Andy Bathgate and the VsX Project
TDMM made the point earlier, and BBS admitted that the way that the VsX project treats the years that Andy Bathgate played is quite favorable to him. In the years where Bathgate was above 50 in VsX, here were the benchmarks:
1954-55:
2. M. Richard - 74
1955-56:
1. Beliveau - 88
2. Howe - 79
3. M. Richard - 71
...benchmark = M. Richard: 71
1956-57:
1. Howe - 89
2. Lindsay - 85
3. Beliveau - 84
4. Bathgate - 77
5. Litzenberger - 64
6. M. Richard - 62
7. McKenney - 60
8. Moore - 58
...average as benchmark: 72
1957-58:
1. Moore - 84
2. H. Richard - 80
3. Bathgate - 78
4. Howe - 77
5. Horvath - 66
6. Litzenberger - 62
7. MacKell - 60
8. Delvecchio - 59
...average as benchmark: 71
1958-59:
1. Moore - 96
2. Beliveau - 91
3. Bathgate - 88
4. Howe - 78
5. Litzenberger - 77
6. Geoffrion - 66
7. Sullivan - 63
8. Hebenton - 62
8. Sloan - 62
8. McKenney - 62
...average as benchmark: 75
1959-60:
2. Horvath - 80
1960-61:
2. Beliveau - 90
1961-62:
1. Hull/Bathgate - 84
1962-63:
2. Bathgate - 81
1963-64:
1. Mikita - 89
2. Hull - 87
3. Beliveau - 78
...benchmark = Beliveau: 78
1964-65:
2. Ullman - 83
1965-66:
2. Rousseau/Mikita - 78
1967-68:
2. Esposito - 84
1956-57 to 1958-59 are the 3 years that I really disagree with the system. In those years, Bathgate receives scores of 107, 110, and 117. Scores this high are typically reserved for the guy that leads the league in scoring, not the guy who finishes 3rd, 4th, and 4th. This system is supposed to be based on Vs2, with adjustments for years where the 2nd place scorer is an outlier. This is most important when dealing with the Bruins of the 70s, and scoring in the 1980s, not really scoring in the 1950s. The argument is that the Red Wings and the Canadiens were so far ahead of everyone else that they blew away the scoring race, and guys that were near 5th in scoring should be used as the benchmark. I disagree. I know Sturm used a uniform formula throughout, and he has admitted that the system isn't perfect, so I'm definitely not blaming him here. But when you look at those three seasons, and look at the top five scorers, there are four different teams represented in the top 5 scorers in each of those 3 years. It's not as if there was no parity in scoring leaders across the league, there definitely was. Some teams were certainly better than others, but not to the extent that the system says IMO. I can see the argument for 57-58 and 58-59 because the Canadiens blew away the field in terms of team goals scored(the Red Wings didn't), but in 56-57 the totals for the 6 teams were 210, 198, 195, 184, 174, and 169. Certainly nothing crazy about that, and certainly not deserving of using a guy that would be in 5th as the benchmark.
BBS mentioned earlier that it would be reasonable to knock off 10 points of Bathgate's VsX scores for these years, but I think even that is a little light, considering it would still leave him with 107, 100, and 97. Those numbers look like a guy that should be around 2nd. I'm not sure exactly where that should leave us regarding these finishes. I think a little more than 10 should be knocked off, but I'm not sure how much. While I'm at it, I'll compare Bathgate to Ovechkin, knocking off 10 points a year(which I find conservative) for those 3 years for Bathgate.
Bathgate: 107, 100, 100, 100, 99, 97, 93, 93, 86, 70, 60, 54, 54
Ovechkin: 106, 100, 100, 100, 86, 81, 67
During their four peak years, Ovechkin was just as good as Bathgate(soon to be 5 years because OV will likely add another finish in the high 90s this season), but after that, Bathgate's longevity pulls away. Bathgate is definitely the superior offensive player, but at their peaks, Bathgate wasn't any better than Ovechkin was a few years ago. In fact, many could make the argument Ovechkin was even better at his peak than Bathgate considering he got these high finishes scoring goals, which are considered more valuable than assists, which Bathgate had more of. There's also the matter of Hart voting, where Ovechkin is significantly better. Neither one has had very good(in an all time context) linemates to work with. Ovechkin has led his teams in points all 8 years he's been in the league, and Bathgate did that 9 times in his career.
