Regular season zeroes, playoff heroes

[Canadiens1958]

Good Starting Point

Well, I didn't start off necessarily looking at the playoffs. It was actually designed to look at the absurd comparisons between Tom Brady and Joe Montana and build a case for why the comparison was absurd. I figured that once the Super Bowls were removed from both players, Montana was the top passer in the league xx number of times, most efficient xx number of times, etc.

So in the case of Claude Lemieux, I look at the fact that he had three, possibly four, separate playoff years that would warrant consideration for the Conn Smythe. That's certainly not bad at all. But we look at his regular seasons and see that he had ten 20-goal years, including three in the second dead puck era. I don't put Lemieux in the category with the great playoff performers because:
1) He certainly demonstrated a high level of play during the regular season over his career, and
2) He had plenty of very poor playoff performances, which don't help the case.

The general perception of a "clutch player" is someone who plays better at the most important times of games. The fact that Lemieux had three (or maybe four) pretty good playoff runs out of eighteen, I think, negates the idea that he had some type of built-in ability to elevate. If he did, there would be more evidence of it outside of that small number of playoff years.

And although there certainly are times where a player suffers as a result of a nagging injury or something that doesn't help him out, I can't see fourteen or fifteen average-to-below-average playoffs (out of eighteen) all being the result of that.

The concept of clutch seems to derive from observable data that one player's positive results seem to come at an opportune time while other's do not. Mel Hill would be a prime example. Maurice Richard's OT goal scoring far outshines greats like Gordie Howe or others who scored more goals.

Your Claude Lemieux study outline is interesting in that it raises the issue of a norm or expectations. Coaches and teams regularly grade every player for every game. Data that is never made public.
Observers can do the same if they have the time and access to all the films that the teams can access but the observers would not be able to grade against the game plan or assignments going in.

From the standpoint of clutch it is fair to ask would 3 or 4 clutch or strong playoff years be below, at or above the expectation for an 18 year career? Same question could be asked about the regular season. Comparisons would then be possible.

 

[ck26]

The concept of clutch seems to derive from observable data that one player's positive results seem to come at an opportune time while other's do not. Mel Hill would be a prime example. Maurice Richard's OT goal scoring far outshines greats like Gordie Howe or others who scored more goals.

Your Claude Lemieux study outline is interesting in that it raises the issue of a norm or expectations. Coaches and teams regularly grade every player for every game. Data that is never made public.
Observers can do the same if they have the time and access to all the films that the teams can access but the observers would not be able to grade against the game plan or assignments going in.

From the standpoint of clutch it is fair to ask would 3 or 4 clutch or strong playoff years be below, at or above the expectation for an 18 year career? Same question could be asked about the regular season. Comparisons would then be possible.

3 or 4 "big" playoffs in an 18 year career is hard to talk down to, but at the same time, the idea of "being clutch" based on playoff performances is silly because the sample size of games is so small.

Roughly half the NHL makes the playoffs each year, so 18 years should yield 9 or 10 playoff appearances for a completely average player on a series of completely average teams. He should reach the second round of the playoffs 4-5 times and the Conference finals 2-3 times, and, given that players who make the conference finals are (on average) playing better than the players they defeat along the way, we've reached Pepe Lemieux's total.

But playoff appearances / long runs are not random; that teams with lots of good players tend to make them more than teams with fewer, for a "good" player like Claude Lemieux, who played basically his entire career on a series of very good-to-great teams to have 3 or 4 big playoffs basically qualifies as "standard" in my opinion.

I know Conn Smythes isn't the only criteria -- and the award is often controversial -- but this is what does it for me: who was the last 1st choice-type forward to win the thing? Mario Lemieux won back-to-back in '91/'92. Goalies are in their own little worlds and defensemen are often out there to DO the negative work, but Crosby had Malkin, Zetterberg had Datsyuk, Richards had Lecavalier, Nieuwendyk had Modano, Sakic had Forsberg. If it takes an absolutely transcendent offensive talent to overcome 20+ games of tight marking, what does that say about "a secondary guy who didn't have to deal with the other team's top defenseman / checking center" morphing into "Stanley Cup hero?"

Certain attributes -- avoiding injury, physical toughness, having a mean streak -- increase the chances marginally that you'll be healthy and playing at full-tilt when the coach puts you on the ice in a key situation in mid-May, but I'm convinced that there's a good bit of randomness / dumb luck involved with "playoff heroics."

 

[boompuffboom]

rj umberger vs the habs 2 years ago

 

[Professor Dangles]

didnt Pisani pot 15 playoff goals a few years back?

 

[Big Phil]

In response to the Claude Lemieux compliments, I have always thought that while the man had some good years in the playoffs when he stepped up, he always seemed to be erratic and inconsistent the next time around. It kind of reminds me of the case of Mike Richter. Here is a goalie that could steal the fillings out of your teeth one game and disappear the next one. Claude Lemieux fits that profile all too often, which is why I do not put him with the all-time greats in the playoffs

 

[lextune]

didnt Pisani pot 15 playoff goals a few years back?

14.

Still. Definitely a regular season zero, playoff hero.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

didnt Pisani pot 15 playoff goals a few years back?

