Round 2, Vote 2 (Stanley Cup Playoff Performers)

[MXD]

Alright, pretty much what I expected for candidates. Surprised Henri Richard is not yet up for voting though.

One new inclusion that I'd really have to be sold hard on is Ken Dryden. I've got several of his teammates ahead of him. He just feels too much like "right place, right time" for me.

Harvey is my front runner at this point. I think Robinson is worthy of being compared with Orr and Potvin as well, interested to examine him in detail.

Lafleur-Bossy will make for a good comparison, but it's perhaps a round early for either to get serious top five consideration from me as I see it right now.

Messier is my top forward at the moment. Teeder Kennedy is a bit of a wild card and opinions could be all over the map with him. I think Lemieux is still in tough to overcome the relative lack of team success compared to some of the other candidates. Still too early for Sakic IMO. Not enough world-beater performances outside of the two Cup runs.

Plante vs Broda... should be a good debate. Dryden a very distant third for me.

Two great Red Wings defencemen enter the arena. I think Kelly's versatility and the fact that Detroit never won without him make him a very strong candidate. Lidstrom's consistency and longevity is laudable, but he suffers from never appearing to be the main driver of his team's success. The same questions could be asked of Robinson too, in fairness.

Ken Dryden...? Gets lots of mileage out of 71, and by the dip his team took when he was lawyering. I might have overappreciated him early on (and I might have underappreciated his once-teammate Henri Richard), but I do think he came available at the right time at least.

Lafleur/Bossy? Distinct feeling that Lafleur was better (and more important) during their respective dynasty, and I already made my views clear about Pre-75 Lafleur (in that, out of everyone we're going to discuss, Lafleur was possibly the one in the hardest "spot" to produce right away). Of course, post-dynasty Lafleur is fair game. The issue with this is : Bossy's dynasty is sandwiched between what I'd consider "good" seasons, no more no less, as a player getting prime opportunities to boot.

In fairness, Red Kelly played only 5 out of 8 games in 1952, and considering the Wings went undefeated with Kelly not playing every games, well, it's hard to say that Kelly was the reason why the Wings worked (and I know you never said such a thing). If you recall, that was the Sawchuck-turned-mad-man Playoffs, with him posting what would be terrific numbers in 28-29, let alone in 51-52.

I'm curious on one thing though, if anyone can enlighten me : during those playoffs, the Wings scored 24 goals (including 3 by D-Men), and which resulted in the D-Men getting 6 points out of those 24 goals. By that time, the NHL was quite liberal with assists (well, not THAT liberal, but significantly more than it was in, say, the 20ies). I'm curious as to whether this is the year where the Stanley Cup Winners had the worse offensive output from their D-Corps. That doesn't have much to do with Kelly himself, but it can help putting things in perspective.

 

[double5son10]

Alright, pretty much what I expected for candidates. Surprised Henri Richard is not yet up for voting though.

One new inclusion that I'd really have to be sold hard on is Ken Dryden. I've got several of his teammates ahead of him. He just feels too much like "right place, right time" for me.

Harvey is my front runner at this point. I think Robinson is worthy of being compared with Orr and Potvin as well, interested to examine him in detail.

Lafleur-Bossy will make for a good comparison, but it's perhaps a round early for either to get serious top five consideration from me as I see it right now.

Messier is my top forward at the moment. Teeder Kennedy is a bit of a wild card and opinions could be all over the map with him. I think Lemieux is still in tough to overcome the relative lack of team success compared to some of the other candidates. Still too early for Sakic IMO. Not enough world-beater performances outside of the two Cup runs.

Plante vs Broda... should be a good debate. Dryden a very distant third for me.

Two great Red Wings defencemen enter the arena. I think Kelly's versatility and the fact that Detroit never won without him make him a very strong candidate. Lidstrom's consistency and longevity is laudable, but he suffers from never appearing to be the main driver of his team's success. The same questions could be asked of Robinson too, in fairness.