On the matter of Bathgate's playoff scoring, here is how he finished among teammates in scoring in the playoffs:
55-56: 2nd with 3 points in 5 games(behind defenseman Bill Gadsby)
56-57: 6th with 2 points in 5 games(behind Camille Henry, Dave Creighton, Bill Gadsby, Red Sullivan, and Larry Popein)
57-58: 1st with 8 points in 6 games
61-62: 6th with 3 points in 6 games(behind Earl Ingarfield, Dave Balon, Rod Gilbert, Jean-Guy Gendron, and Johnny Wilson)
63-64: 5th with 9 points in 14 games(behind Frank Mahovlich, George Armstrong, Red Kelly, and Don McKenney)
64-65: 10th with 1 point in 6 games(behind Red Kelly, Dave Keon, Ron Ellis, Carl Brewer, Frank Mahovlich, Pete Stemkowski, Dickie Moore, Bob Pulford, and Tim Horton)
65-66: 5th with 9 points in 12 games(behind Norm Ullman, Alex Delvecchio, Dean Prentice, and Gordie Howe)
The fact that he was the main offensive weapon on those Ranger teams, and that he was the one they keyed on definitely played a part in this, but that resume is downright brutal. It's not like teams didn't key on him during the regular season. They knew very well that he was THE GUY to cover on the Rangers in the regular season, and he put up fantastic numbers. Checking may have gotten a bit tighter in the playoffs, but how much more could they key in on the one offensive dynamo on a team of scrubs in the playoffs compared to the regular season? It wasn't just a thing in New York either. When he led the league in assists in 63-64 and was 4th in points, he managed to only be 5th on his team in points in the playoffs when there was considerable depth around him that the other team had to pay attention to. He still didn't thrive. In the regular season, his PPG was .910. In the playoffs, it drops to .648. That's a huge decrease in offense.
Now, it's not as though Ovechkin's teams have been all that successful in the playoffs, but it certainly hasn't been his fault. He plays at over a PPG in the playoffs, and, you guessed it, has led his team in scoring in the playoffs every year the Capitals have made it(5 years out of 7).
Bert Olmstead also sees a significant decrease in his scoring when it comes to the playoffs. He averaged .710PPG during the regular season, but that number drops to .513 in the playoffs. He had two very solid playoff runs in cup years 55-56 and 56-57, but was otherwise pretty mediocre. When he had his 2nd, 3rd, and 4th best VsX seasons, he managed just 9 points in 35 playoff games. In his best season, he had a strong playoff with 14 points in 10 games. In the other 3 cup years he won, he had a combined 8 points in 25 games(four of those games were at the very end of his career when he had one point, but the other two were when he was 26 and 31.) His effectiveness seemed to be really curbed in the playoffs, and he was playing around tremendous talent that was certainly keyed on more than he was.
I'm going to address Jean Ratelle and Joe Thornton's playoff records right now, because I'm sure someone is going to bring it up(I'm surprised someone hasn't tried already).