14, which led the playoffs. Pisani has never exceeded that total in a regular season since then. That's pretty crazy really, and I can't think of another player that would fit that bill. Druce cracked 20 after his big playoff, and Kontos had nearly 30 one year (they didn't actually lead the playoffs in goals, but similar idea).

 

[Mayor Bee]

The concept of clutch seems to derive from observable data that one player's positive results seem to come at an opportune time while other's do not. Mel Hill would be a prime example. Maurice Richard's OT goal scoring far outshines greats like Gordie Howe or others who scored more goals.

Your Claude Lemieux study outline is interesting in that it raises the issue of a norm or expectations. Coaches and teams regularly grade every player for every game. Data that is never made public.
Observers can do the same if they have the time and access to all the films that the teams can access but the observers would not be able to grade against the game plan or assignments going in.

From the standpoint of clutch it is fair to ask would 3 or 4 clutch or strong playoff years be below, at or above the expectation for an 18 year career? Same question could be asked about the regular season. Comparisons would then be possible.

If the football research indicated anything to me as it related to the idea of a clutch player, I deduced that it's basically the ultimate trump card. Take two players of roughly equal ability....compare the numbers...compare the team accomplishments. If a clear case can't be made to break one from the other, launch to "he was a clutch player!" Voila! Perception becomes reality.

You mention Mel Hill, Rocket Richard, and Gordie Howe. Dale Hunter never had a great playoff reputation, but I believe he's the only player in history to score two series-ending OT goals in the final possible game of a series (Game 5 in the first round, 1981-82; Game 7 in the first round, 1987-88). I'm sure there's something like the Expected Win Percentage out there for hockey, but I'm a chronic skeptic as it is.

To the last point, I think we'd have to establish a particular benchmark for both regular season and postseason on a year-by-year basis before really tackling the issue.

3 or 4 "big" playoffs in an 18 year career is hard to talk down to, but at the same time, the idea of "being clutch" based on playoff performances is silly because the sample size of games is so small.

Roughly half the NHL makes the playoffs each year, so 18 years should yield 9 or 10 playoff appearances for a completely average player on a series of completely average teams. He should reach the second round of the playoffs 4-5 times and the Conference finals 2-3 times, and, given that players who make the conference finals are (on average) playing better than the players they defeat along the way, we've reached Pepe Lemieux's total.

But playoff appearances / long runs are not random; that teams with lots of good players tend to make them more than teams with fewer, for a "good" player like Claude Lemieux, who played basically his entire career on a series of very good-to-great teams to have 3 or 4 big playoffs basically qualifies as "standard" in my opinion.

I know Conn Smythes isn't the only criteria -- and the award is often controversial -- but this is what does it for me: who was the last 1st choice-type forward to win the thing? Mario Lemieux won back-to-back in '91/'92. Goalies are in their own little worlds and defensemen are often out there to DO the negative work, but Crosby had Malkin, Zetterberg had Datsyuk, Richards had Lecavalier, Nieuwendyk had Modano, Sakic had Forsberg. If it takes an absolutely transcendent offensive talent to overcome 20+ games of tight marking, what does that say about "a secondary guy who didn't have to deal with the other team's top defenseman / checking center" morphing into "Stanley Cup hero?"

Certain attributes -- avoiding injury, physical toughness, having a mean streak -- increase the chances marginally that you'll be healthy and playing at full-tilt when the coach puts you on the ice in a key situation in mid-May, but I'm convinced that there's a good bit of randomness / dumb luck involved with "playoff heroics."

Good post.

I hate to keep referencing the football research, but out of the roughly 200 quarterbacks who have had meaningful careers, I found that there were exactly five who demonstrated non-random patterns of playoff excellence. Three are in the Hall of Fame (13 combined championships) and the other two are probably the best two not in, although both of them played in an era with dramatically reduced postseasons and therefore many fewer games to excel. That made it all the more striking to notice consistently excellent performances spanning multiple postseasons rather than one excellent year (three or four games) and then a poor one.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Getting Somewhere

If the football research indicated anything to me as it related to the idea of a clutch player, I deduced that it's basically the ultimate trump card. Take two players of roughly equal ability....compare the numbers...compare the team accomplishments. If a clear case can't be made to break one from the other, launch to "he was a clutch player!" Voila! Perception becomes reality.

You mention Mel Hill, Rocket Richard, and Gordie Howe. Dale Hunter never had a great playoff reputation, but I believe he's the only player in history to score two series-ending OT goals in the final possible game of a series (Game 5 in the first round, 1981-82; Game 7 in the first round, 1987-88). I'm sure there's something like the Expected Win Percentage out there for hockey, but I'm a chronic skeptic as it is.

To the last point, I think we'd have to establish a particular benchmark for both regular season and postseason on a year-by-year basis before really tackling the issue.



Good post.

I hate to keep referencing the football research, but out of the roughly 200 quarterbacks who have had meaningful careers, I found that there were exactly five who demonstrated non-random patterns of playoff excellence. Three are in the Hall of Fame (13 combined championships) and the other two are probably the best two not in, although both of them played in an era with dramatically reduced postseasons and therefore many fewer games to excel. That made it all the more striking to notice consistently excellent performances spanning multiple postseasons rather than one excellent year (three or four games) and then a poor one.

