Big name stars, who were bad playoff performers

[Hawkey Town 18]

Bolded.Based on what? Bobby Clarke's performance in the 1974 and 1975 playoffs plus other examples given previously definitely debunk this point. Read the thread below for other considerations.

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?p=23996604#post23996604

Again you and a others have taken a fantasy league mantra and believe it to be true when it is easily shown that the opposite is commonplace.

Simply put, the Stanley Cup victory is what matters and not which players failed to meet, met or surpassed fantasy league expectations.

The examples you give in the linked post show a player changing his game to assume a different role, or buying into a team system, or being a timely performer (quantity vs. quality). Does Selanne really fall into any of these categories? It does not seem like he does to me. From what I can gather, his role in the regular season was being a primary goal-scorer and offensive force for his team, and remained the same in the playoffs. Star players on other teams that also remained in this same regular season role come playoff time and were focused on defensively just as Selanne was, seemed to be able to keep up their offensive production. How is Selanne contributing to winning just as much as these similair types of players while producing less offensively?

 

[Dark Shadows]

Bolded.Based on what? Bobby Clarke's performance in the 1974 and 1975 playoffs plus other examples given previously definitely debunk this point. Read the thread below for other considerations.

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?p=23996604#post23996604

Again you and a others have taken a fantasy league mantra and believe it to be true when it is easily shown that the opposite is commonplace.

Simply put, the Stanley Cup victory is what matters and not which players failed to meet, met or surpassed fantasy league expectations.

And for one year of his career, he was a 5th-6th best "Passenger" on a Stanley cup team, while the rest of his career, he was generally thought of as the guy who could not get it done in the postseason.

You can split hairs over the meaning of stats all you want. You can't take away what I saw. A Selanne who played more tentatively. Worse than usual. Not as good(Any way you want to word it), as he did in the regular season the majority of postseasons he played in. A guy who wilted under the tougher checking of the playoffs.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Bolded.Based on what? Bobby Clarke's performance in the 1974 and 1975 playoffs plus other examples given previously definitely debunk this point. Read the thread below for other considerations.

Bolded: based on common sense. Clarke's performances do not debunk this point. He was spectacular in the playoffs by all accounts, just as good as the regular season. The point total may have gone down, but he was rellied on for his strong defensive play much more and came through. Selanne does not have a leg like this to stand on.

Again you and a others have taken a fantasy league mantra and believe it to be true when it is easily shown that the opposite is commonplace.

Then provide some examples of how Selanne's play remained at the same level/value despite the drop in production. Was he a used in a shutdown role? Matched up against the other team's top line and outperformed them consistently? Banged and crashed to wear down opponents? I didn't watch Anaheim's 2007 playoff run with a magnifying glass, but I don't think you can answer "yes" to any of these questions.

Simply put, the Stanley Cup victory is what matters and not which players failed to meet, met or surpassed fantasy league expectations.

Except that that is what this discussion is about. I'm sure no player that ended up winning really gives a damn whether or not they played good, great, or poor because thay accomplished what they set out to do. We, as analysts in this situation, can't just fall back on "well, they won so it means he met expectations" (well, most of us I guess), that's not the purpose of this discussion.

 

[Blades of Glory]

I've always felt Clarke's playoff production dropped slightly in those two Stanley Cup years (namely the year they beat Boston) because his defensive responsibilities became the more prevalent issue at hand. In 1974, it was all about one thing, and one thing only for the Flyers. BOBBY ORR. I found some good articles about it from an old SI archive.

There were no Philadelphia Flyers seven years ago, but now they own the hockey world after Parent's spectacular goaltending and Clarke's tenacious forechecking and mastery of the face-offs destroyed Bobby Orr and the Bruins in the decisive sixth game.

Clarke helped the Stop Orr! campaign in two distinct ways. He chased Orr behind the net at times and pinned him to the boards, thus forcing face-offs near the Boston goaltender, and he kept his stick attached to Orr's navel whenever Bobby managed to elude the Flyer forecheckers and gain a half step on them in the race up the ice. More important, Clarke completely nulified Esposito by hawking him relentlessly, hitting him into the boards and embarrassing him almost to the point of ridicule by winning 48 of their 66 face-offs in the first three games ...

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/hockey/nhl/features/si_stanley_cup/70s/

This is simply not the case for Selanne.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Common Sense....................

