HOH Top 60 Wingers of All Time

[Michael Farkas]

The goalie with the least raw GA is going to do even worse over that span, and is likely a 1st round elimination each year. Or 2 round elimination if you eliminate those 1-rounders.

What's the better measure of a PP's ability? Would you coach your guys to be like a powerplay that was 5 for 5 in a series, or (as percentages don't matter) 6 for 1000?

It's not true actually...
GAA leaders, same criteria.

2018 Braden Holtby (Won)
2017 Matt Murray (Took over the back half and won)
2016 Braden Holtby (out in rd 2)
2015 Braden Holtby (out in rd 2)
2014 Tuukka Rask (out in rd 2)
2013 Corey Crawford (Won)
2012 Jonathan Quick (Won)
2011 Tim Thomas (Won)
2010 Michael Leighton (lost SCF)
2009 Tim Thomas (out in rd 2)
2008 Chris Osgood (Won)
2007 Roberto Luongo (out in rd 2)
2006 Ilya Bryzgalov (out in rd 3)

Not at all similar, even for an averaging stat. Still way more reliable because goals matter and saves/shots don't. 2.5 Cups becomes 5.5 Cups. Six immediate eliminations becomes 5.

---
Do not conflate, I tried to separate them and obviously failed. Measuring PP ability != conversion to series wins.

I coach my players to win games. 6 power play goals is more likely to win a series than 5, no matter how many PPO you get...in a playoff series, I'd rather go 6 for 1000 than 5 for 5...absolutely no question, even in this extreme scenario. I want that goal.

 

[Sentinel]

A show of hands: does anybody, besides C1958, care if the player's best years happen chronologically or not?

In fact, there is something appealing when a great player has great seasons years apart. Like Mikhailov or Staal.

 

[Sentinel]

To get ready and qualify for the playoffs

And the regular season awards are for..?

 

[Canadiens1958]

And the regular season awards are for..?

Progress reports.

 

[Michael Farkas]

A show of hands: does anybody, besides C1958, care if the player's best years happen chronologically or not?

In fact, there is something appealing when a great player has great seasons years apart. Like Mikhailov or Staal.

Chronologically or consecutively...?

 

[blogofmike]

It's not true actually...
GAA leaders, same criteria.

2018 Braden Holtby (Won)
2017 Matt Murray (Took over the back half and won)
2016 Braden Holtby (out in rd 2)
2015 Braden Holtby (out in rd 2)
2014 Tuukka Rask (out in rd 2)
2013 Corey Crawford (Won)
2012 Jonathan Quick (Won)
2011 Tim Thomas (Won)
2010 Michael Leighton (lost SCF)
2009 Tim Thomas (out in rd 2)
2008 Chris Osgood (Won)
2007 Roberto Luongo (out in rd 2)
2006 Ilya Bryzgalov (out in rd 3)

Not at all similar, even for an averaging stat. Still way more reliable because goals matter and saves/shots don't. 2.5 Cups becomes 5.5 Cups. Six immediate eliminations becomes 5.

---
Do not conflate, I tried to separate them and obviously failed. Measuring PP ability != conversion to series wins.

I coach my players to win games. 6 power play goals is more likely to win a series than 5, no matter how many PPO you get...in a playoff series, I'd rather go 6 for 1000 than 5 for 5...absolutely no question, even in this extreme scenario. I want that goal.

I didn't say GAA. That's an averaging stat. I said GA.

And if you went 6 for 1000 you probably get fired as a PP coach and it possibly means your PP is so unintimidating that people are unafraid to take penalties against you at ES. I'm afraid to take a penalty against a 100% PP. I'm afraid to chase an SH goal against a great PP. A 0.06% PP will be outscored by SH goals.

Keep in mind that you've volunteered to score 6 goals in an entire series (or year to get to 1000), while the other guys scored 5 goals in no more than 10 minutes. They have plenty of time to score more. There is an opportunity cost to failing on a PP too frequently. For the 1 goal you've agreed to another 1976 minutes of you not scoring.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Yeah and I took it off the clearly and intentionally unfair playing ground posed and steered it back towards reasonable.

Don't care. Just want to win. Fire me all you want. Even in you're extreme scenario, I still have a better chance of winning.

In a 1000 PPO series, it's extremely likely that we'll spend the entire series on the power play...huge detriment to the other team scoring. We've out scored them 6 to 5 on the power play, so my chances of winning are higher.

We can keep going down this road all you want until you get to 5 > 6, but I think our time could be better spent elsewhere. When playoff series start being won and Cups start being awarded by percentages and ratios, then we'll look at it a different way. Until then...I'm gonna take the goal.

 

[blogofmike]

Thanks for posting. Yes, that's egregious. Now what do we do with it?

