60 | 53 | 0.88 | 0.78
Yvan Cournoyer | 77/78 | 68 | 52 | 0.76 | 0.82
Yvan Cournoyer | 78/79 | 15 | 7 | 0.47 | 0.79

Player | Season | GP | Pts | Pts/GP | Pts/GP Collab
Michel Goulet | 79/80 | 77 | 54 | 0.70 | 0.68
Michel Goulet | 80/81 | 76 | 71 | 0.93 | 0.90
Michel Goulet | 81/82 | 80 | 82 | 1.02 | 0.89
Michel Goulet | 82/83 | 80 | 104 | 1.30 | 0.81
Michel Goulet | 83/84 | 75 | 121 | 1.61 | 0.84
Michel Goulet | 84/85 | 69 | 95 | 1.38 | 0.76
Michel Goulet | 85/86 | 75 | 103 | 1.37 | 0.85
Michel Goulet | 86/87 | 75 | 96 | 1.28 | 0.67
Michel Goulet | 87/88 | 80 | 106 | 1.33 | 0.88
Michel Goulet | 88/89 | 69 | 64 | 0.93 | 0.73
Michel Goulet | 89/90 | 65 | 50 | 0.77 | 0.75
Michel Goulet | 90/91 | 74 | 65 | 0.88 | 0.96
Michel Goulet | 91/92 | 75 | 63 | 0.84 | 0.88
Michel Goulet | 92/93 | 63 | 44 | 0.70 | 0.80
Michel Goulet | 93/94 | 56 | 30 | 0.54 | 0.85

Player | Season | GP | Pts | Pts/GP | Pts/GP Collab
Paul Kariya | 94/95 | 47 | 39 | 0.83 | 0.50
Paul Kariya | 95/96 | 82 | 108 | 1.32 | 0.56
Paul Kariya | 96/97 | 69 | 99 | 1.43 | 0.87
Paul Kariya | 97/98 | 22 | 31 | 1.41 | 0.71
Paul Kariya | 98/99 | 82 | 101 | 1.23 | 0.91
Paul Kariya | 99/00 | 74 | 86 | 1.16 | 0.72
Paul Kariya | 00/01 | 66 | 67 | 1.02 | 0.58
Paul Kariya | 01/02 | 82 | 57 | 0.70 | 0.45
Paul Kariya | 02/03 | 82 | 81 | 0.99 | 0.57
Paul Kariya | 03/04 | 51 | 36 | 0.71 | 0.78
Paul Kariya | 05/06 | 82 | 85 | 1.04 | 0.65
Paul Kariya | 06/07 | 82 | 76 | 0.93 | 0.72
Paul Kariya | 07/08 | 82 | 65 | 0.79 | 0.59
Paul Kariya | 08/09 | 11 | 15 | 1.36 | 0.75
Paul Kariya | 09/10 | 75 | 43 | 0.57 | 0.54

Player | Season | GP | Pts | Pts/GP | Pts/GP Collab
Mark Recchi | 88/89 | 15 | 2 | 0.13 | 1.48
Mark Recchi | 89/90 | 74 | 67 | 0.91 | 0.90
Mark Recchi | 90/91 | 78 | 113 | 1.45 | 1.00
Mark Recchi | 91/92 | 80 | 97 | 1.21 | 0.89
Mark Recchi | 92/93 | 84 | 123 | 1.46 | 0.81
Mark Recchi | 93/94 | 84 | 107 | 1.27 | 0.86
Mark Recchi | 94/95 | 49 | 48 | 0.98 | 0.65
Mark Recchi | 95/96 | 82 | 78 | 0.95 | 0.82
Mark Recchi | 96/97 | 82 | 80 | 0.98 | 0.76
Mark Recchi | 97/98 | 82 | 74 | 0.90 | 0.67
Mark Recchi | 98/99 | 71 | 53 | 0.75 | 0.52
Mark Recchi | 99/00 | 82 | 91 | 1.11 | 0.64
Mark Recchi | 00/01 | 69 | 77 | 1.12 | 0.74
Mark Recchi | 01/02 | 80 | 64 | 0.80 | 0.64
Mark Recchi | 02/03 | 79 | 52 | 0.66 | 0.51
Mark Recchi | 03/04 | 82 | 75 | 0.91 | 0.59
Mark Recchi | 05/06 | 83 | 64 | 0.77 | 0.71
Mark Recchi | 06/07 | 82 | 68 | 0.83 | 0.93
Mark Recchi | 07/08 | 72 | 48 | 0.67 | 0.68
Mark Recchi | 08/09 | 80 | 61 | 0.76 | 0.57
Mark Recchi | 09/10 | 81 | 43 | 0.53 | 0.50
Mark Recchi | 10/11 | 81 | 48 | 0.59 | 0.55

