Divisional Final - Chicago Shamrocks vs. Portage Lakes Hockey Club

[BenchBrawl]

Chicago Shamrocks

Coach: Fred Shero

Patrick Elias - Milt Schmidt (A) - Guy Lafleur
Sweeney Schriner - Joe Malone - Cecil Dillon
Brad Marchand - Neil Colville - Claude Provost
Zach Parise - Edgar Laprade - Ryan Kesler
Spares: Pat Lafontaine, Bob Davidson

Scott Stevens (C) - Red Kelly
Herb Gardiner - Georges Boucher (A)
Jim Neilson - P.K. Subban
Spares: Red Dutton, Rod Seiling

Vladislav Tretiak
Rogie Vachon


Special Teams
PP1: Schriner - Malone - Lafleur - Subban - Kelly
PP2: Elias - Schmidt - Parise - Gardiner - Boucher

PK1: Kesler - Dillon - Stevens - Neilson
PK2: Laprade - Provost/Colville - Gardiner - Boucher
Extra F: Schmidt, Marchand
Extra D: Kelly

vs​

Portage Lakes Hockey Club​

Coach Al Arbour​

Bert Olmstead (A) - Norm Ullman - Bernie Geoffrion
John Leclair - Denis Savard - Didier Pitre
Dean Prentice - Jeremy Roenick - Joe Mullen
Joe Klukay - Pit Lepine - Floyd Curry
Venjamin Alexandrov - Ivan Hlinka - Konstantin Loktev​

Denis Potvin (C) - Ken Reardon
Marcel Pronovost - Brad Park (A)
Mike Ramsey - Art Duncan
Pat Egan​

Terry Sawchuk
Harry Lumley


PP1: Olmstead - Ullman - Geoffrion - Potvin - Duncan
PP2: Leclair - Savard - Pitre - Roenick - Park

PK1: Klukay - Curry - Potvin - Ramsey
PK2: Prentice - Lepine - Park - Reardon​

Click to read more...

 

[Namba 17]

Congratulations, @Hawkey Town 18, you've built a great team.
Hope for some discussion, not sure if I'll have enough time, though.

 

[Namba 17]

I'll start
1st lines:
Patrick Elias - Milt Schmidt (A) - Guy Lafleur
vs
Bert Olmstead (A) - Norm Ullman - Bernie Geoffrion

Olmstead - Elias.
Elias had ES VxV = 56. We have no data for Olmstead. What we know is that Elias was 3 times top-10 ES goalscorers and Olmstead - 0 times. But they were different types of players. Bert was 4 times top-10 assistant (including 2 1st places) and 5 times got into top-10 assists per game (2 1st). Elias was twice top-10 assistant - 7 and 9 and once top-10 assistant (8th).
Points: Elias 3, 6, 10; Olmstead 4, 5, 7, 9.
It seems, that Elias was more balanced between goals/assists, while Olmstead was clearly "special task player" - board/corner battles + gives a puck to a shooter.
Based on that I really don't know how to estimate their offensive value. Probably, Elias should be slightly ahead in overall offense (goals), but Olmstead - ahead in assists (and this is exactly what my 1st line needs).
Boards/corners. Elias was good (although, probably, soft a little). Olmstead was elite, one of the best cornerman of his time.
Defense. Elias was good, Olmstead was very good, probably great.
Overall I'd say, that Olmstead is better all-around, while Elias is better goalscorer.

Schmidt - Ullman
Vice verse. We have no ES for Schmidt, but Ullman was an elite ES offensive player. One of the best in history.
Their ES goal scoring finishes:
Schmidt 2, 3, 7, 7, 8
Ullman 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 10

Points:
Schmidt 1, 4, 4, 10
Ullman 2, 3, 6, 6, 6, 7, 8, 10

Assists:
Schmidt 1, 3, 4, 4
Ullman 4, 5, 7, 8, 8, 8, 9, 10, 10

Ullman was better goal-scorer. At his peak Schmidt was better playmaker, but not for long.

It seams, that Ullman was better offensive player.

Forchecking/defense. Ullman was elite forechecker and great defensive player. IIRC, Schmidt was no slouch either.

It seems, that Ullman has an edge here as better ES offensive player.

Lafleur vs Geoffrion
Once again we have no ES data for Boom-boom.
Lafleur was elite offensively in ES.