Robinson tied w/ Lafleur for playoff points lead and won the Conn Smythe in '78. His end-to-end rush in gm. 5 of the Finals against the Bruins was the key play of the series. It broke the Bruins.
I also wouldn't overlook Robinson's physical play in '76 against the Flyers. Dornhoefer hit, of course, but he was a presence throughout that series. If not for Reggie Leach's record setting performance in a losing cause, there's a very good argument for Robinson winning the Conn Smythe that year as well (could make a strong argument for Dryden also).
Outstanding as well in '79 playoffs. 6 G 9 A in 16 games. OT blast ended the series against the Leafs and a similar shot should've ended game 4 of the Finals, but no replay in those yrs. Important to note that Lapointe didn't play in Finals. Habs still held NYR (4th in RS scoring) to 11 goals in 5 games. Robinson and Savard logged Herculean minutes.
He was also a defensive pillar of strength in '86. Young team very much driven by he and Gainey's exemplary defensive play that spring.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Missing

I sorta like this group of new entrants actually. No weakling duck this time around (save possibly Niklas Lidstrom), and we'll see if everything holds, but I have Turk Broda looking very good in this group.

Well one of the top 3 greatest playoff centers finally made it Ted Kennedy. No Frank Nighbor or Henri Richard is .......................

Turk Broda did not start winning regularly in the playoffs until Ted Kennedy came along.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Red Kelly

Nice additions, but it is at least 1 or 2 rounds early for Lidstrom as far as I am concerned.

I hope we'll have the chance to compare him to Bourque.


Otherwise I have Plante comfortably in front of Dryden and I'm still debating which one of Potvin or Kelly I prefer in the playoffs (too early for Robinson?)

Kelly by far - outstanding two positionplayer on two dynasty quality teams. Key on 1950 to 1955 Wings as a injury replacement forward and defenceman plus 1960 to 1967 Leafs as a playmaking, defensive center.

 

[MXD]

Well one of the top 3 greatest playoff centers finally made it Ted Kennedy. No Frank Nighbor or Henri Richard is .......................

Turk Broda did not start winning regular in the playoffs until Ted Kennedy came along.

...And Kennedy didn't win after Broda retired either.

Can we just conclude that this line of argument is terrible (and move on?)

 

[Canadiens1958]

Frank McCool

...And Kennedy didn't win after Broda retired either.

Can we just conclude that this line of argument is terrible (and move on?)

Except Kennedy and the Leafs won with Frank McCool in 1945 against a vastly superior team in the semi-finals on route to the SC.

The with/without position is a very valid avenue. Worth exploring since it shows how teams come together, compensate for player loses of any kind or go the other way, falling apart when faced with adversity.

 

[MXD]

Except Kennedy and the Leafs won with Frank McCool in 1945 against a vastly superior team in the semi-finals on route to the SC.

The with/without position is a very valid avenue. Worth exploring since it shows how teams come together, compensate for player loses of any kind or go the other way, falling apart when faced with adversity.

... And the Leafs won in 41-42, without McCool and Kennedy, and they never won consistently with McCool either. There's also no evidence Kennedy would've helped them from 39-to-45 (pretend he's an adult).

I still pretend this is a terrible line of argument.

 

[bobholly39]

Well one of the top 3 greatest playoff centers finally made it Ted Kennedy. No Frank Nighbor or Henri Richard is .......................

Turk Broda did not start winning regularly in the playoffs until Ted Kennedy came along.

You really think Nighbor, Richard and Kennedy are the top 3 centers in playoff history?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Definitely

You really think Nighbor, Richard and Kennedy are the top 3 centers in playoff history?

Definitely. All three were shutdown centers who neutralized the opposition while helping teammates like Cyclone Taylor, Jean Beliveau and Syl Apps amongst many reach their full potential.

Much better record than Gretzky at making the playoffs to start. Gretzky gets a pass for not making the playoffs late in his career. Missed four times. Critical first spep to performing in the playoffs.

 

[Canadiens1958]

1960 Videos

Par for the course around here. Lidstrom always gets underrated. Keep comparing Lidstrom with Harvey on your own and by the end of this you'll realize two things:

1) Posters want to give a 6 team league with really only Canadians full value as if it's equal to the 30 team international league of today. This makes no sense, not to mention there were only two rounds of playoffs back then so it makes things appear magnified.

2) Harvey's got nothing on Lidstrom when full context is added yet he'll finish far higher in the ranking.

This is why it's hard to take these cross era comparison lists seriously.

Did not read any comments from you when the 1960 SC Final complete game 2 video was analyzed recently. Harvey wa reviewed very favourably. Yet no one commented that 1960 European and American Olympians, also available on video of the 1960 Winter Olympic Hockey Games, were equal or superior. How come?