When Ratelle was on the Rangers, his playoff resume was underwhelming. Here it is:
66-67: 0 points in 4 games, had been hurt for a good bit of the season and the leader only managed 4 points
67-68: 4 points in 5 games, 2nd behind Gilbert
68-69: 1 point in 4 games, 5th behind leader Hadfield with 3 points
69-70: 4 points in 5 games, 2nd behind Gilbert
70-71: 11 points in 13 games, 2nd behind Hadfield
71-72: 1 point in 6 games, rest of team played 16 games, this was the year Ratelle was on track to win the MVP, and then he got hurt, I'm assuming he came back for the cup run, clearly still hurt
72-73: 9 points in 10 games, 1st(tied with 3 others; Vickers, Fairbairn, Tkaczuk)
73-74: 6 points in 13 games, 10th(leader Stemkowski had 12)
74-75: 6 points in 3 games, 1st(tied with Vickers)
Traded to Boston
75-76: 16 points in 12 games, 1st(second had 11)
76-77: 17 points in 14 games, 1st(second had 12)
77-78: 10 points in 15 games, 6th(leader Park had 20)
78-79: 13 points in 11 games, 1st(second had 12)
79-80: 0 points in 3 games, rest of the team played 10 games
80-81: 0 points in 3 games, leader had 4 points
By those last 2 years, Ratelle was 39/40 and clearly behind his prime. The important points here are that a) his playoffs in NY weren't all that bad, New York just wasn't that great of a team. He led them in playoff scoring twice, and was second three times. When you look at the four playoffs that could possibly be construed as "bad" he was hurt in the regular season and seemingly never got back on track(he never really got on track at all in 66-67, he was only 26, which is young in Ratelle terms) for two of them, one was a bad four game series where the team got swept, and the other one just wasn't a good playoff performance. Then, the pivot point in his career, being traded to Boston. Previously, the theory behind his playoff struggles was that New York didn't protect him enough in the playoffs, and he got beat up because he wasn't a physical player, despite having Vic Hadfield on his wing. Don Cherry, his coach in Boston, had another theory:
"They damned near ruined Jean in New York and it was pretty stupid," said Don Cherry. "They wore him out for the playoffs in New York. They never gave him a day off from practice. They had him on the ice every day and made him burn himself out before the playoffs. That's why he never did much in the playoffs with the Rangers. Look at how he changed in Boston: average more than a point a game in the playoffs."
"I told Jean once that if I saw him in practice the day after a game I'd fine him. I knew that he wasn't the strongest guy in the world and he was up there in years and still killing penalties and working the power play and taking all the important faceoffs. You've got to be crazy not to give a guy like that a day off, especially when you know he busts his tail and always keeps himself in shape.
With Ratelle here, he's not going to be playing those front-line minutes that he played in New York, giving him more rest in-game, and we're going to be sure to give him enough rest and not wear him out before the playoffs. Just like he had Vic Hadfield as his bodyguard, he's got two willing fighters flanking him now in Dave Trottier and Danny Gare if anyone challenges him. Pittsburgh isn't all that physical of a team, so I don't see this as a problem. Despite the fact that his best regular season offense was clearly behind him, he managed to put up his best playoff numbers in Boston because they didn't run him ragged. I think we have every reason to think the Ratelle we'll get in the playoffs is more like the Boston version than the NYR one.
Moving to Joe Thornton, his case is even simpler than Ratelle. He gets a bad rap for having one bad playoff year, 03-04. People like to say he went pointless in 6 games in 97-98, but forget he was an 18 year old rookie. Here's where he stood among teammates:
97-98: 0 points in 6 games, 18 year old rookie
98-99: 9 points in 11 games, 3rd on team behind Bourque & Allison
01-02: 6 points in 6 games, 1st(tied with Guerin)
02-03: 5 points in 3 games, 1st(tied with McGillis)
03-04: 0 points in 7 games, leader had 7 points
05-06: 9 points in 14 games, 2nd behind Marleau
06-07: 11 points in 11 games, 1st(second had 6 points)
07-08: 9 points in 13 games, 1st
08-09: 5 points in 6 games, 1st
09-10: 12 points in 15 games, 5th(leader had 17)
10-11: 17 points in 18 games, 1st
11-12: 5 points in 5 games, 1st
There are also a number of quotes showing that Thornton devoted himself to more of a two-way game during the playoffs, sacrificing some offense in the process. While he hasn't been a great playoff performer, you can see from this that he hasn't been the problem with his teams in the playoffs.