ES goals:
Geoffrion: 1, 2, 2, 4, 7, 7, 7
Lafleur: 1, 1, 2, 3, 3, 10

Points:
Geoffrion: 1, 1, 4, 6, 6, 7, 7
Lafleur: 1, 1, 1, 3, 3, 4

Assists:
Geoffrion: 6, 6, 6, 7, 10
Lafleur: 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 5

They are almost equal goal-scorers, but Lafleur is much better playmaker.
Overall, Lafleur is slightly ahead offensively. Slightly - because of his short peak and stronger competition in Geoffrion' time.
Defensively Lafleur and Boom-boom are equal.

Schmidt and Lafleur both had pretty short peaks.

So.
Olmstead is better cornerman, defenseman and playmaker than Elias. Elias is better goal-scorer.

Ullman is better offensive player than Schmidt. They are equal in everything else.

Lafleur is better playmaker than Geoffrion. They are equal in everything else.

I'd say, that our 1-st lines are equal offensively, but I'm slightly ahead defensively and in corners.

 

[Namba 17]

I'll continue later

 

[Namba 17]

2nd lines:
Sweeney Schriner - Joe Malone - Cecil Dillon
vs
John Leclair - Denis Savard - Didier Pitre

Pitre
vs Dillon.
It seems, that they are equal defensively, but Pitre is much better offensively.

Malone
vs
Leclair
Hard to say, but it seems, that they are equal defensively. Leclair clearly superior in physical game / in the slot / in corners/ along boards.
Hard to compare their offensive value. Leclair was great ES offensive player. His ES VxV is 64, which is on Mahovlich, Bathgate, Trottier, Gordie Howe level. ES goals: 2, 3, 4, 4, 5, 5.
But Joe Malone is one of the best goal-scorers in history. That's why he has an edge here.

Schriner
vs
Savard.

Schriner is known for not backcheking while Savard became defensively responsible later in his career. Not that he became Selke-caliber forward, but he is slightly better here.
Offensively:
Points:
Schriner: 1, 1, 2, 7, 8
Savard: 3, 3, 6, 7, 7

ES goals:
Schriner: 2, 2, 4, 4, 10
Savard: 5, 6

Assists:
Schriner: 2, 2, 3
Savard: 2, 3, 3, 6, 7

First of all, they are different type of players.
Savard is clearly playmaker, while Schriner is more of a goal-scorer.

Second, Savard had to play in era of Gretzky and Lemieux. Schriner didn't have such a competition. Without them Savard would have at least one 1st points finish and would have finished 1st in assists twice (and at least one place higher in other years). Schriner is, probably, still better offensive player, but not by much: he is better goal-scorer while Savard is better play-maker.

So, offensively Pitre is better, than Dillon, Malone is better, than Leclair, Schriner is a little better, than Savard. It should give you an edge here, but I'd like to notice, that this edge in offense comes from two superior goal-scorers in Schriner and Malone. Off course, both can pass too, but their value as goal-scorers will regress then. Your line lack playmaker, I think, which makes it unbalanced a little.

Defensively, I should have an edge, but considering that this edge comes from Savard > Schriner, I think it will be more correct to call it a wash.

I have two big bodies, who can through their weight around (Pitre&Leclair) and elite corner/boards/slot man in Leclair. I feel safe to say that I have an edge in physicality/corners. In your line I don't see a player who will go to corner or try to score from rebounds, which decrease a value of your offence.

So, overall. You have two better goal-scorers, but no good playmaker and no puck-retriever.
I'm behind in goal-scoring, but ahead in balance and physicality.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Sorry for my lack of response, I've had a very busy week, but will be able to make some posts tomorrow as I have the day off.


One quick comment: Offensive ability of top-6 forwards should be measured by the standard 7yr Vs.X not ES Vs.X as a great majority/all of a teams top-6 players get PP time, which of course is a large component of offensive ability/contribution that should be factored into any comparison. I will present these numbers tomorrow, which will give a more accurate picture.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Please also see the following estimated minutes chart for Chicago, which is based on regular season, so likely some increase for top players during the playoffs as is usually seen:

Forwards
Player	ES	PP	PK	Total
P. Elias	13	2		15
M. Schmidt	15	3		18
G. Lafleur	15	5		20
S. Schriner	13	5		18
J. Malone	14*	4		18
C. Dillon	13		3	16
B. Marchand	12			12
N. Colville	13		1	14
C. Provost	12		3	15
Z. Parise	6	2		8
E. Laprade	6		3	9
R. Kesler	6		4	10
TOTAL	138	21	14	173