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Ken Dryden...? Gets lots of mileage out of 71, and by the dip his team took when he was lawyering. I might have overappreciated him early on (and I might have underappreciated his once-teammate Henri Richard), but I do think he came available at the right time at least.

I've always wondered about 1971. We have those quotes from Esposito about how Dryden was like an octopus and the Bruins couldn't put a pea past him, and of course he famously shut them down in Game 7 at the Boston Garden. But I've heard precious little praise directed towards Dryden for the rest of the playoff run. His role in the victory over Minnesota seems minor, at least based on the box scores (Montreal scored 6+ goals in three of their wins, and was swamped for 11 GA in the two losses). The Final Series seems to be more remembered for Tony Esposito coming up short in the home stretch than for heroics by Dryden, but Chicago was held to two goals in 5/7 games, so he clearly did his job, but is this more of a Cam Ward-esque type of Smythe, as opposed to a Patrick Roy-esque one?

Lafleur/Bossy? Distinct feeling that Lafleur was better (and more important) during their respective dynasty, and I already made my views clear about Pre-75 Lafleur (in that, out of everyone we're going to discuss, Lafleur was possibly the one in the hardest "spot" to produce right away). Of course, post-dynasty Lafleur is fair game. The issue with this is : Bossy's dynasty is sandwiched between what I'd consider "good" seasons, no more no less, as a player getting prime opportunities to boot.

Hmmm, not sure I agree there. Bossy was the run-away goal scoring leader during 3 of the 4 Cups. Lafleur was only the clear offensive leader on one of Montreal's 4-in-a-row teams. Both had HOF teammates at C, D, and in goal, so that's kind of a wash.

I guess in terms of importance, it comes down to how probable it is either team could have won absent Lafleur/Bossy. Montreal might not beat Boston in 1978 without him, and they almost certainly wouldn't have beat them in 1979. The Islanders played several series that were close enough they might reasonably have lost without Bossy. So hypothetical dynasty status is questionable for either team. NYI might have never won a Cup with Bossy removed though. Montreal probably still wins 1976 and 1977.

Robinson tied w/ Lafleur for playoff points lead and won the Conn Smythe in '78. His end-to-end rush in gm. 5 of the Finals against the Bruins was the key play of the series. It broke the Bruins.
I also wouldn't overlook Robinson's physical play in '76 against the Flyers. Dornhoefer hit, of course, but he was a presence throughout that series. If not for Reggie Leach's record setting performance in a losing cause, there's a very good argument for Robinson winning the Conn Smythe that year as well (could make a strong argument for Dryden also).
Outstanding as well in '79 playoffs. 6 G 9 A in 16 games. OT blast ended the series against the Leafs and a similar shot should've ended game 4 of the Finals, but no replay in those yrs. Important to note that Lapointe didn't play in Finals. Habs still held NYR (4th in RS scoring) to 11 goals in 5 games. Robinson and Savard logged Herculean minutes.
He was also a defensive pillar of strength in '86. Young team very much driven by he and Gainey's exemplary defensive play that spring.

Very informative write-up, thank you. I didn't actually realize off hand that Robinson was the playoff scoring leader in his Conn Smythe year.

 

[danincanada]

Red Herring

Did not read any comments from you when the 1960 SC Final complete game 2 video was analyzed recently. Harvey wa reviewed very favourably. Yet no one commented that 1960 European and American Olympians, also available on video of the 1960 Winter Olympic Hockey Games, were equal or superior. How come?

How petrified of my point do you have to be to attempt to use the same red herring over and over again after I explained what I actually meant several times in another thread. Extremely petrified, that's the answer. It's very telling that you avoid tackling my point head on.

In reality the O6 and the Russian Elite League of the 80's were probably more comparable and closer to each other in terms of depth and quality of elite talent than either are to the fully integrated modern day NHL. Small leagues made of only national talent cannot, and should not, be compared to a much larger league with a full array of elite international talent as if they are one in the same. It's the elephant in the room and Dumbo is hiding over there in the corner so I thought I'd point him out to you all. Good day.

