You're quite wrong. I'll give you your percentages:
36, 45, 55, 58, 60, 63, 66, 71, 72, 75, 82, 83, 88
At least 2 of these years (1940 and 1944), the defense leaderboard was dominated by guys who probably played a good amount of forward those years (*******in '40, and some guy in '44, look it up yourself), so 2 of those percentages, the 36 and 58, are more like 53 and 77. This also happens again in 1945, where those same two guys, ******* and clown, were tied for 1st with 41 points among D. Seibert would have an 85 instead of 72 that year.
What's MOST amazing is how consistent he was offensively. From 1934 to 1945, Seibert is listed as third among D in scoring, behind two guys who played a good amount of forward, to my knowledge, Hollett and the aforementioned clown. In points per game, he comes out at 7th (of players who played at least 100 games), behind 3 guys who played a good amount of forward.
For points, he had 86% of 1st place, and 99% of 2nd place. In points per game, he has 76% of 1st place while playing 320 more games, and 81% of 2nd place, playing in 343 more games.
jarek, do you realize who you're talking to here? I have the positions correct in each season, and it's in a file YOU helped me to put together. I even sent it to you. The numbers you are quoting are different from mine because you are using hockey-reference and all their incorrect positions and failure to account for mid-career changes by certain players. (also, at first glance I think you have failed to round up correctly in a couple cases) The whole point of this file was to fix that.
Let's break it down year by year to see where you think I am incorrect.
the numbers I have are: 36, 45,
51, 54, 56, 58,
61, 71,
73 76,
77, 82, and 88.
the eight bolded are the ones that you are incorrect on.
the easier ones to catch are:
- 1937. This was not rounded up properly to 54.
- 1939. This was not properly rounded up to 56.
- 1943. This was not properly rounded up to 73.
- 1935. This was not properly rounded up to 76.
From this, it follows that you have the 51, 61, and 77 listed incorrectly as 63, 66, and 83. The seasons in question are 1942, 1936, and 1941.
- In 1942, I say 51, you say 63. (should be 64, but you didn't round). You incorrectly assumed that the leader was a forward. He was not a forward in this season.
51 is correct.
- In 1936, I say 61, you say 66 (should be 67, but you didn't round). You incorrectly assumed that the leader was a forward. He was not a forward in this season.
61 is correct.
- In 1941, I say 77, you say 83. You incorrectly assumed that the leader was a forward. He was not a forward in this season.
77 is correct.
Got any questions, Boy Wonder?
These days a 40-50 point rearguard is a "puck moving defenseman".
Even being borderline 1st/2nd pp quarterback along with being one of (if not the biggest) dman of your era, tough as nails and an all star 10 years in a row...
That sounds like a very good all around player to me.
I don't disagree with that at all. Just in the last couple of drafts I've been quick to temper people's enthusiasm about earlier players finishing relatively high in something, yet having a comparitively weak number versus the #1 or #2 guy(s). This applies mostly to pre-expansion defensemen, and pre-merger players of all positions. the premise to that is, what good is being 5th, if 1st/2nd have almost twice as much?