Bolded: based on common sense. Clarke's performances do not debunk this point. He was spectacular in the playoffs by all accounts, just as good as the regular season. The point total may have gone down, but he was rellied on for his strong defensive play much more and came through. Selanne does not have a leg like this to stand on.



Then provide some examples of how Selanne's play remained at the same level/value despite the drop in production. Was he a used in a shutdown role? Matched up against the other team's top line and outperformed them consistently? Banged and crashed to wear down opponents? I didn't watch Anaheim's 2007 playoff run with a magnifying glass, but I don't think you can answer "yes" to any of these questions.



Except that that is what this discussion is about. I'm sure no player that ended up winning really gives a damn whether or not they played good, great, or poor because thay accomplished what they set out to do. We, as analysts in this situation, can't just fall back on "well, they won so it means he met expectations" (well, most of us I guess), that's not the purpose of this discussion.

Damned with your own words - but the Anaheim coaches certainly did watch the 2007 series with great interest and had a better appreciation.

Teemu Selanne has become the poster boy for the thread since no one is willing to step up and confront the false assumption that they have made and that has been clearly explained.

In the 2007 playoffs Teemu Selanne did not have a great offensive stretch like he did during the regular season but he played hard, was responsible defensively with the net result that the opposition had to dedicate their best defensive players to him, thereby reducing ice time for their offensive players while allowing Anaheim 's players who got hot offensively to play against lesser defensive talents.

Using a football analogy - a great receiver does not have to catch a ton of passes in a key game, as long as he runs his routes as required on each play and blocks, he will draw coverage away from the other receivers and he will spread the defense while keeping the defensive backs from cheating into the box.As long as the receiver does everything that sustains the threat element on every play he is contributing greatly even though his personal numbers are down significantly.

As evidenced by Selanne's +1, same as Getzlaf, he sustained defensive responsibility. On offense while he did not score as much as fantasy leaguers would have liked, he did maintain offensive responsibility unlike others in a similar situation who tend to cheat on their defensive responsibilities by leaving the defensive zone early, creating too much separation or narrowing passing/shooting lanes,etc.

Look beyond the simple stats when evaluating a player and as stated a few times avoid the simplistic false assumptions.

 

[seventieslord]

Did you just say that a +1 means selanne was good defensively?
Posted via Mobile Device

 

[jepjepjoo]

Under the age 30 (supposed prime) Selanne played in the playoffs 3 times.

92-93 6gp 4g 2a 6pts (1st among forwards on his team)
96-97 11gp 7g 3a 10pts (2nd)
98-99 4gp 2g 2a 4pts (1st)

Im pretty sure that if he got to play more playoffs in his prime there would be no debate about Selanne´s playoff ability.

 

[hockeymaneeak*]

The Buffalo Bills Circa. 90-93

 

[Kyle McMahon]

In the 2007 playoffs Teemu Selanne did not have a great offensive stretch like he did during the regular season but he played hard, was responsible defensively with the net result that the opposition had to dedicate their best defensive players to him, thereby reducing ice time for their offensive players while allowing Anaheim 's players who got hot offensively to play against lesser defensive talents.

And presumably this was the case in the previous 82 games, where Selanne far outshone the other forwards on his team. I don't think the Selanne line got easy matchups in the regular season only for things to change in the playoffs. And again, nobody is claiming he didn't make a positive contribution to the Cup win; it's likely the Ducks don't win the Cup without him.

Bolded: Oh, so in others words, the players who stepped it up a notch.

Look beyond the simple stats when evaluating a player and as stated a few times avoid the simplistic false assumptions.

Most in here aren't just using stats, they're remembering what they saw. And most are in agreement that Anaheim had five or so players that were more important to their success than Selanne was that spring. I have no idea how many points Sam Pahlsson got that playoffs, but any Ducks fan will tell you he was arguably the most important forward in that playoff run. No stats involved there, just remembering what was seen with their own two eyes.

 

[Dark Shadows]

Did you just say that a +1 means selanne was good defensively?
Posted via Mobile Device

 

[Canadiens1958]

Previous 82 Games

And presumably this was the case in the previous 82 games, where Selanne far outshone the other forwards on his team. I don't think the Selanne line got easy matchups in the regular season only for things to change in the playoffs. And again, nobody is claiming he didn't make a positive contribution to the Cup win; it's likely the Ducks don't win the Cup without him.

Bolded: Oh, so in others words, the players who stepped it up a notch.