 

[BraveCanadian]

In reality the O6 and the Russian Elite League of the 80's were probably more comparable and closer to each other in terms of depth and quality of elite talent than either are to the fully integrated modern day NHL. Small leagues made of only national talent cannot, and should not, be compared to a much larger league with a full array of elite international talent as if they are one in the same. It's the elephant in the room and Dumbo is hiding over there in the corner so I thought I'd point him out to you all. Good day.

As long as we ignore that there are now many more teams to fill, the cost of hockey, demographics, and that several countries produce less NHL talent now than in the past?

The "full array of elite international talent" has the NHL currently around ~75% Canada / US players.

 

[MXD]

As long as we ignore that there are now many more teams to fill, the cost of hockey, demographics, and that several countries produce less NHL talent now than in the past?

The "full array of elite international talent" has the NHL currently around ~75% Canada / US players.

... I'm also not quite certain of the relevance of this whole discussion. I mean, after all, we're looking to establish who performed the best during Playoffs leading to the Stanley Cup. In that sense, considerations about talent pool and such are completely irrelevant. To me at least.

 

[SirKillalot]

Alright, pretty much what I expected for candidates. Surprised Henri Richard is not yet up for voting though.

One new inclusion that I'd really have to be sold hard on is Ken Dryden. I've got several of his teammates ahead of him. He just feels too much like "right place, right time" for me.

Harvey is my front runner at this point. I think Robinson is worthy of being compared with Orr and Potvin as well, interested to examine him in detail.

Lafleur-Bossy will make for a good comparison, but it's perhaps a round early for either to get serious top five consideration from me as I see it right now.

Messier is my top forward at the moment. Teeder Kennedy is a bit of a wild card and opinions could be all over the map with him. I think Lemieux is still in tough to overcome the relative lack of team success compared to some of the other candidates. Still too early for Sakic IMO. Not enough world-beater performances outside of the two Cup runs.

Plante vs Broda... should be a good debate. Dryden a very distant third for me.

Two great Red Wings defencemen enter the arena. I think Kelly's versatility and the fact that Detroit never won without him make him a very strong candidate. Lidstrom's consistency and longevity is laudable, but he suffers from never appearing to be the main driver of his team's success. The same questions could be asked of Robinson too, in fairness.

Lidstrom almost from the gecko was the main driver behind the success the Red Wings had. And he's got a Conn Smythe from the most "Hall of Fame-team" in the modern era. Look at after he retired. The defense has had major issues ever since of getting the games into their style. Obviously he wasn't the driving factor points-wise, but he lead the charge of getting to those points.

 

[bobholly39]

Definitely. All three were shutdown centers who neutralized the opposition while helping teammates like Cyclone Taylor, Jean Beliveau and Syl Apps amongst many reach their full potential.

Much better record than Gretzky at making the playoffs to start. Gretzky gets a pass for not making the playoffs late in his career. Missed four times. Critical first spep to performing in the playoffs.

Well. Let's leave Gretzky, Nighbor and Richard out of the discussion for now since they're not included in this round.

Lemieux vs Kennedy. Compare them, and explain to me why you think Kennedy should rank ahead. Would love to hear your reasoning.

To the bolded. That is not relevant to this topic. "Making" the playoffs was decided not to be a criteria in this project. Unless i'm wrong and others now disagree?

As far as i'm concerned that should get 0 weight here. Doesn't mean "longevity" shouldn't matter per se, you just don't dock a player for missing the playoffs. If player A makes the playoffs 10x in 25 years, and player B makes the playoffs 9x in 10 years, player A > player B based on longevity assuming the playoff runs are comparable. You don't "dock" him in anyway for missing the playoffs 15x.

 

[danincanada]

As long as we ignore that there are now many more teams to fill, the cost of hockey, demographics, and that several countries produce less NHL talent now than in the past?

The "full array of elite international talent" has the NHL currently around ~75% Canada / US players.

European countries are producing less NHL now than during the O6? Oh, I forgot, you always jump in to this and pretend I'm comparing now with the 90's. This is the fifth time you've done this (I'm keeping count).

US Players... that's the key. How many American players were in the O6, let alone elite Americans? Nothing compared to the modern era. And if you really believe Canada was producing less hockey players after the baby boom than before it then please give me a toke of whatever you have there.

You know better than this in both cases.

