markrander87
Registered User
- Jan 22, 2010
- 4,216
- 61
Steals happen. Get over it.
How would you know?...Explain to us how he is a steal?
Explain how he even comes close to Gus Bodnar or Billy McGimsie or even Mike Rebeiro......I'll wait.
Steals happen. Get over it.
How would you know?...Explain to us how he is a steal?
Explain how he even comes close to Gus Bodnar or Billy McGimsie or even Mike Rebeiro......I'll wait.
Golonka
It's tough to get a full picture of Golonka. I generally assume that domestic scoring finishes before a league becomes strong are meaningless as comparisons*. But I do think he should get some credit for what he did in International Tournaments, I'm just not sure who to compare him to.
*To clarify, I don't mean that what Golonka did before 1965 is meaningless - everything a player does is worth something. I mean that if a league isn't strong yet, ranking 2nd or 3rd in scoring among a bunch of unknowns isn't impressive on its own.
Based on his stats in this thread, Jaroslav Holik seems like the best comparable for later years after the CSSR domestic league had gotten stronger - 1968-69 was the last season either man was a factor in domestic scoring.
From 1965-66 to 1968-69 (the last 4 years of Golonka's prime), he had 175 points to 219 points for Jaroslav Holik. So assuming that neither man missed significant games (something I'm not going to do the research to confirm), it would appear that Golonka is 80% as good offensively as Jaroslav Holik. Your guess is as good as mine as to what that means compared to the worldwide talent pool.
I realize that Vaclav Nedomansky (a guy we think of much more highly than Jaroslav Holik) had some good seasons in the late 60s, but he doesn't appear to have become dominant until 1970-71, which is why I didn't use him as a comparison.
Disclaimer: Obviously, this comparison isn't meaningful if Golonka and Holik didn't play a similar number of games over the time frame.
Reading through his bio, there is quite a lot there to justify his intangibles. I'm willing to accept that he's a solid, all around player, not JUST an offense first guy.. so when you can combine those qualities with a good offensive track record, a guy like that isn't exactly common in the MLD. Also, even though the DEPTH in the Czech leagues wasn't great when Golonka played, the elite talent at the top most certainly was. He's no Milan Novy, but he's certainly worthy offensively at this level.. perhaps not as a top line C, but when you consider his intangibles, it's a rather enticing package.
Initial impressions.
- The biggest advantage that Eden Hall possesses is balance - the team is built to be able to both score and defend at a high level. Regina is a great defensive team, but they lack offensive firepower. If Eden Hall has the lead, Julien can have the team really lock down, secure in the knowledge that Regina doesn't have the offensive game breakers to really break through. Eden Hall, on the other hand, has some serious firepower - which can help if we trail, or help really put the game out of reach if we get a lead of a couple of goals.
- Regina has a very weak powerplay, which really makes it a viable strategy for Eden Hall's larger defensemen to freely rough up Regina's smaller forwards.
a) Defensemen
Seems like Sargent is barely better than Ehrhoff on a per-game basis. And Ehrhoff kept up that average over 500 games, while Sargent only played 402, so I think they are basically equals on the powerplay.
b) Lack of offense up front also hurts Regina on the PP just like it does at even strength. Darcy Tucker on the PP?
a) Gary Sargent
Over Sargent's regular season career (75-76 to 82-83), he missed a whopping 38% of the available games, playing only 402 of his team's 640 games over this stretch. To be fair, we should remove his final season, when he was basically hanging on by a thread, but then he only played 384 of his team's 560 games, still missing a solid 31% of his team's regular season games.
In Gary Sargent's playoff career, he only played in 20 of the 35 games his team was involved in. In other words, he missed 43% of the playoff games his teams played in over his career.
What does it mean for this series?
If the series goes 7 games,
31% missed would be 2.17 games.
38% missed would be 2.66 games
43% missed would be 3.01 games
Conclusion: On average, Gary Sargent can be expected to miss 2-3 games per 7 game series with injury. When Sargent is injured, Regina's powerplay, already fairly weak, because absolutely impotent.
Seventieslord likes to bring up how much ice time Sargent saw when he actually played, but maybe he would have been able to actually stay healthy if he played fewer minutes?
b) Jan Erixon
Over Erixon's regular season career (1983-84 to 1992-93), he missed 31% of his team's regular season games, playing in only 556 of 804 available games.