Most in here aren't just using stats, they're remembering what they saw. And most are in agreement that Anaheim had five or so players that were more important to their success than Selanne was that spring. I have no idea how many points Sam Pahlsson got that playoffs, but any Ducks fan will tell you he was arguably the most important forward in that playoff run. No stats involved there, just remembering what was seen with their own two eyes.

Well the previous 82 games were not against Minnesota, Vancouver, Detroit and Ottawa - who Anaheim did not play during the 2006-07 regular season. So if you are going to compare regular season to playoff stats do so using playoff opponents for the regular season segment.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Defense

Did you just say that a +1 means selanne was good defensively?
Posted via Mobile Device

Clearly not what I posted. +1 just like Getzlaf. Selanne's defensive play was not a negative.

 

[Steve Kournianos]

Why assume that a player should be scoring at the same pace in the playoffs as during the regular season. Fantasy league logic gone haywire. Seven game series the leading scorers draw the defensive attention allowing the other lines to step up and score since they are playing against the weak defensive lines and depth defensive pairings. If the secondary scorers do so the team's chances of winning increase - as evidenced by Anaheim's results.Selanne playing hard and accepting the defensive attention allowed the others to play without the same defensive attention.

A game tying goal against the Minnesota Wild - Jacques Lemaire coached team is very big since it changes the nature of the game from a passive defensive game that the Wild and Lemaire favoured to one where offense becomes a consideration for both teams.

Selanne's defense was always a bit soft. Anaheim played around it supporting him with defensive pairings that mitigated the situation.Again it is not about fantasy league type expectations but simply doing what it takes to win.If Selanne's presence on the ice reduces prime ice time for the oppositions stars like Spezza, Alfredsson and Heatley then the team is significantly ahead.

Bingo. Well said.

It's just like the way baseball sluggers get bashed for playoffs stats that dont measure up to their regular season output...Well, no kidding. Teams who make the playoffs after 162 games usually have good (or great) pitching with great bullpens and great closers.

Even the best playoff performers (like Derek jeter or mark messier) go at least one or two series where they cant hack it.


Selanne in 2007 faced the NHL leader in GAA and SPCT (Backstrom) in Round 1

He faced Luongo in Round 2. Only the Hart and Vezina runner up that year

In Round 3, he faced Dominik Hasek, who had a GAA under 2.00 at the start of the series and is arguably one of the greatest goalies to ever play the game

In Round four, he faced Emery. Not a household name, but clearly a guy who was at the top of anybody's game heading into the 2007 SCF

Selanne averaged about 3 shots a game in the playoffs. He averages just a hair over 3 shots a game in the regular season. So clearly he was getting his chances (at least that's what i saw).

But I'm going to go out on a limb and say three habitual Vezina finalists and two certain HOF'ers maaaaaaaaay have had something to do with a drop in production.


All that being said, Selanne has had some really horrible postseasons.

It's just too bad for some people that 2007 wasnt one of them.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Well the previous 82 games were not against Minnesota, Vancouver, Detroit and Ottawa - who Anaheim did not play during the 2006-07 regular season. So if you are going to compare regular season to playoff stats do so using playoff opponents for the regular season segment.

Since Selanne is only being compared to his teammates, this is not necessary. And as much as you want me to, so that you can then criticize me for it, I'm not comparing stats in this thread. Myself, and others who watched the games, seem to be in general agreement that Selanne's contribution lessened as compared to his teammates. The clear drop in production merely reinforces this argument. I don't think anybody credible is foolish enough to just say "Look! His points-per-game dropped in the playoffs, he's a choker!" and believe that to be the be-all and end-all of the discussion.

Edit: Just to add something, one name who will never be thrown out there in a discussion like this is one of Selanne's contemporaries, Brendan Shanahan. Shanny's point production often fell in the playoffs, sometimes by considerable amounts. But you'd never see people claiming he didn't contribute what was expected of him in the playoffs, because those who watched him play know better than that.

Bingo. Well said.

It's just like the way baseball sluggers get bashed for playoffs stats that dont measure up to their regular season output...Well, no kidding. Teams who make the playoffs after 162 games usually have good (or great) pitching with great bullpens and great closers.

Even the best playoff performers (like Derek jeter or mark messier) go at least one or two series where they cant hack it.