 

[danincanada]

Lidstrom almost from the gecko was the main driver behind the success the Red Wings had. And he's got a Conn Smythe from the most "Hall of Fame-team" in the modern era. Looks at after he retired. The defense has had major issues ever since of getting the games into their style. Obviously he wasn't the driving factor points-wise, but he lead the charge of getting to those points.

You're responding to a poster who just stated Harvey was at the top of his list for defenseman. Lidstrom was as much a driving factor point-wise as Harvey, if not more. Team finishes in points displays this.

In fact they played the exact same roles on their teams and were considered by many to be the key to their teams success over the long haul but for some reason Harvey gets romanticized while Lidstrom gets degraded.

 

[BraveCanadian]

European countries are producing less NHL now than during the O6? Oh, I forgot, you always jump in to this and pretend I'm comparing now with the 90's. This is the fifth time you've done this (I'm keeping count).

US Players... that's the key. How many American players were in the O6, let alone elite Americans? Nothing compared to the modern era. And if you really believe Canada was producing less hockey players after the baby boom than before it then please give me a toke of whatever you have there.

You know better than this in both cases.

Again, you're ignoring that when you are comparing today to the O6 you also have 5 times as many teams to fill. It doesn't matter if they are Canadian, European or Martian.

I'm not going to get into this with you again because as people here already seem to know, your bias towards the most modern players is well known and immune to any nuance.

As for the baby boom, besides the obvious demographic information, here you go, have a toke of these registrations as a proxy for the number of players in Canada: hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1519261

Sorry for getting off topic here. Hopefully the recency bias won't affect the results of the project too much.

 

[danincanada]

Again, you're ignoring that when you are comparing today to the O6 you also have 5 times as many teams to fill. It doesn't matter if they are Canadian, European or Martian.

I'm not going to get into this with you again because as people here already seem to know, your bias towards the most modern players is well known and immune to any nuance.

6 teams was probably about right for the amount of talent that was available. Likewise, 30 teams is probably about right for the modern era. And it does matter when only one country is feeding a league instead of several countries feeding it with elite players.

You never want to "get into this" once you realize I'm talking about the O6 and not the 90's, which were actually my formative years for watching hockey by the way.

As for the baby boom, besides the obvious demographic information, here you go, have a toke of these registrations as a proxy for the number of players in Canada: hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1519261

Sorry for getting off topic here. Hopefully the recency bias won't affect the results of the project too much.

You don't even understand your own chart. In Canada hockey registration statistics are primarily affected by minor hockey. Therefore, most of those numbers are for kids who would be available to the NHL roughly 5 to 15 years later. The numbers increase steadily with the baby boom starting after the war, which is precisely what I'm saying. Then it drops off after the baby boom kids are of age in the early 80's but it's still FAR higher than pre-baby boom. Again, precisely what I'm saying.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Comparables

How petrified of my point do you have to be to attempt to use the same red herring over and over again after I explained what I actually meant several times in another thread. Extremely petrified, that's the answer. It's very telling that you avoid tackling my point head on.

In reality the O6 and the Russian Elite League of the 80's were probably more comparable and closer to each other in terms of depth and quality of elite talent than either are to the fully integrated modern day NHL. Small leagues made of only national talent cannot, and should not, be compared to a much larger league with a full array of elite international talent as if they are one in the same. It's the elephant in the room and Dumbo is hiding over there in the corner so I thought I'd point him out to you all. Good day.

In reality... means having the willingness and ability to compare video evidence, not your limited abstractions. You do not seem to have either.

 

[MXD]

6 teams was probably about right for the amount of talent that was available. Likewise, 30 teams is probably about right for the modern era. And it does matter when only one country is feeding a league instead of several countries feeding it with elite players.

You never want to "get into this" once you realize I'm talking about the O6 and not the 90's, which were actually my formative years for watching hockey by the way.



You don't even understand your own chart. In Canada hockey registration statistics are primarily affected by minor hockey. Therefore, most of those numbers are for kids who would be available to the NHL roughly 5 to 15 years later. The numbers increase steadily with the baby boom starting after the war, which is precisely what I'm saying. Then it drops off after the baby boom kids are of age in the early 80's but it's still FAR higher than pre-baby boom. Again, precisely what I'm saying.

The more important point is : How the global talent pool is actually relevant for our purposes, which are to determine who are the best Playoffs Performers en route to the Stanley Cup.