In Erixon's playoff career, he did play in 58 of his team's 63 playoff games, a very respectable number.
Based on Erixon's regular season career, we would expect him to miss an average of 2 games per 7 game series. He generally didn't miss games in the playoffs, however. I'm not sure how to account for that. I definitely don't think he should get full credit for his "per game" regular season accomplishments when he missed so many games.
Moderator vs. Moderator.
Evans & Buswell vs. Armstrong & Kampman.
McGimsie vs. Gingras.
Stunning! Truly stunning!
Good luck everyone!
Annnnd we're done here.
First pairing = slight advantage Regina
Jack Evans = Bob Armstrong
Seventieslord posted earlier that he didn't understand why Evans was a MLD All-Star and Armstrong wasn't, when they are basically the same defenseman. And he's right - they were very similar players. Armstrong seemed to fight more often, while Evans used his massive physical strength in a more controlled manner, but they seem to have gotten similar results.
Mike O'Connell < Gordie Roberts (by a little)
offense: O'Connell > Roberts
defense: O'Connell < Roberts
overall peak: O'Connell = Roberts
longevity: O'Connell < Roberts
Roberts gets a slight advantage because he rebranded himself a depth defensive defenseman and won two Cups late in his career in Pittsburgh as a depth player, giving him more career value.
Basically, the only thing that puts Roberts over O'Connell is longevity as a productive player, but that is something that matters to me.
Second pairing = moderate advantage Eden Hall
Walt Buswell = Jack Portland
They played in the same era and have very similar Norris records. Portland was a bigger hitter, and Buswell more controlled, but they seem to have gotten similar results.
Brian Campbell >>> Barry Gibbs (by a lot)
Campbell has been discussed to death in this thread. Barry Gibbs doesn't stack up:
- Norris record: Campbell (5th, 10th); Gibbs (none)
- All Star record: Campbell (4th, 9th, 16th); Gibbs (11th, 13th)
- All Star games: Campbell (2007, 2008, 2009); Gibbs (1973)
- Competition for above: Campbell (modern talent pool); Gibbs (70s NHL when many of the best players were in Europe or the WHA)
- 5 year peak offense: Campbell (9th among dmen, 92% of 2nd place Niedermayer, 93% of 3rd place Pronger)); Gibbs (15th among dmen, 51% of 2nd place Park, 55% of 3rd place Lapointe)
- Contribution to team success: Campbell (#1 on a President's Trophy winner, #3 on a Cup winner); Gibbs (#1 defenseman 9 times on 2 different expansion teams)
- Playoff totals: Campbell (38 points in 90 games); Gibbs (6 points in 36 games)
- Playoff highlight: Campbell (led the 2010 Cup winner in +/- from the second pairing); Gibbs (1 assist and 47 PIMs in 1971 as his team lost in the second round - the only time one of Gibbs teams made it past the first round in his career)
Basically, Gibbs' role in history is as the undisputed #1 of the expansion North Stars, followed by the expansion Flames, teams that won a single playoff round between them. Basically the best fish out of a rotten bunch.
What did Gibbs do with his massive ice time?:
- In 1973-74, more goals were scored against Gibbs' team when he was on the ice than any other defenseman in the NHL
- In 1978-79, Gibbs' was second in goals against to Rick Green, the number one defenseman on the Washington Capitals, one of the worst teams of all-time.
- This means Gibbs was an outlier away from the dubious distinction of twice leading the NHL in goals against his team while he was on the ice.
- Of course, Gibbs' massive goals-against numbers are products of being the #1 guy on awful teams. But so are his massive ice time numbers that are the main reason seventieslord drafted him.
Bottom pairing = slight advantage Regina
Christian Ehrhoff >> Gary Sargent (by a moderate amount)
- Norris record: Ehrhoff (8th, 9th); Sargent (8th)
- All Star record: Ehrhoff (7th, 11th); Sargent (12th)
- longevity: Ehrhoff (500 games); Sargent (406 games)
- playoffs: Ehrhoff (34 points in 73 games); Sargent (12 points in 20 games)
Ehrhoff beats Sargent in both peak and longevity.
You have an opinion of how good he was, but you can't accurately place him in an ATD setting without comparing him to the other players
Since Doughty was supposed to be the slam-dunk easy first pick of the AAA draft, you should compare Campbell to him. Doughty's career doesn't match Campbell's - not even close.