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

*Joe Malone will play some shifts at LW on the top line

Defense
Player	ES	PP	PK	Total
S. Stevens	20		4	24
R. Kelly	20	5		25
H. Gardiner	16	2	3	21
G. Boucher	16	3	3	22
J. Nielson	10		4	14
P.K. Subban	10	4		14
TOTAL	92	14	14	120

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

 

[Namba 17]

One quick comment: Offensive ability of top-6 forwards should be measured by the standard 7yr Vs.X not ES Vs.X as a great majority/all of a teams top-6 players get PP time, which of course is a large component of offensive ability/contribution that should be factored into any comparison.

I disagree here.
We will estimate our special teams and there will estimate corresponding offense.
Player spend majority of playing time in ES. It can be seen even from your estimated minutes chart. I don't think it's right not to distinguish 15 min of ES time and 5 min of PP.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

I disagree here.
We will estimate our special teams and there will estimate corresponding offense.
Player spend majority of playing time in ES. It can be seen even from your estimated minutes chart. I don't think it's right not to distinguish 15 min of ES time and 5 min of PP.

This doesn’t make sense to me. Standard 7yr Vs.X does not give any extra weight to PP points. Do you have some reason to think top 6 scoring line players in the ATD will get a significantly different amount of PP time than they did in real life?

 

[Namba 17]

This doesn’t make sense to me. Standard 7yr Vs.X does not give any extra weight to PP points. Do you have some reason to think top 6 scoring line players in the ATD will get a significantly different amount of PP time than they did in real life?

The main problem, that in real life different players played different time on PP. Your point discriminates players, who played less time on PP in real life. It will seriously decrease value of some players - see Henry Richard as an example. Sometimes one player played different times in PP in different periods of his career.
We create PP teams in ATD to balance this things - if take standard VxV only, what is the sense to make a special teams and compare them?
I believe, ES + PP + PK give us a better picture, than ES+PP in one heap.
It seems more logical to me to estimate players in the same conditions: at first - by ES value and after that, if they play in your PP, give them another grade as PP specialists.

 

[Namba 17]

3d lines
Brad Marchand - Neil Colville - Claude Provost
vs
Dean Prentice - Jeremy Roenick - Joe Mullen

Provost ans Prentice are equal. They have the same ES VxV and it seems, that both were similar players defensively (great or even elite).

Marchand and Mullen are not easy comparison, considering that ES VxV table is slightly out of date and Marchand add to his resume significantly the very last couple of years.
For them we have:
ES goals:
Marchand: 4, 6
Mullen: 5, 5, 6, 6

Points:
Marchand: 5, 5
Mullen: 7

Assists:
Marchand: 8
Mullen: no top 10 finishes

It seems, that Mullen was better goal-scorer and better ES player, but not by far. Marchand is more balanced.
Hard to say, probably, I'd give an edge to Mullen, but even then not significant. More like a wash.
Defensively they seem to be equal as well.

Colville
vs
Roenick

ES goals:
Colville: 4, 5
Roenick: 6, 9

Points:
Colville: 7, 8, 9, 9
Roenick: 5, 7

Assists:
Colville: 2
Roenick : no top-10

Considering different eras they are pretty close. Probably, Colville is slightly ahead here as very slightly better ES scorer.

Defense/forechecking/physical play.
I don't know about defense. Probably, Colville was better here. As forechecker and in physical department it seems that Roenick has an upper hand.
Colville made a hall of fame and Roenick didn't (and likely never will).

It's really hard for me to estimate these our lines.
Probably, it's your advantage here, but not by far.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

The main problem, that in real life different players played different time on PP. Your point discriminates players, who played less time on PP in real life. It will seriously decrease value of some players - see Henry Richard as an example. Sometimes one player played different times in PP in different periods of his career.
We create PP teams in ATD to balance this things - if take standard VxV only, what is the sense to make a special teams and compare them?
I believe, ES + PP + PK give us a better picture, than ES+PP in one heap.
It seems more logical to me to estimate players in the same conditions: at first - by ES value and after that, if they play in your PP, give them another grade as PP specialists.

I think it would be very rare to find an ATD scoring line player who did not get regular PP time during the best years of his career. You are correct that Henri Richard is one of those examples, but in that case the GM points that out so evaluations can be made accordingly.