Now we are getting somewhere. Your football analogies and the point regarding a "benchmark" raise the following issues.

There is an underlying false assumption, based on fantasy league expectations, that a player's playoff performance should mirror his regular season performance. The team scoring leader during the regular season should be the team scoring leader during the playoffs. Passing leader during the regular season should be the passing leader during the playoffs and so forth down the line. This is complete nonsense that illustrates a lack of appreciation of sports in general.

Benchmark. Perhaps we are looking for a complex explanation where none is required. Simply the benchmark is winning. In football a quarterback may be the leading passer during the regular season - completions, yardage, TDs, rating etc but if the defenses, weather conditions, game situations dictate a running game and he calls an exceptional running game to contribute to winning the Super Bowl then he has out performed his contemporaries even though the statistical outcome places him in the middle of the pack for QB stats in the playoffs.

Bart Starr and Bob Griese are two QBs that come to mind. Both lead teams that featured a powerful running attack to NFL championships and/or Super Bowls while foregoing their own personal passing stats. Both were exceptional passers if the need arose or if the opportunity presented itself in the context of the game. Conversely Dan Marino had difficulties reverting to a running game if required yet his passing stats are incredible. Never won anything of note and had some big game disasters partly because defenses did not respect the run when playing against Marino.

Prime hockey example would be Bobby Clarke - Flyers leading regular season scorer during the 1973-74 and 1974-75 seasons assuming a defensive role that produced two Stanley Cups with others leading the Flyers in scoring. Clarke was the center best suited to checking Phil Esposito, Gilbert Perreault and other top centers. Defensive importance prevailed.

The Dale Hunter example touches another issue quantity vs quality.Not how often but when. Playoffs are about winning not putting up personal numbers.

 

[Mayor Bee]

Now we are getting somewhere. Your football analogies and the point regarding a "benchmark" raise the following issues.

There is an underlying false assumption, based on fantasy league expectations, that a player's playoff performance should mirror his regular season performance. The team scoring leader during the regular season should be the team scoring leader during the playoffs. Passing leader during the regular season should be the passing leader during the playoffs and so forth down the line. This is complete nonsense that illustrates a lack of appreciation of sports in general.

I think part of the difficulties with interpretation come from lack of information. I'll touch more on that later on.

Benchmark. Perhaps we are looking for a complex explanation where none is required. Simply the benchmark is winning. In football a quarterback may be the leading passer during the regular season - completions, yardage, TDs, rating etc but if the defenses, weather conditions, game situations dictate a running game and he calls an exceptional running game to contribute to winning the Super Bowl then he has out performed his contemporaries even though the statistical outcome places him in the middle of the pack for QB stats in the playoffs.

I disagree to some extent. The goal of a team is to win the game, but the goal of each individual player is to maximize his performance to increase his team's chance of winning. In the playoffs in football, the quarterback whose numbers bear out that he produced more efficiently than the other guy is on the winning team much more often than not. The raw numbers, more specifically the yards:touchdowns ratio, tend to skew the overall picture.

Of course, the efficiency metrics only go so far and take all the variables into account that we can't see.

Bart Starr and Bob Griese are two QBs that come to mind. Both lead teams that featured a powerful running attack to NFL championships and/or Super Bowls while foregoing their own personal passing stats. Both were exceptional passers if the need arose or if the opportunity presented itself in the context of the game. Conversely Dan Marino had difficulties reverting to a running game if required yet his passing stats are incredible. Never won anything of note and had some big game disasters partly because defenses did not respect the run when playing against Marino.

Starr is one of the five who displays the non-random pattern of playoff performance, Griese is not. Part of it is that Vince Lombardi had no second thoughts about running the ball until he got the matchup and coverage that he wanted, then he'd call a play action pass. Really though, it's a topic for another day...I could go on for days about this.

Prime hockey example would be Bobby Clarke - Flyers leading regular season scorer during the 1973-74 and 1974-75 seasons assuming a defensive role that produced two Stanley Cups with others leading the Flyers in scoring. Clarke was the center best suited to checking Phil Esposito, Gilbert Perreault and other top centers. Defensive importance prevailed.

This is where the real and most basic issue comes out. Like a poorly-phrased word problem from algebra, we look at hockey, shrug, and say "There's not enough information to solve the problem or even come close to doing it".

Baseball has traditionally had an enormous amount of information available; I have a half a shelf on my bookshelf that's nothing but the work of Bill James. Football has less information available but still a pretty good deal. I'm not a basketball fan so I can't address that. But hockey....there's so little information and there always has been so little information.

I'm of the opinion that if we had the ability to quantify what happens on the ice to even a small percentage of what we can do with baseball, we'd be able to "see" in the numbers that Bobby Clarke did or did not do a brilliant job of checking Esposito, that Cam Neely was or was not as dominant in his prime as several all-time greats, or that Grant Fuhr was or was not as good a playoff goalie as the reputation suggests. Instead, we have to rely on the little information that we have and a lot of memories that are either not true or are simply lies to begin with.