Selanne in 2007 faced the NHL leader in GAA and SPCT (Backstrom) in Round 1

He faced Luongo in Round 2. Only the Hart and Vezina runner up that year

In Round 3, he faced Dominik Hasek, who had a GAA under 2.00 at the start of the series and is arguably one of the greatest goalies to ever play the game

In Round four, he faced Emery. Not a household name, but clearly a guy who was at the top of anybody's game heading into the 2007 SCF

Selanne averaged about 3 shots a game in the playoffs. He averages just a hair over 3 shots a game in the regular season. So clearly he was getting his chances (at least that's what i saw).

But I'm going to go out on a limb and say three habitual Vezina finalists and two certain HOF'ers maaaaaaaaay have had something to do with a drop in production.


All that being said, Selanne has had some really horrible postseasons.

It's just too bad for some people that 2007 wasnt one of them.

You do realize that the rest of his teammates faced these same obstacles, right?

 

[Steve Kournianos]

Since Selanne is only being compared to his teammates, this is not necessary. And as much as you want me to, so that you can then criticize me for it, I'm not comparing stats in this thread. Myself, and others who watched the games, seem to be in general agreement that Selanne's contribution lessened as compared to his teammates. The clear drop in production merely reinforces this argument. I don't think anybody credible is foolish enough to just say "Look! His points-per-game dropped in the playoffs, he's a choker!" and believe that to be the be-all and end-all of the discussion.

Edit: Just to add something, one name who will never be thrown out there in a discussion like this is one of Selanne's contemporaries, Brendan Shanahan. Shanny's point production often fell in the playoffs, sometimes by considerable amounts. But you'd never see people claiming he didn't contribute what was expected of him in the playoffs, because those who watched him play know better than that.



You do realize that the rest of his teammates faced these same obstacles, right?

Absolutely. And I have had no problem bashing Selanne in the past when he went MIA in the postseason (about half the time).

However, nobody seemed to mention that Selanne lead the NHL with 25 PPG's in the regular season, and Anaheim was 3rd overall in the NHL that season, operating at a 22.4 clip.

In the playoffs, Selanne and the Ducks were marginal on the power play. They were 7th out of 16 with a 15.2 efficiency. Selanne scored ZERO PPG's in the playoffs.

Amazingly, the four opponents the Ducks faced in the 2007 postseason (Van, Min, Det, Ott) ranked #1, #2, #6 (t) and #7 (t) in penalty killing success during the regular season.


So Selanne faced three Vezina-quality goalies in rounds 1-3 and a white-hot Ray Emery in the Finals, who were all anchoring top-7 PK units, and still managed to finish in the top-10 in playoff scoring and playoff assists.


Not to mention, he won the friggin Cup and was never a liability or detracting from Anaheim's overall mission.

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

However, nobody seemed to mention that Selanne lead the NHL with 25 PPG's in the regular season, and Anaheim was 3rd overall in the NHL that season, operating at a 22.4 clip.

In the playoffs, Selanne and the Ducks were marginal on the power play. They were 7th out of 16 with a 15.2 efficiency. Selanne scored ZERO PPG's in the playoffs.

Amazingly, the four opponents the Ducks faced in the 2007 postseason (Van, Min, Det, Ott) ranked #1, #2, #6 (t) and #7 (t) in penalty killing success during the regular season.

I was just going to post these exact situational scoring numbers for Selanne. I don't buy the "Selanne didn't fight through tight-checking" argument, at least since the lockout. During the tight checking of 5 on 5 playoff play Selanne has scored just fine. Where his production fell off a cliff was on the power play.

In his second go-around with Anaheim, Selanne has been a perimeter scorer. That's just what he is. He's scored more goals on the power play than at even strength since 2005-06, and since the lockout he ranks 55th in even strength goals and 4th in power play goals. If you want to criticize him for being a perimeter player in the playoffs without contributing much on defence, that doesn't make him unclutch IMO. That's just Selanne playing his usual game.

If you look at his per-game rates since the lockout, Selanne has scored 0.24 even strength goals per game and 0.26 power play goals per game. In the playoffs it's 0.21 even strength goals per game and 0.09 power play goals per game.

Look at the 2006-07 season in isolation, and you see more or less the same thing.

Regular season: 0.28 ESG/Gm, 0.30 PPG/Gm
Playoffs: 0.24 ESG/Gm, 0.00 PPG/Gm

Selanne scored on 18.7% of his shots in the regular season and just 8.3% of his shots on the playoffs that year. His shot rate dipped slightly in the playoffs, but not by a lot, and the Ducks played more of a defensive game that postseason anyway. The difference from the regular season to the playoffs was that his power play shots just weren't going in, and a big reason was probably that there were some pretty good goalies in the way.