Player | Season | GP | Pts | Pts/GP | Pts/GP Collab
Luc Robitaille | 86/87 | 79 | 84 | 1.06 | 0.73
Luc Robitaille | 87/88 | 80 | 111 | 1.39 | 0.86
Luc Robitaille | 88/89 | 78 | 98 | 1.26 | 1.23
Luc Robitaille | 89/90 | 80 | 101 | 1.26 | 0.97
Luc Robitaille | 90/91 | 76 | 91 | 1.20 | 0.95
Luc Robitaille | 91/92 | 80 | 107 | 1.34 | 0.81
Luc Robitaille | 92/93 | 84 | 125 | 1.49 | 0.90
Luc Robitaille | 93/94 | 83 | 86 | 1.04 | 0.84
Luc Robitaille | 94/95 | 46 | 42 | 0.91 | 0.93
Luc Robitaille | 95/96 | 77 | 69 | 0.90 | 0.80
Luc Robitaille | 96/97 | 69 | 48 | 0.70 | 0.86
Luc Robitaille | 97/98 | 57 | 40 | 0.70 | 0.61
Luc Robitaille | 98/99 | 82 | 74 | 0.90 | 0.45
Luc Robitaille | 99/00 | 71 | 74 | 1.04 | 0.73
Luc Robitaille | 00/01 | 82 | 88 | 1.07 | 0.75
Luc Robitaille | 01/02 | 81 | 50 | 0.62 | 0.62
Luc Robitaille | 02/03 | 81 | 31 | 0.38 | 0.61
Luc Robitaille | 03/04 | 80 | 51 | 0.64 | 0.56
Luc Robitaille | 05/06 | 65 | 24 | 0.37 | 0.58

Player | Season | GP | Pts | Pts/GP | Pts/GP Collab
Brendan Shanahan | 87/88 | 65 | 26 | 0.40 | 0.55
Brendan Shanahan | 88/89 | 68 | 50 | 0.74 | 0.83
Brendan Shanahan | 89/90 | 73 | 72 | 0.99 | 0.80
Brendan Shanahan | 90/91 | 75 | 66 | 0.88 | 0.65
Brendan Shanahan | 91/92 | 80 | 69 | 0.86 | 0.84
Brendan Shanahan | 92/93 | 71 | 94 | 1.32 | 0.95
Brendan Shanahan | 93/94 | 81 | 102 | 1.26 | 0.88
Brendan Shanahan | 94/95 | 45 | 41 | 0.91 | 0.68
Brendan Shanahan | 95/96 | 74 | 78 | 1.05 | 0.55
Brendan Shanahan | 96/97 | 81 | 88 | 1.09 | 0.71
Brendan Shanahan | 97/98 | 75 | 57 | 0.76 | 0.60
Brendan Shanahan | 98/99 | 81 | 58 | 0.72 | 0.64
Brendan Shanahan | 99/00 | 78 | 78 | 1.00 | 0.68
Brendan Shanahan | 00/01 | 81 | 76 | 0.94 | 0.62
Brendan Shanahan | 01/02 | 80 | 75 | 0.94 | 0.63
Brendan Shanahan | 02/03 | 78 | 68 | 0.87 | 0.72
Brendan Shanahan | 03/04 | 82 | 53 | 0.65 | 0.57
Brendan Shanahan | 05/06 | 82 | 81 | 0.99 | 0.79
Brendan Shanahan | 06/07 | 67 | 62 | 0.93 | 0.70
Brendan Shanahan | 07/08 | 73 | 46 | 0.63 | 0.61
Brendan Shanahan | 08/09 | 34 | 14 | 0.41 | 0.45

This is amazing! Potentially very useful data!

I think this needs some refining, such as using ten year primes or something, in order to cut out the mostly irrelevant years, and also era adjustment. But after that, I'd love to see what it says about these players and what kind of help they had.

I'm genuinely interested in how Bure would look by this metric too.

 

[seventieslord]

for example, it does tend to show that Kariya, despite geting a Selanne boost, was still being dragged down by everyone else who wasn't Selanne.

 

[MXD]

for example, it does tend to show that Kariya, despite geting a Selanne boost, was still being dragged down by everyone else who wasn't Selanne.

Including D-Mens who are never expected to produce as much to begin with.

Really good table matnor, but since the advent of Round 7 maths, I'm afraid it will simply be twisted into whatever fits pre-conceived ideas.

 

[seventieslord]

Including D-Mens who are never expected to produce as much to begin with.

true. But I think taking into consideration what defensemen they did or didn't have help from too, is important.