One big problem with your proposed method is that no one has ran a PP Vs.X up to now, so how are you going to accurately evaluate a player's PP contributions? We know there are serious flaws with things like PP scoring finishes. Standard 7yr Vs.X may not be a perfect method to evaluate ATD top 6 offensive skill (due to rare exceptions like Henri Richard) and may require some adjustments, but surely it is the best we have available.

 

[Dreakmur]

I think it would be very rare to find an ATD scoring line player who did not get regular PP time during the best years of his career. You are correct that Henri Richard is one of those examples, but in that case the GM points that out so evaluations can be made accordingly.

One big problem with your proposed method is that no one has ran a PP Vs.X up to now, so how are you going to accurately evaluate a player's PP contributions? We know there are serious flaws with things like PP scoring finishes. Standard 7yr Vs.X may not be a perfect method to evaluate ATD top 6 offensive skill (due to rare exceptions like Henri Richard) and may require some adjustments, but surely it is the best we have available.

The average top line player scores about 1/3 of their points on the PP, right?

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

The average top line player scores about 1/3 of their points on the PP, right?

I don't have that figure. Regardless of what it is I don't see the problem with using Vs.X for scoring line players as it takes into account both ES and PP (and SH) scoring. If a player got more/less points on the PP than average in real life then it's reasonable to assume it would be the same in the ATD as long as they're getting PP time, so Vs.X should be an accurate reflection.

The problem comes in when a player isn't getting PP time in the ATD, which is why I like to use ES Vs.X for bottom 6 forwards.


EDIT: ES Vs.X is calculated basis a 70/30 ES/PP split, so I assume it's right around there, similar to what you said.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

It appears you are a fan of using scoring finishes over Vs.X. I've seen your arguments for this and I simply don't agree. I think the subject has been discussed pretty thoroughly the last few years and has shown that Vs.X is a MUCH more accurate metric. I don't think it's worth it for us to debate that topic further, so I'm going to present my comparisons using Vs.X and the voters can decide which to use...

1st Lines

Offense (using 7yr Vs.X)

Lafleur: 104.5
Geoffrion: 89.9
Ullman: 89.5
Schmidt: 86.9
Elias: 78.9
Olmstead: 75.9

Chicago: 270.3
Portage: 255.3


Defense
More difficult to evaluate than offense. My thoughts...

I see Schmidt, Olmstead, and Ullman in the same tier, although I have Schmidt as the best of that group. Elias is a tier below those 3. Lafleur and Geoffrion are not strong defensive players, but I think Lafleur at least as some small contribution while Geoffrion has nothing.

I'd say a slight advantage to Portage defensively.


I think both lines are built well, no issues there. Overall I think Chicago's offensive advantage (equivalent to 5 Vs.X pts per player) is larger than Portage's defensive advantage.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

2nd Lines

Offense (using 7yr Vs.X)

Malone: 97.3 (using an average of seventieslord's and Dreakmur's below consolidated Vs.X)
Schriner: 91.3
Savard: 85.5
Leclair: 81.7
Dillon: 78.1
Pitre: 75.4 (using Dreakmur's consolidated Vs.X from Portage’s 1st round matchup)

Chicago: 266.7*
Portage: 242.6

*This score is 11 pts higher than Portage's 1st line!

Consolidated Points - 1st(1913), 2nd(1917), 2nd(1920), 4th(1916), 4th(1918), 7th(1921), 10th(1912), 12th(1914), 15th(1922), 18th(1915)

Percentage - 110(1913), 107(1917), 102(1920), 96(1921), 95(1918), 90(1916), 78(1912), 68(1922), 64(1914), 58(1915)

7 Season vs.X = 96.9
10 Season vs. X = 86.8

NHA	1913		Joe Malone		Quebec Hockey Club	C	20	20	43	5	48	48	107
NHA	1917		Joe Malone		Quebec Hockey Club	C	20	19	41	7	48	48	107
NHL	1920	1	Joe Malone	29	QBC	C/LW	24	24	39	10	49	49	100
NHL	1918	1	Joe Malone	27	MTL	C/LW	21	20	44	4	48	48	100
NHA	1916		Joe Malone		Quebec Hockey Club	C	24	24	25	10	35	39	95
NHL	1921	4	Joe Malone	30	HAM	C/LW	24	20	28	9	37	43	93
NHA	1912		Joe Malone		Quebec Hockey Club	C	18	18	21	5	26	32	81
NHL	1922	5	Joe Malone	31	HAM	C/LW	24	24	24	7	31	46	74
NHA	1914		Joe Malone		Quebec Hockey Club	C	20	19	24	4	28	45	62
NHA	1915		Joe Malone		Quebec Hockey Club	C	20	12	16	5	21	34	53

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

7yr: 97.6
10yr: 87.2

Defense

I have Cecil Dillon as the clear best defensive player on either line.