I'm not sure if the Ducks changed their power play setup in the playoffs, or if the other teams tried to take away Selanne as a shooting option, or what could explain his PP scoring drop. It could be he simply played badly with the extra man, I don't remember those games in enough detail to really say. But I don't think effort or tight checking was the reason, because when the other team keyed on Selanne at even strength he scored just about as well as he usually did.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Absolutely. And I have had no problem bashing Selanne in the past when he went MIA in the postseason (about half the time).

However, nobody seemed to mention that Selanne lead the NHL with 25 PPG's in the regular season, and Anaheim was 3rd overall in the NHL that season, operating at a 22.4 clip.

In the playoffs, Selanne and the Ducks were marginal on the power play. They were 7th out of 16 with a 15.2 efficiency. Selanne scored ZERO PPG's in the playoffs.

Amazingly, the four opponents the Ducks faced in the 2007 postseason (Van, Min, Det, Ott) ranked #1, #2, #6 (t) and #7 (t) in penalty killing success during the regular season.


So Selanne faced three Vezina-quality goalies in rounds 1-3 and a white-hot Ray Emery in the Finals, who were all anchoring top-7 PK units, and still managed to finish in the top-10 in playoff scoring and playoff assists.


Not to mention, he won the friggin Cup and was never a liability or detracting from Anaheim's overall mission.

Well clearly, and I've never suggested such.

The power play numbers that you and Center Shift have brought up provide some interesting food for thought. Kudos for thinking to dig that info up.

 

[Big Phil]

Bolded.Based on what? Bobby Clarke's performance in the 1974 and 1975 playoffs plus other examples given previously definitely debunk this point. Read the thread below for other considerations.

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?p=23996604#post23996604

Again you and a others have taken a fantasy league mantra and believe it to be true when it is easily shown that the opposite is commonplace.

Simply put, the Stanley Cup victory is what matters and not which players failed to meet, met or surpassed fantasy league expectations.

I'm not sure he was so much refering to fantasy league expectations. I will say that among all time greats Clarke is one player with a noticeable drop not just in points but in playoff legacy. I wouldn't say he played bad at all in those Cup wins, he didn't, and those that know Clarke realize that he brought more to the table then what was on the scoresheet. But we will all agree that Parent was the most important Flyer. Then I think in those two Cup victories it was MacLeish. Then you can probably throw Clarke into the equation with Barber and Leach (1975, 1976) right there with him.

Outside of the hat trick and eventual overtime winner in Game 2 of the 1974 finals the truth is there is not a lot of great playoff memories of Clarke. His impact did drop a bit in the playoffs for some reason or another and you expect a three time Hart winner to take the bull by the horns a bit more. That's my take.

 

[Steve Kournianos]

Well clearly, and I've never suggested such.

The power play numbers that you and Center Shift have brought up provide some interesting food for thought. Kudos for thinking to dig that info up.

I wasnt implying that you specifically said it. Just was trying to point out in general that a lot of attention in this thread is being paid to Selanne's "poor" or "substandard" 2007 postseason in a year in which he won the Cup and was a top-10 scorer.

Crosby in the 2009 SCF is an interesting case, simply because he went from averaging almost a goal and game and 2 pts a game to zero in the SCF. Of course, we all know why his production dropped (Zetterberg and Osgood). We all saw Crosby with chance after chance. But on paper, it may seem like he had a terrible SCF, which we all know he really didnt

 

[don28]

Does Mike Gartner qualify?

Regular Season, 0.96 points per game
Playoffs, 0.76 points per game

I'm not sure if he qualifies as a big enough star, so I'll leave it to y'all.

 

[seventieslord]

Bingo. Well said.

It's just like the way baseball sluggers get bashed for playoffs stats that dont measure up to their regular season output...Well, no kidding. Teams who make the playoffs after 162 games usually have good (or great) pitching with great bullpens and great closers.

Even the best playoff performers (like Derek jeter or mark messier) go at least one or two series where they cant hack it.


Selanne in 2007 faced the NHL leader in GAA and SPCT (Backstrom) in Round 1

He faced Luongo in Round 2. Only the Hart and Vezina runner up that year

In Round 3, he faced Dominik Hasek, who had a GAA under 2.00 at the start of the series and is arguably one of the greatest goalies to ever play the game

In Round four, he faced Emery. Not a household name, but clearly a guy who was at the top of anybody's game heading into the 2007 SCF

Selanne averaged about 3 shots a game in the playoffs. He averages just a hair over 3 shots a game in the regular season. So clearly he was getting his chances (at least that's what i saw).