Regina has been riding to the finals with their defense , but I'm not sure they can make it happen this time.Edan Hall has a very solid group of defensemen (stronger than any previous Regina opponants ) but the key is they have a clear edge at forward in my humble opinion.I would need some serious convincing on seventieslord's part that his defense is better than Eden Hall or that his forward group is not that behind Edan Hall's group.
I'm still wondering why Golonka who was drafted in the 8th round is consistently being voted a top star in these playoffs. Is it because he is there first line centre and has a "C" next to his name?
People seem to forget that his offense and intangibles are relative to the guys he played against. He played in the 3rd or 4th best league in the world, and it's players were not known for their physical play.
People seem to forget that his offense and intangibles are relative to the guys he played against. He played in the 3rd or 4th best league in the world, and it's players were not known for their physical play.
Golonka was 5'8 155lbs playing in the 1960's NOT the 1890's, how exactly is he being deemed such a beast in terms of intangibles again?
Read his bio. A lot of those ravings about his intangibles were referring to international games.
Golonka
It's tough to get a full picture of Golonka. I generally assume that domestic scoring finishes before a league becomes strong are meaningless as comparisons*. But I do think he should get some credit for what he did in International Tournaments, I'm just not sure who to compare him to.
*To clarify, I don't mean that what Golonka did before 1965 is meaningless - everything a player does is worth something. I mean that if a league isn't strong yet, ranking 2nd or 3rd in scoring among a bunch of unknowns isn't impressive on its own.
Based on his stats in this thread, Jaroslav Holik seems like the best comparable for later years after the CSSR domestic league had gotten stronger - 1968-69 was the last season either man was a factor in domestic scoring.
From 1965-66 to 1968-69 (the last 4 years of Golonka's prime), he had 175 points to 219 points for Jaroslav Holik. So assuming that neither man missed significant games (something I'm not going to do the research to confirm), it would appear that Golonka is 80% as good offensively as Jaroslav Holik. Your guess is as good as mine as to what that means compared to the worldwide talent pool.
I realize that Vaclav Nedomansky (a guy we think of much more highly than Jaroslav Holik) had some good seasons in the late 60s, but he doesn't appear to have become dominant until 1970-71, which is why I didn't use him as a comparison.
Disclaimer: Obviously, this comparison isn't meaningful if Golonka and Holik didn't play a similar number of games over the time frame.
there were a couple of big wins over the Soviets that Golonka played a big part in. In one of those years they didn't even medal editor's note: they did, actually) but the win against the Soviets was considered a big enough achievement.
He had 64 points in 61 major international games. Starshinov had 101 in 86 in basically the same years and tournaments; about 10% more per-game and over more games, so clearly better, but also with better linemates and teammates.
Golonka led the 1965 worlds in points by a three point margin over any soviet (editor's note, he was also voted top player), with his prime competition being the Academia line and the Starsh line. In 1959, he was 3rd, but the soviet competition wasn't nearly as strong. Tourney leader was Red Berenson, though, with two more points. In '67 he led the Czechs by a 2-point margin but was 6th overall, behind 5 soviets. In '68, he led the Czechs and was 5th behind 4 soviets.
more, now that I am home:
results in the 8 tournaments Golonka played in:
1959: Czechs 3rd, Sweden 5th
1960: Czechs 4th, Sweden 5th, CZE beat SWE 3-1
1964: Czechs 3rd, Sweden 2nd, SWE beat CZE 8-3
1965: Czechs 2nd, Sweden 3rd, CZE beat SWE 3-2
1966: Czechs 2nd, Sweden 4th, CZE beat SWE 2-1
1967: Czechs 4th, Sweden 2nd, they tied 5-5
1968: Czechs 2nd, Sweden 4th, they tied 2-2
1969: Czechs 3rd, Sweden 2nd, SWE beat CZE 1-0
Total: 2.9 avg for the Czechs, 3.4 for the Swedes, they had a 3-2-2 record vs Sweden with a goal differential of 18-20.
42-16-3 (.713). 320 GF, 154 GA
34-21-6 (.607). 277 GF, 160 GA
17% higher win%, 16% better offense, 3% better defense.
vs. Soviets:
CZE
5-8
5-7
4-5
3-4
1-3
1-7
2-4
2-0
4-3
Total: 2-7-0, 27-41. (editor's note, I missed a second win before but added it in now)
SWE
2-2
2-4
2-3
2-4
3-5
3-3
1-9
2-4
Total: 0-6-2, 17-34.