The strength of "direct" competition might be relevant in some cases : for example, there are tons of reasons to prefer Brian Leetch's Smythe to Sidney Crosby's Smythe, because one of them had truly great playoffs while the other had a distinct "hey, we gotta pick someone, right" feeling (this comment shouldn't be read as "Leetch was a better playoff performer as Crosby" just comparing Smythes here); conversely, the "hammered weak opponent" works, to a certain extent and in some very specific cases (think Bobby Orr and Frank McGee for some cases of reasonable applications, even if Bobby Orr didn't exactly pounded weaker teams more than he pounded strong teams). However, the "talent pool argument" (or, for earlier years, who was in the NHL as opposed to being in the USSR or in the WHA), feels mostly irrelevant, as it doesn't really pertains to achievements within a specific set of playoff hockey.

In other words : it's perfectly fair to not give full marks to the 1944 Montreal Canadiens, because there are legit reasons to believe their opposition should've better than they actually were, as there is also legit reasons to believe there were pretty good players missing on other teams, which made their achievements slightly less impressive than what they can "statistically" look like. It's not perfectly fair to not give them full marks because there wasn't any Finnish, Swedish or player on the 43-44 Chicago Blackhawks, because there's absolutely no good reason to believe there was any Swede or Finn good enough to crack the Blackhawks roster, (notwithstanding the fact that the Finns had something else to do).

(Fun fact : there was more American regulars on the 43-44 Chicago Blackhawks than there was on the 92-93 Montreal Canadiens... and that's with SMALLER ROSTERS. The same comment applies with Russian Born Regulars.)

 

[BraveCanadian]

6 teams was probably about right for the amount of talent that was available. Likewise, 30 teams is probably about right for the modern era. And it does matter when only one country is feeding a league instead of several countries feeding it with elite players.

No, it doesn't.

What appears to matter is the number of players available, culture, socioeconomics, and the development paths available.

You never want to "get into this" once you realize I'm talking about the O6 and not the 90's, which were actually my formative years for watching hockey by the way.

I never want to get into this, because as usual, you simply go in circles.

You don't even understand your own chart. In Canada hockey registration statistics are primarily affected by minor hockey. Therefore, most of those numbers are for kids who would be available to the NHL roughly 5 to 15 years later. The numbers increase steadily with the baby boom starting after the war, which is precisely what I'm saying. Then it drops off after the baby boom kids are of age in the early 80's but it's still FAR higher than pre-baby boom. Again, precisely what I'm saying.

Except that you're (again) leaving out the fact that by the 80s you now have many more teams to fill. So where does that leave you?

Do you seriously think I haven't looked over this information that I gathered?

Anyways, enough of this cluttering up the discussion at hand.

 

[quoipourquoi]

None of this has to do with playoff performance. If we want to talk about whether or not Nicklas Lidstrom was the driving force of the Detroit Red Wings in the playoffs, that's fair game. But saying that cross-era comparisons cannot be taken seriously in a project in which we compare across eras is probably not going to go over well.

We value input from non-participants, and we certainly welcome additional ballots on April 7th. And if you don't believe in the nature of the research project, still feel free to provide arguments and counter-arguments or research without submitting a ballot. But don't derail this thread.

We are ending this line of discussion here.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Lidstrom almost from the gecko was the main driver behind the success the Red Wings had. And he's got a Conn Smythe from the most "Hall of Fame-team" in the modern era. Looks at after he retired. The defense has had major issues ever since of getting the games into their style. Obviously he wasn't the driving factor points-wise, but he lead the charge of getting to those points.

I don't think Lidstrom was the main driver from the get-go. Fedorov and Yzerman were bigger factors in the rise to prominence of the Red Wings in the mid-90s, including the first Cup, maybe the second. Lidstrom seemed to emerge from the shadow of Konstantinov and Fetisov in 1998. 2002, I'd agree he was their best overall player by that point, although I think a few of us were mildly surprised when he won the Smythe. The latter teams, 2008 and 09, seemed to be Zetterberg and Datsyuk's teams. Lidstrom was indispensable of course, but wasn't the very first guy who came to mind.

Overall, the most valuable Red Wing of the 95-09 era, no doubt. Tougher to pick out individual runs though, that's more what I was getting at.