I see @Namba 17 was claiming Pitre was very good defensively in his first round series. I don't know where this is coming from. After a quick scan I don't see one thing in his bio touting his defensive play. I know he did play as a defenseman at times, so he has to have some ability and was a good skater, likely a well rounded player, I don't think he's a liability or anything, but seems to be nothing more than a small plus defensively at best.

Evidence of Joe Malone's defensive game has been uncovered recently, I don't think he's a very good defensive player but he is contributing something, at least a small plus defensively.

Leclair is nothing special defensively, but not a liability, contributes in terms of board/corner work

Schriner and Savard contribute nothing defensively and are some kind of a minus, similar to Geoffrion above.


I see a lack of defensive ability being a weakness for Portage, which will be an issue for Arbour as well. Between that and being MUCH better offensively, Chicago has a large advantage when it comes to 2nd lines

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

3rd Lines

Offense (using 7yr ES Vs.X)

Roenick: 55
Marchand: 55
Mullen: 54
Colville: 53*
Provost: 52
Prentice: 51

*Neil Colville does not have an ES vs. X score available, and his 7 yr Vs.X score of 72.1 underrates him due to time lost to War and him switching to D after coming back. Colville does have 6 full seasons at forward though. If you take his 6th best season score of 61, and use that for his 7th season score instead of the 32 he got playing defense, his 7yr Vs.X increases to 76.1. Someone please check me on this, but I think a very rough way to try to determine ES Vs.X is to multiply by 70%, which would give a score of about 53.

These teams are very close in terms of ES offense. If you use the above number for Colville they actually come out with the exact same total score. Roenick’s ES scoring should be looked at as better than Marchand’s due to longevity, so a very small edge to Portage there.


Defense

Claude Provost is an elite defensive player, much better than anyone else on either line.

Colville and Prentice are both good defensive players, I have them in the same tier.

Marchand is a good defensive player, a 10th and 12th in Selke voting the last two years, and has been part of some of the best two-way lines in the NHL and internationally, but I have him a tier below Colville and Prentice.

Roenick, and Mullen are pluses defensively, but I have them a tier lower than Marchand.


2 good two-way lines here. Chicago’s defensive edge gives them the advantage.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Defense, Goaltending, and Coaching

Coaching
Arbour is a tier above Shero as far as coaches go, but I think the lack of defensive ability on the 2nd line may be an issue for him.


Goaltending
This is an advantage for Portage. I have Sawchuk in that 2nd tier of goalies, with Hall and Brodeur, and I have Tretiak a tier below that with Dryden.


Defense

This will be a difficult comparison as Portage has split its 2 best Dmen to play on separate pairs, but let’s see how things look...

1st Pairs
Red Kelly = Denis Potvin
I am in the camp who has Kelly over Potvin, but either way they are close and in the same tier.

Stevens >> Reardon
Not close here with Reardon being Portage’s 4th best Dman, but in this size draft he’s a low-end #3/high-end #4, while Stevens could be a lower-end #1 (I have him in the top 20).

Large Advantage Chicago


2nd Pairs
Boucher << Park
Again, not close, Park is capable of being a #1 Dman, Boucher is proably an average to above average #3

Gardiner < Pronovost
Gardiner is a solid #4 in a draft this size, but Pronovost could be a fine #3, probably the same or one tier ahead of Boucher.

Very Large Advantage Portage


3rd Pairs
Both pairs are set up with a more offensive Dman paired with a more defensive Dman

Looking at the more defensive guys first…
Neilson > Ramsey
This seems pretty clear to me, so not going to say much.

Looking at the offensive guys…
Subban and Duncan is a difficult comparison. Subban is not a flawless player, but 3 top 3 finishes in Norris voting is special on an ATD bottom pairing. Duncan was a very good player himself, with multiple AS finishes in the PCHA, although it was a very small league.

It seems Subban and Duncan are likely close, but I think Neilson’s advantage over Ramsey gives Chicago the better pairing.