Conclusion: The Czechs were marginally better than the Swedes, based on their results against eachother, against the same powerful opponent and against the overall competition
People seem to forget that his offense and intangibles are relative to the guys he played against. He played in the 3rd or 4th best league in the world, and it's players were not known for their physical play.
Golonka was 5'8 155lbs playing in the 1960's NOT the 1890's, how exactly is he being deemed such a beast in terms of intangibles again?
I see Golonka as more of a pest than a power forward. His antics that are listed in seventies' profile more or less confirm this.
International games.... made up of players from which leagues?
Canadian AMATEURS regularly placed in the top 10 in tournament scoring. Guys like Francis Huck and Gary Dineen outscored Golonka.
Although that is a "more viable" strategy than it might usually be, it doesn't mean it actually is viable. If you give any team enough powerplays, they will make you pay. I happen to think our forwards in the top-6 are at least average offensively, and since the same 6 forwards are on our PP (with one exchanged) there's no reason our PP shouldn't be considered that as well. However, the main focus all along has been, for some reason "omg, Sargent on both PP units!!!"
Also, small does not equal soft. And two of my forwards in the top-6 have unknown dimensions and should be considered average. So how small is this top-6, really? I think it's been overstated.
Difference, of course, being that Sargent did literally everything for his teams while Ehrhoff was a pure offensive specialist for 5 of his 7 seasons thus far.
Tucker had some success on the PP in his career, particularly with the tap-in from the right side. Seriously, MLD 2nd unit and he's getting flak?
All three of Regina's spares have legitimate ability. Weinrich consistently had 15-20 ESP, his point spikes come from the seasons in which his PP usage was 43-69%, and acquitted himself well in those years with 12-18 extra points. He's our #7, and he's definitely the guy who comes in if Sargent goes down. Both were so much more than offensive specialists but only really need to be that here, in order to be successful.
PP units with Sargent down:
Roberts-Weinrich
Roberts-Gibbs
this would, of course, change Roberts' ES and PK situations. (he would not be missed on the PK)
That's really lame to say, unless, of course, you actually have something to support it.
injury-wrecked players, when playing partial seasons, almost always tend to have lower TOI stats as well, as the team works them back into the lineup gradually, or as they play hurt a lot. Sargent is no exception. Since basically half the span of his career was in such a state, this actually hurts his career icetime average. He was playing 28-29 minutes in the 1977-1979 seasons, and since he missed 11 games in total in those three seasons and his injuries began the following season, at which point his icetime began to decline, there's absolutely nothing to support your statement.
It is fair to say that Erixon might miss 0-2 games out of 7. I don't disagree with your methodology or your assessment.
While in the lineup, he will be the best defensive forward on the ice by a country mile. Let me just point out that when he was top-9 in Selke voting 5 times, a lot of times that was despite missing a lot of games, which was surely factored into the votes. In other words, Selke voting is not a per-game stat.
- my defense is clearly better, their forwards are clearly better. I will no doubt attempt to demonstrate that my advantage outweighs theirs, and they'll no doubt try to do the same. It's a toss up and I don't really care what happens now that the two best teams are deservedly here.
definitely not. Evans is my favourite non-Regina defenseman in this draft, but he's not as good as Armstrong. We're talking about a defenseman with four seasons of significant to "worthy of mention" norris voting seasons, and a guy with one. You know as well as I do, that Evans' single vote in 1961 is meaningless. So we are looking at two guys with similar styles, and one was 7th in voting once, the other was 7th, 8th, 9th, and 13th (plus the 8th was a 5th in AS voting, even if I don't know where I got that right now)
you forgot size/physicality/toughness, all advantages in Roberts' favour.
offense: O'connell's percentages over 50%, same criteria I used in my last series: 72, 72, 71, 70, 51. Roberts: 66, 62, 58, 55, 52*, 52*, 51. While it is true that O'Connell had four seasons better than any of Roberts' offensively, the difference in them is actually quite marginal in those top-4 seasons, and Roberts had three seasons of significance on top of that.
lastly, both had about the same significance to their teams, but Roberts was able to be a contributor to much more successful teams in the playoffs in his career, evidenced by almost twice as many playoff games, 2.5X as much if you include the WHA.