We know the scenario is not the same, Richard had just won a Cup and being a major impact in that win. And this was in a playoff game. Does Richard have a history of this lack of game awareness...that's my question. And it's not a question that's made to challenge you and your point...it's a conversational one...this is a dumb play and it has no upside. Did he often do things that suggest a lack of game/spatial awareness...?

I do not think I have seen enough of Richard to judge spatial awareness to the same level I can Ovechkin, but by reputation he lost his temper and took bad penalties a bunch. He and Shore are probably the only season PIMs leaders in the Top 20, right? I don't know how huge that is. Eddie Shore being mind tricked into a penalty by King Clancy has to be a demerit, as you put it. In terms of game awareness, Richard did seem to be the guy liable to lose his cool and cost you a PK and his services.

 

[blogofmike]

Yeah and I took it off the clearly and intentionally unfair playing ground posed and steered it back towards reasonable.

Don't care. Just want to win. Fire me all you want. Even in you're extreme scenario, I still have a better chance of winning.

In a 1000 PPO series, it's extremely likely that we'll spend the entire series on the power play...huge detriment to the other team scoring. We've out scored them 6 to 5 on the power play, so my chances of winning are higher.

We can keep going down this road all you want until you get to 5 > 6, but I think our time could be better spent elsewhere. When playoff series start being won and Cups start being awarded by percentages and ratios, then we'll look at it a different way. Until then...I'm gonna take the goal.

The fact that you went to GAA instead of GA shows you get that you get the efficiency argument.

Holtby gave up 50 GA in the playoffs. WORST IN THE NHL PLAYOFFS! Spread out over 4 series, all of a sudden, maybe he's an okay goalie and possibly better than John Gibson who only gave up 13.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I don't find PIMs to be automatically bad, not that you said that, but I just want it to be clear. When evaluating talent, there's a player "profile" that generally exists...a lot of players fit into a handful of molds (we've been discussing this is "player style" threads recently). Shore, in particular, feels like a player that fits into a certain mold and it's a mold that I don't like...and there's a lot of signs that point towards that hunch...

I think there's probably a hell of a lot more film on Richard than Shore...so I'd be happy to pour over some video and see what's what. I think it's an entirely necessary part of the project...and it's something we had much less of 10 years ago. There's much more film now. As soon as I clear the Hlinka Tournament and file my reports from that, I'll start watching some of this film in question...

 

[Michael Farkas]

The fact that you went to GAA instead of GA shows you get that you get the efficiency argument.

Holtby gave up 50 GA in the playoffs. WORST IN THE NHL PLAYOFFS! Spread out over 4 series, all of a sudden, maybe he's an okay goalie and possibly better than John Gibson who only gave up 13.

Doesn't make sense as posed. I'd scrap it...this isn't breaking your way and one thing that I hate to see is people and players compounding problems...

 

[Daximus]

How many teams qualified for the playoffs in the original six era? 4. So basically two rounds of playoff hockey had to be played. Compared to the 4 rounds that Ovie has to play now.

I'm sorry but comparing what had to be done to make a final in the O6 era to what has to be done to make a final now is so far apart its ridiculous to even try and compare the two. You had to beat out 2 teams to even make the playoffs.... you have a good enough team in the league you're a lock to make a final most years.

 

[blogofmike]

Doesn't make sense as posed. I'd scrap it...this isn't breaking your way and one thing that I hate to see is people and players compounding problems...

I hate to see people think scoring PP goals slower than your opposition can score SH goals is good for a PP. But let's move on.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Teams in O6 era didn't have the luxury of playing the 16th best team in the league...or 16th best goalie in the league...or 16th best defense pairing in the league. There's a give and take to it.

You're effectively saying that "the playoffs was just what our current Conference Final -> Stanley Cup Final setup" but yet, Ovechkin took 13 years to get into that level. Feasting on loser playoff goalies like Sergei Bobrovsky. Whose to say that he makes the playoffs at all under the old scenario, where teams can play you 13 times or whatever and learn your habits more readily.

 

[Canadiens1958]

I do not think I have seen enough of Richard to judge spatial awareness to the same level I can Ovechkin, but by reputation he lost his temper and took bad penalties a bunch. He and Shore are probably the only season PIMs leaders in the Top 20, right? I don't know how huge that is. Eddie Shore being mind tricked into a penalty by King Clancy has to be a demerit, as you put it. In terms of game awareness, Richard did seem to be the guy liable to lose his cool and cost you a PK and his services.

Spatial and situational awareness are not the same. There may be some overlap but not the instances referenced.

Being goaded into penalties is situational. Retaliating early vs waiting until the game is decided is situational.

Drifting offside, icing the puck a stride before the red line, deflecting the puck with a high stick is spatial.

 

[GreatGonzo]

Luxurious compilers have the luxury of playing on a team that allows them to go after their own objectives as opposed to focusing on team objectives.

That’s under the assumption that him scoring as many goals as he can isn’t helping his team.....which it does. There for your entire premise is flat out wrong.