In any case, they all seem to typically have a PPG greater than their collaborators in most seasons, and the inclusion of defensemen is typically why. I think there would be a couple more seasons for all these players where they scored less than their average collaborators, if defensemen were removed, but I'm not sure that would actually be more revealing.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

one thing about recchi and the playoffs is even as an old man, in his very last season, he was murder. the boston PP, which was terrible that playoffs, came alive in the finals and it was recchi who keyed it. it was the bergeron - marchand - recchi line that beat us -- badly -- and while bergeron pulled an enormous amount of weight at both ends and marchand scored those huge goals, old man recchi still looked like the best offensive player on both that line and on that revived PP that ate us alive.

not to say that he was a top guy on that team, which he wasn't, but he was on the best line of the SCF as a 42 year old. i think some of us are acting like 42 year old recchi's role as complementary offensive wizard role on the 2011 bruins was his role in his prime.

Not that it matters, but the Bruins scored 10 power play goals in 25 playoff games. Recchi scored 2. And he really was washed up by then. Most Bruins fans were pretty peeved he played as much as he did in that final season.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Current impressions:

Vladimir Martinec will make my top 5. I think there's a legit case he was better than Boris Mikhailov or Alexander Maltsev. If I had to choose, I'd rank him at Maltsev's level (a little better at his peak, but not for as long), a little bit below Mikhailov. But I'd be open to arguments that he was better than Mikhailov if we ever did a non-NHL-European-only project. The best player on the Czechoslovakian national team that was almost as good as the USSR national team in the mid-late 70s.

In 2008, the Czech newspaper Sport published a Czech Team of the Century poll. This poll seems to have been associated with an exhibit at the Prague National Museum on the history of Czech hockey, so I think we can take it as seriously as anyone can take a single poll. The top 4? 1. Jaromir Jagr 2. Dominik Hasek 3. Vladimir Martinec 4. Jan Suchy: http://www.radio.cz/en/section/curr...ockey-focus-of-new-national-museum-exhibition

In terms of NHLers, Sweeney Schriner is the best offensive player by a good margin. The only one even remotely close to him as a point producer (Mark Recchi), wasn't nearly the goal scorer, and got a lot more help.

Bryan Hextall and Syd Howe both look attractive as top 5 candidates. I don't think we have a single late 30s/early 40s winger on our list yet, so I really wouldn't mind adding Schriner, Hextall, and Howe all together. Among high-intangibles forwards, Hextall and Howe were better scorers and more prolific in their eras than Bucyk or Shanahan.

Tommy Phillips gets legit top 5 consideration, too, as he should have last round.

Cournoyer and Goulet look like the weakest of the bunch to me right now, but I'm open to arguments otherwise.

Hextall? Really.

9 seasons in perhaps the weakest era ever.

Hell, Krutov's career was longer than that. But of course, he was a better player than anyone up this round, by far.

 

[seventieslord]

I did a little playing around with these numbers matnor had. I took out the starts and ends of their careers, looking at just their primes as very productive players. I then summed up their points over this time, and the "points" of their average collaborator (i.e. PPG X GP). then I simply divided the player's points by the points of their average collaborator.

Cournoyer 68-76 (661/515 = 1.28)
Goulet 81-92 (1020/740 = 1.38)
Kariya 96-08 (892/572 = 1.55)
Recchi 91-04 (1132/786 = 1.44)
Robitaille 87-01 (1238/931 = 1.33)
Shanahan 90-06 (1218/907 = 1.34)

Bucyk I don't even know what to do with. Probably has to be separated into pre-and post Orr/Espo explosion.

Bucyk 58-68 (605/482 = 1.26)
Bucyk 69-77 (705/711 = 0.99)

hmm, I expected the 0.99 post-Orr, but I sure didn't expect the Cournoyer-like, non-catalyst numbers for the O6 era!

thoughts?

 

[seventieslord]

Not that it matters, but the Bruins scored 10 power play goals in 25 playoff games. Recchi scored 2. And he really was washed up by then. Most Bruins fans were pretty peeved he played as much as he did in that final season.

absolutely he looked like he was just hanging on that season. but he was their 6th best forward and a second liner at 42-43. and the point of that post was that he really rose to the occasion in his final series.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

His record is like Swiss Cheese.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/d/dyeba01.html

Not a good skater, His NHL playoff record is poor,

2 goals in 10 games. Loaded up against the west in his SF final appearance. How weak was the west at that time?

10 games.

Yeah, that's plenty to go on.

Swiss cheese?

For a 7 season run, he was first in goals scored 3 times, second 3 times and 8th once.

And no matter when or where the game is played, scoring goals is the name of the game. In his time, no one did it better.

 

[Canadiens1958]

1922 SC Final

The west was strong, but regardless, it was his only good playoff.