I would give O'Connell the edge in "peak offense" but little else.
close, but I can't say I agree 100%. Buswell's voting record is 6th, 8th, 10th, with a total of 15 voting points in those three seasons (7, 6, 2). Portland's is 5th, 7th, 8th, with a total of 20 voting points (11, 6, 3).
Portland was also much bigger and more intimidating.
The above is enough to claim a definite edge, here are some more smaller reasons: Portland played more games and was able to contribute more to the offense, he also got into more playoff games and contributed to a stanley cup.
Let's start by talking about that 9th/10th in all-star/norris voting for Campbell. And let's do it using a common sense approach and our own eyes since it was 5 years ago, and to show we aren't a slave to the all-star votes that got us so far.
TDMM - do you seriously believe that Brian Campbell was the 9th-10th-best defenseman in the NHL in 2007?
There are now twice as many #1 D-man spots out there, and Campbell wasn't one until 2007, then again in 2008, and he hasn't been one since. Yeah, he's behind Keith and Seabrook, but is he a #1 defenseman otherwise? A top-30 guy in the NHL? Not by a long shot. His resume is based on two very good seasons, and being the #3 on a cup winner in a season that was "meh" individually.
For historical players, we have to rely on contemporary opinions a lot of times, but this is a modern player and we know a lot more about them without even having to look at the voting.
Here are some of the defensemen Gibbs was getting more minutes than, doled out by no less than 9 NHL coaches:
Leo Boivin
Doug Mohns
Ted Harris
Gary Bergman
Pat Quinn
Randy Manery
Dick Redmond
Rod Seiling
career paths notwithstanding, that is not a "rotten bunch".
those names did not come from his time with Atlanta, where, with Gibbs playing the most minutes, they cracked .500 in all three of his full seasons there. (they also did twice in Minnesota)
Aside from goaltender-driven playoff results and pp-driven offensive totals, there is a good case to be made that Gibbs has a resume very similar to your boy Zhitnink.
Now going back to Campbell, who's only been a #1 defenseman twice, versus Gibbs, who did it 9 times. Yeah, there was a difference in the talent pool - it's safe to say that the NHL talent doubled in that time, meaning Gibbs' results in all-star voting are more like 22nd and 26th. But if you're honest with yourself, you will acknowledge that Campbell has truly only had one season that was clearly better than that status - 2007, his all-star year, and we both know he wasn't truly 4th-best in the NHL, although he may not have been far off either.
It's also possible that Campbell is a guy buried behind good players (for example, maybe he's 20th-best in the NHL and playing behind #2 and #15) and it's also possible that Gibbs was the best of a rotten bunch (maybe he was only the equivalent of 50th-best in the NHL and the next-best guys on his team were about 100th-best). But surely you must see that that is a pretty big stretch to suggest that. There were big parity issues in the 70s but that would be just insane.
In the three seasons that gibbs was the "#1 of a slightly above average team", and not recognized in all-star voting, it's quite plausible - probable, even - that he was just outside the realm of recognized players: perhaps 16th-20th in the league. And in the other 4 years where he anchored, well, an anchor, he could have been that good, but more realistically could have been 20th-25th in the league.
- Campbell's all-star season
- campbell's 2007
- Gibbs' five seasons as the #1 of a .500+ team
- some mix of Gibbs' other 4 significant seasons and Campbell's last three
- Campbell's 2006
You are badly underappreciating Gibbs, while riding an all-starrecord for Campbell that most would agree isn't 100% deserved.
Gibbs' massive GA numbers are also products of him being the #1 penalty killer for bad teams, and of course goals happen at a higher rate on special teams. So this doesn't surprise me. If nine different coaches made him their #1 defenseman, that says a lot more to me.
Unfortunately, I can't do a similar study for Campbell, because, aside from two seasons, he was never given close to enough minutes to place highly in goals against. I would bet, however, that on a per-minute basis he was much more porous than average.
This is what McKeen's 2011 has to say about Campbell's defense after raving about his skating:
not as effective when the game slows down however... gets static when defending around the crease and is prone to coughing the puck up on retrievals... still gets impatient and over-pursues 1-on-1, yet is progressing steadily as a defender...