They pay him to score goals, and he has done that at a level not many have seen. He isn’t going out of his way and against the teams initial game plan to score, just to pad his stats and look good.

This really shouldn’t be THAT difficult to understand.....

 

[GreatGonzo]

Teams in O6 era didn't have the luxury of playing the 16th best team in the league...or 16th best goalie in the league...or 16th best defense pairing in the league. There's a give and take to it.

You're effectively saying that "the playoffs was just what our current Conference Final -> Stanley Cup Final setup" but yet, Ovechkin took 13 years to get into that level. Feasting on loser playoff goalies like Sergei Bobrovsky. Whose to say that he makes the playoffs at all under the old scenario, where teams can play you 13 times or whatever and learn your habits more readily.

Except the best players/teams aren’t always guaranteed to advance. The playoffs now a days...the wild card teams have just as much of a chance at winning as the presidents trophy winners.

A lot of the teams that made the playoffs during the mid-late 70s were barely above 500 teams. Even teams with losing records made the playoffs.

 

[Michael Farkas]

1979-1991 - 21 teams, up to 16 made the playoffs. Not an accomplishment.

For the record, I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just posing a counter viewpoint to the O6 is easy peasy and that playing today is so hard...there's some merit, but it needs to be measured appropriately though...

 

[The Macho King]

1979-1991 - 21 teams, up to 16 made the playoffs. Not an accomplishment.

For the record, I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just posing a counter viewpoint to the O6 is easy peasy and that playing today is so hard...there's some merit, but it needs to be measured appropriately though...

I don't think the 06 was "easy peasy", but when one team is the Rangers, it basically is a five team league. It's easier for a great team to dominate for a stretch of time in a shallower competitive pool (either through number of teams, like the Habs of the late 50s, or through quality of teams, like the late 70s Habs). We're never going to see dynasties like that in a competitive, 31 team league (setting aside other issues like the Cap, Draft, etc.).

 

[Daximus]

I don't think the 06 was "easy peasy", but when one team is the Rangers, it basically is a five team league. It's easier for a great team to dominate for a stretch of time in a shallower competitive pool (either through number of teams, like the Habs of the late 50s, or through quality of teams, like the late 70s Habs). We're never going to see dynasties like that in a competitive, 31 team league (setting aside other issues like the Cap, Draft, etc.).

Yeah I seriously doubt we ever see another team make the Cup finals 10 years in a row let alone win it 6 times, 5 of which were back to back. I'm not saying it's easy peasy but it's definitely not harder than it currently is. Two rounds of playoff hockey is nothing compared to 4 even with competition being potentially lower. The current run to the Cup is far more grueling. Although you don't have the violence you did back then.

 

[Daximus]

Teams in O6 era didn't have the luxury of playing the 16th best team in the league...or 16th best goalie in the league...or 16th best defense pairing in the league. There's a give and take to it.

You're effectively saying that "the playoffs was just what our current Conference Final -> Stanley Cup Final setup" but yet, Ovechkin took 13 years to get into that level. Feasting on loser playoff goalies like Sergei Bobrovsky. Whose to say that he makes the playoffs at all under the old scenario, where teams can play you 13 times or whatever and learn your habits more readily.

That can go in the favor of a top team. Some of those O6 Habs win were not close. Sweeps or 4-1 series. When you are by far the best team in the league in a 6 team league it's a cakewalk.

 

[Michael Farkas]

When you're "by far the best team in the league", it should be a cakewalk...didn't work out for the 1930 Bruins...the best team in history by win%.

1977 Habs, in an 18-team league, ran roughshod over the league...

 

[Daximus]

When you're "by far the best team in the league", it should be a cakewalk...didn't work out for the 1930 Bruins...the best team in history by win%.

1977 Habs, in an 18-team league, ran roughshod over the league...

Yeah the late 70s Habs ran over the league for 3 year straight. But I just think you will see less and less of that. The number of teams have gone up but I feel the overall strength of the league hasn't gotten weaker. Especially as the CBA keeps changing to take away the advantage of wealthier teams. Draft and develop seems to be taking over a lot more now. With a cap it seems young players on ELCs are becoming crucial. The league is so completely different today than it was even before the lockout. Sure we have a similar number of Cup winners. I think we will see more and more diversity in winners as the CBA keeps clamping down on player movement. Winning back to backs in this era will be a lot more difficult then it ever has been.

 

[Michael Farkas]

After the Habs ran though the league, they added WHA players, more Europeans and the league got weaker. Basically only two teams won in the 80s. The offensively-charged Oilers and the defensively-responsible Islanders.

I'm not seeing where we're going with this...or its real relevance, respectfully...

 

[BenchBrawl]

Consecutiveness of prime years is valuable to build up star power and to be a sure value for your team in a cup window.It is also a much harder feat.Even harder if you include a dynasty in that timeframe.It's an infernal pace to keep up for 2-3 years, nevermind 6.