That's the problem with Dye. There's so little to dislike and not a lot to like. The one thing is goalscoring. He's the kind of guy where it looks like he'll have to be definitively the best offensive guy on the board to get a vote from me. And he's not that yet.

Doubtful, west was represented by a .500 team, Vancouver Millionaires. Led 2-1 in games then was swamped 6- and 5-1 in the last two games.Both teams were second place teams during the regular season.

Canada was in a recession 1921-24 and the Patricks would soon sell their lumbering interests to a syndicate from the east.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Linemates

I did a little playing around with these numbers matnor had. I took out the starts and ends of their careers, looking at just their primes as very productive players. I then summed up their points over this time, and the "points" of their average collaborator (i.e. PPG X GP). then I simply divided the player's points by the points of their average collaborator.

Cournoyer 68-76 (661/515 = 1.28)
Goulet 81-92 (1020/740 = 1.38)
Kariya 96-08 (892/572 = 1.55)
Recchi 91-04 (1132/786 = 1.44)
Robitaille 87-01 (1238/931 = 1.33)
Shanahan 90-06 (1218/907 = 1.34)

Bucyk I don't even know what to do with. Probably has to be separated into pre-and post Orr/Espo explosion.

Bucyk 58-68 (605/482 = 1.26)
Bucyk 69-77 (705/711 = 0.99)

hmm, I expected the 0.99 post-Orr, but I sure didn't expect the Cournoyer-like, non-catalyst numbers for the O6 era!

thoughts?

Still drove his linemates - Bronco Horvath, Murray Oliver, Vic Stasiuk to their best seasons pre Orr(no puck moving dmen in Boston) and Fred Stanfield with Orr.

Given that Horvath spent time in New York during the Bathgate/Gadsby era, Oliver played in Detroit with Howe and Toronto with Mahovlich, Stasiuk in Detroit benefited from Kelly, Stanfield in Chicago had Pilote and Stapleton.Throw in that Tommy Williams had his two highest and only 20 goal NHL season playing with Bucyk in Boston and you should see his value as a linemate.

Bucyk was a catalyst on a team with little fuel beyond Johnny Bucyk

 

[Canadiens1958]

One Game

10 games.

Yeah, that's plenty to go on.

Swiss cheese?

For a 7 season run, he was first in goals scored 3 times, second 3 times and 8th once.

And no matter when or where the game is played, scoring goals is the name of the game. In his time, no one did it better.

One game was sufficient in 1954 and 1972 to show that the Soviets could play hockey. 10 is an eternity.

 

[MXD]

I did a little playing around with these numbers matnor had. I took out the starts and ends of their careers, looking at just their primes as very productive players. I then summed up their points over this time, and the "points" of their average collaborator (i.e. PPG X GP). then I simply divided the player's points by the points of their average collaborator.

Cournoyer 68-76 (661/515 = 1.28)
Goulet 81-92 (1020/740 = 1.38)
Kariya 96-08 (892/572 = 1.55)
Recchi 91-04 (1132/786 = 1.44)
Robitaille 87-01 (1238/931 = 1.33)
Shanahan 90-06 (1218/907 = 1.34)

Bucyk I don't even know what to do with. Probably has to be separated into pre-and post Orr/Espo explosion.

Bucyk 58-68 (605/482 = 1.26)
Bucyk 69-77 (705/711 = 0.99)

hmm, I expected the 0.99 post-Orr, but I sure didn't expect the Cournoyer-like, non-catalyst numbers for the O6 era!

thoughts?

- Cournoyer got the "badluck" to play with guys that are mostly already in, in an era where his team was definitely not the top of the crop as far as goalscoring. It tends to make him look not that good both on this tool and on VsX. He's not that bad. Hopefully anyone with half a brain understood that my 1st page post was really sarcastic.
- Goulet gets shafted due to one single season where he was definitely post-prime, due to a short prime to begin with. Taking off too much years in unfair for other players, but one must remember this when comparing numbers-to-numbers. Like... if you look at his number, and add "short prime"... well, that's not accurate. The number is a result of short prime.

(well, it's not that short, but hopefully everyone sees the point)

Maybe thoughts later on.

Good to see intelligence being allowed back.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Hextall? Really.

9 seasons in perhaps the weakest era ever.

Hell, Krutov's career was longer than that. But of course, he was a better player than anyone up this round, by far.

Power forward who won an Art Ross, led the NHL in goals twice, and was a 1st Team All-Star at right wing 3 times (most of any remaining player)?

Not the longest prime, but more relevant seasons than a few players already added.

You're right that it was a pretty weak time for forwards, but we've already added 29 wingers and literally don't have a single one who peaked during this time.