"still progressing steadily"? at age 31? Sounds like he's still well below average in his own end, and only "acceptable" if that means "acceptable considering he moves the puck well and is a PP option"
See, here's the thing. Sargent was an all-around defenseman. Ehrhorr, aside from the last two years, is an offensive defenseman. It's apples to much better-tasting apples.
again - do you really think Ehrhoff deserved to place that highly? He was very good and finally became a #1 defenseman the last two seasons, but a top-10 guy?
also, it's nice that he's played in that many playoff games, but has he played that well in them? Looking back to last season, Ehrhoff posted the worst +/- of anyone to make the finals in 29 years of the stat being tracked in the playoffs, and the worst mark by a country mile, when adjusted for league scoring (Robitaille's 1993, for example, tied him, but scoring was 30% higher and he played an extra game). Ehrhoff was their #1 defenseman in the regular season, but became the #3 in the playoffs - why do you think that is?
Ehrhoff ranked 5, 4, 2, 5 in TOI on his teams before coming to Vancouver and was little more than a PP specialist - very unimpressive overall.
You're drafting him really for the last two seasons, and I'm drafting Sargent for three. (plus he was playing at an all-star caliber in a 4th, hence being named to the ASG, I assume missing that was a mistake on your part) To give Ehrhoff a longevity advantage is to really just give him points for "showing up to work" in parts of five other seasons.
You are right. I tried to explain this to him on msn as well. I am not a Campbell fan, clearly, but he's not quite as bad as jarek thinks either.
Doughty's three best seasons (his only three) when matched up to Campbells are all better, by significant, but not huge, amounts. Campbell take the edge only by longevity as a good NHLer (and I speak only of 06, 09, 10, 11 when I say that, obviously)
I will post more on Golonka later. For now I will tell you that a couple months ago when TDMM questioned him via PM (specifically what makes him better offensively than Zabrodsky), I explained Golonka's international credentials in-depth and he did not reply.
In my opinion, Ehrhoff was part of the problem as to why Vancouver didn't win the cup. Very, very indifferent defensively. It happened on more than one occasion where he was really lazy to return to defend. Ehrhoff was also a team worst -13.. Henrik was -11. Nobody else was double digits. Ehrhoff absolutely stands out as an aberration to that Canucks run in terms of defensive play.
Absolutely, Ehrhoff was part of the problem when they lost, but he was also part of the solution when they won.
He was also a big part of the reason they came so close to winning - he was 5th on the team in overall scoring and 1st among defensemen, despite missing 2 games due to injury.
If the Canucks won the Cup and Ehrhoff played better, he'd be in someone's top 4 and deserve it. As is, he's an above-average offensive minded #5, one who I think has had a better peak and career than Gary Sargent.
This isn't really ATD-specific, but has there ever been another team that was 1 game away from winning the Cup where the public perception of basically every key player on the team goes down, rather than up?
Just as an aside about Ehrhoff.. in the playoffs last year, he was only really prevalent in 2 games against Nashville, scoring 5 points, and 3 games against Chicago, scoring 4 points (1 of them in a 7-2 loss). 9 of his 12 points came in 5 of 23 games. He was otherwise a dud, including 1 point in the finals.
It certainly wasn't an all time great playoff run.
Here are some fun facts though:
Ehrhoff playoff career = 34 points in 73 games.
Erhoff in the 2011 playoffs alone: 12 points in 23 games.
Sargent playoff career: 12 points in 20 games.
Yeah yeah, that's only offense and Sargent was definitely better in his own zone than Ehrhoff. But then we remember that Sargent is being double shifted on the PP.
I don't think Ehrhoff has truly ever had an "all-time great" playoff run. His 2010 run was probably his best (7 points in 12 games, and had to be better in his own zone than last year). Honestly, I really don't think much of him in an all-time sense.. but at least offensively, he appears to be better than Sargent.[
I do think it's absurd how little respect Sargent is getting for how much ice time he played. That is not an easy thing to do in any era. The coaches kept putting him out there for a reason.. and unless you can find evidence that they were only doing so because they had no other choice, I think respect must be given to a guy who led his teams in ice time 9 times (is that correct?).
I think respect must be given to a guy who led his teams in ice time 9 times (is that correct?).
It's the MLD, very few of these guys had "all-time great" playoff runs.
Sargent played 3 full seasons and 5 seasons of significance in his career.
Gibbs is the one who apparently led his teams in ice time per game 9 times. I think Gibbs is solid. But he's not nearly as good as Campbell.
That would be very dependent on the teams.
Obviously someone is going to be #1 no matter how good or bad the team actually performs.