But I'm going to go out on a limb and say three habitual Vezina finalists and two certain HOF'ers maaaaaaaaay have had something to do with a drop in production.


All that being said, Selanne has had some really horrible postseasons.

It's just too bad for some people that 2007 wasnt one of them.

Couldn't a similar thing be said about just about any player who went through 4 rounds in the playoffs? In the end it becomes self-fulfilling anyway. I mean, in the finals, he faced Ray Emery, who was good because he was in the finals. Right?

 

[seventieslord]

I'm not sure he was so much refering to fantasy league expectations. I will say that among all time greats Clarke is one player with a noticeable drop not just in points but in playoff legacy. I wouldn't say he played bad at all in those Cup wins, he didn't, and those that know Clarke realize that he brought more to the table then what was on the scoresheet. But we will all agree that Parent was the most important Flyer. Then I think in those two Cup victories it was MacLeish. Then you can probably throw Clarke into the equation with Barber and Leach (1975, 1976) right there with him.

Outside of the hat trick and eventual overtime winner in Game 2 of the 1974 finals the truth is there is not a lot of great playoff memories of Clarke. His impact did drop a bit in the playoffs for some reason or another and you expect a three time Hart winner to take the bull by the horns a bit more. That's my take.

For you to say this, I think you really have to underestimate Clarke's defensive impact.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Actually................

For you to say this, I think you really have to underestimate Clarke's defensive impact.

Actually for you to say this is just further evidence that posters in the history regularly understate the importance of coaching and probably could not differentiate good from bad coaching if their lives depended on it.

Clarke defensive impact was the result of Fred Shero's ability to get the proper match-ups and effect line changes in a timely fashion.In the 1974 playoffs, especially against Boston, Shero managed to constantly out coach Bep Guidolin in this regard. Net result Bobby Clarke played great defense against the powerful Bruins' offense because Shero managed to get him on the ice at the right time even when the Bruins had the last line change. There was a cost to this - Bobby Clarke's offensive numbers declined but the Flyers won the Stanley Cup just as they did in 1975 when Fred Shero outcoached Floyd Smith. The 1974 coaching fiasco cost Bep Guidolin his job and after a brief stint in K.C. he was finished as an NHL coach.

In 1976 Fred Shero could not match lines against Scotty Bowman who simply outcoached him. The same thing happened in 1979. Bobby Clarke's effectiveness was reduced defensively yet he did manage to salvage an offensive contribution - see Reg Leach.

 

[Steve Kournianos]

Couldn't a similar thing be said about just about any player who went through 4 rounds in the playoffs? In the end it becomes self-fulfilling anyway. I mean, in the finals, he faced Ray Emery, who was good because he was in the finals. Right?

Yes, we could talk about any player, but this specific thread mentions Selanne, no naturally I would focus on his play and why his stats dipped on the PP in the playoffs compared to the RS


As for Emery, I guess he was pretty good overall. Hot goalie heading into the finals. Kinda like Kirk McLean in 1994.

 

[seventieslord]

Actually for you to say this is just further evidence that posters in the history regularly understate the importance of coaching and probably could not differentiate good from bad coaching if their lives depended on it.

Clarke defensive impact was the result of Fred Shero's ability to get the proper match-ups and effect line changes in a timely fashion.In the 1974 playoffs, especially against Boston, Shero managed to constantly out coach Bep Guidolin in this regard. Net result Bobby Clarke played great defense against the powerful Bruins' offense because Shero managed to get him on the ice at the right time even when the Bruins had the last line change. There was a cost to this - Bobby Clarke's offensive numbers declined but the Flyers won the Stanley Cup just as they did in 1975 when Fred Shero outcoached Floyd Smith. The 1974 coaching fiasco cost Bep Guidolin his job and after a brief stint in K.C. he was finished as an NHL coach.

In 1976 Fred Shero could not match lines against Scotty Bowman who simply outcoached him. The same thing happened in 1979. Bobby Clarke's effectiveness was reduced defensively yet he did manage to salvage an offensive contribution - see Reg Leach.

So what are you saying? I'm absolutely right for stating Clarke's value went beyond offensive numbers, but phooey on me for not stating that it was due to Shero's superior coaching?

As for 1975, what I've read indicates that the difference between the finalists was Philly had an elite goalie and Buffalo had nothing resembling one.