Talent-wise/in a vacuum Portage holds an advantage on the blueline, but there is an issue with Portage's top 4…All 4 of those players have susceptibility of getting caught out of position trying to make big hits, which makes them vulnerable to counter-attacks. Chicago is set up extremely well to take advantage of a weakness like that with a lot of speed up front and offensive defensemen on every pair (Kelly/Boucher/Subban).

The Elite counter-attackers (great speed AND offensive ability)...
-Red Kelly is one of the best offensive/rushing defensemen in the entire draft (only behind Orr and Coffey when it comes to offense).
-Guy Lafleur's reputation is well known, he's a phenomenal counter-attack player described as having "blazing speed."
-Joe Malone has been described as "the fastest player in the pros."

More strong skating ability in Chicago’s top 9 forwards...
-Schriner: "Sweeney was a big man, a fast skater and very nimble in his play." - See Bio
-Dillon: "Only one member of the squad, the fast-skating Cecil Dillon, was 30 years old." - See Bio
-Schmidt: "He was a strong skater and clever puck distributor but also a great finish." - Joe Pelletier
-Elias: "Assets: Sees the ice incredibly well, skates superbly and plays a clever game of hockey." - See Bio
-Colville: "...Neil Colville, young though grey-haired pivot who is a strong skater with a terrific shot, broke fast down centre, leaving the Maroon forwards behind." - See Bio
-Provost: "He was a great checker and despite an awkward skating style had surprising speed. " - See Bio

 

[Dreakmur]

Offense (using 7yr Vs.X)

Lafleur: 104.5
Geoffrion: 89.9
Ullman: 89.5
Schmidt: 86.9
Elias: 78.9
Olmstead: 75.9

Chicago: 270.3
Portage: 255.3

Milt Schmidt's vs. X scores are a tad low for how good he was. Personally, I give players who served in WW2 credit for the time they missed.

With that in mind, I have Milt Schmidt with a score of 91.7

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Milt Schmidt's vs. X scores are a tad low for how good he was. Personally, I give players who served in WW2 credit for the time they missed.

With that in mind, I have Milt Schmidt with a score of 91.7

Thanks, I actually had a note for that in my first draft of that post, but I lost it and forgot it the second time around. I didn't have an adjusted score for him though. What is yours based on?

 

[Dreakmur]

Thanks, I actually had a note for that in my first draft of that post, but I lost it and forgot it the second time around. I didn't have an adjusted score for him though. What is yours based on?

For the seasons served overseas, I take the 3 seasons immediately before and the 3 seasons immediately after service, and create an average.

In 1942, he left during the season. I used his per game average for the score rather than the total, which ends up being 83.

With that adjustment made for 1942, those 6 seasons (1940, 1941, 1942, 1946, 1947, and 1948) create an average of 80.5. That score would be good for his 6th and 7th best seasons, so they take the place of those previous scores.

 

[Namba 17]

I think it would be very rare to find an ATD scoring line player who did not get regular PP time during the best years of his career. You are correct that Henri Richard is one of those examples, but in that case the GM points that out so evaluations can be made accordingly.

I have at least two players in my top-6 who were great ES players - Ullman and Leclair. Common VxV evaluation will decrease their value (exactly what you did )
I'll answer your other posts later.

 

[Namba 17]

It appears you are a fan of using scoring finishes over Vs.X.

I use them only when we have no ES VxV or in case to see goals/assists ratio.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

I have at least two players in my top-6 who were great ES players - Ullman and Leclair. Common VxV evaluation will decrease their value (exactly what you did )
I'll answer your other posts later.

If they are all playing on the PP it doesn’t matter if you look at ES/PP offense as a combined score like standard Vs.X or the sum of two weighted scores. The problem is you don’t have a PP Vs.X, so the combined score is the most accurate option we have, which is already weighted basis a player's real-life ES and PP minutes.

A point is a point, it doesn’t matter if they’re getting them at ES or the PP as long as the players are actually getting PP minutes.

 

[Dreakmur]

If they are all playing on the PP it doesn’t matter if you look at ES/PP offense as a combined score like standard Vs.X or the sum of two weighted scores. The problem is you don’t have a PP Vs.X, so the combined score is the most accurate option we have, which is already weighted basis a player's real-life ES and PP minutes.

A point is a point, it doesn’t matter if they’re getting them at ES or the PP as long as the players are actually getting PP minutes.

Well, I think you guys will compare PPs seperately, so looking at just ES scoring seems reasonable.

Having said that, I have both your lines ahead in pure ES scoring anyway.