ATD 2017 Draft Thread IV

[jarek]

Yeah I agree.

Robitaille-Morenz-Kane

Robitaille-Messier-Kane

I would prefer going to war with the Messier line.

Of course, the line still has to work. Nobody should dispute that Messier is easier to build around.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Of course, the line still has to work. Nobody should dispute that Messier is easier to build around.

Trottier, a player who is one of the easiest to build around, fell to 39th this year.

I was a rookie in 2011 and participated in every ATD since, and here's the evolution of Trottier's placements in the ranking since 2011.

2011: 15th
2012: 15th
2013: 14th
2014: 21th
2015: 29th
2016: 30th
2017: 39th

When it matters, the field doesn't seem to value being "easy to build around" all that much.

 

[jarek]

Trottier, a player who is one of the easiest to build around, fell to 39th this year.

I was a rookie in 2011 and participated in every ATD since, and here's the evolution of Trottier's placements in the ranking since 2011.

2011: 15th
2012: 15th
2013: 14th
2014: 21th
2015: 29th
2016: 30th
2017: 39th

When it matters, the field doesn't seem to value being "easy to build around" all that much.

At a certain point, it makes sense to just take the better player. Not saying that I think there are 39 better players than Trottier, but certain hard to build around players really should go before easier to build around guys.

For example, I'm really not sure I could justify taking Messier, Trottier or Clarke over Morenz. Yes, it makes my life a little bit harder in building the line but Morenz is that much better than those guys IMO. To be honest, I'm not even sure that those 3 guys are better than Phil Esposito, although it becomes much easier to justify the selection against Phil.

 

[BenchBrawl]

At a certain point, it makes sense to just take the better player. Not saying that I think there are 39 better players than Trottier,but certain hard to build around players really should go before easier to build around guys.

Only if they contribute more towards an ATD championship.

 

[jarek]

Only if they contribute more towards an ATD championship.

That's kind of what I mean. Drafting Howie Morenz over the 3 I mentioned gives you a higher chance to win the championship, provided you build the right team around this player.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

If you highly value longevity as an elite player, then sure, rank Shore over Morenz. Shore's longevity as an elite player was probably #1 all-time before Richard came along... maybe even until Howe came along.

But at their best, it's hard not to take Morenz. Morenz easily has the best Hart record during the NHL's first great generation of the late 20s/early 30s, competing against a great group of forwards and defensemen, including Shore himself.

Shore was great too, of course, but he racked up the majority of his Hart consideration against the weakest cohort of forwards in NHL history in the late 1930s (seriously, actually look at the competion for the Hart in the late 1930s).

And of course Shore gets drafted over a (possibly) comparable forward. He's a Defenseman. Using draft position to compare players who play different roles is pretty weak.

I mean, the 1950 poll for best player of all-time wasn't anything near a close vote.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Trottier, a player who is one of the easiest to build around, fell to 39th this year.

I was a rookie in 2011 and participated in every ATD since, and here's the evolution of Trottier's placements in the ranking since 2011.

2011: 15th
2012: 15th
2013: 14th
2014: 21th
2015: 29th
2016: 30th
2017: 39th

When it matters, the field doesn't seem to value being "easy to build around" all that much.

39th might be too late, but the drop to the 29th/30th range was absolutely warranted. It was ridiculous when Trottier was drafted in Morenz/ Mikita range. Being drafted in Esposito/Sakic range makes a lot more sense to me.

 

[ImporterExporter]

If you highly value longevity as an elite player, then sure, rank Shore over Morenz. Shore's longevity as an elite player was probably #1 all-time before Richard came along... maybe even until Howe came along.

But at their best, it's hard not to take Morenz. Morenz easily has the best Hart record during the NHL's first great generation of the late 20s/early 30s, competing against a great group of forwards and defensemen, including Shore himself.

Shore was great too, of course, but he racked up the majority of his Hart consideration against the weakest cohort of forwards in NHL history in the late 1930s (seriously, actually look at the competion for the Hart in the late 1930s).

And of course Shore gets drafted over a (possibly) comparable forward. He's a Defenseman. Using draft position to compare players who play different roles is pretty weak.

I mean, the 1950 poll for best player of all-time wasn't anything near a close vote.

I find that poll extremely weak. Nobody that has studied hockey history thinks Morenz was light years better than other players in the first half century. It stinks of eastern Canadien/Montreal bias.

Shore was a western Canada born, US based player that rubbed a lot of people the wrong way with his style so it's no surprise he, for one, didn't fare well in retrospective polling. Same thing with Cyclone Taylor who played almost his entire career out west and probably was hurt by that.

Again, how dominant WAS Morenz really?

He lost the Hart vote to Billy Burch in 1925. In 1926 he finished a distant 6th behind Nels Stewart, Cleghorn, Nighbor, Worters and Hooley Smith. Didn't place in 27. In 28 he finally won his 1st, and beat out Worters, Shore, Hay and Ching Johnson the 2-5 finishers. Didn't place in 29. In 1930 he finished way down the list in 7th place. in 31 he won, and the next highest ranked F in the Hart was Nels Stewart in 5th.

How great is his Hart voting really? He won 3 yes, but was only top 5, one other time. He benefited from aging, dominant forwards in their twilight years (Nighbor and Cy Denneny come to mind immediately) nearing retirement. The forwards he beat out weren't exactly stellar either. Better than when Shore won, yes, but not drastically. And Shore won 4 Harts, with 3 more years as a finalist.

He led the league in goal scoring exactly once (there were multiple others who were better during his era). Points twice. His VsX numbers aren't much better than guys like Frank Boucher, Nels Stewart or Bill Cook, especially in the 10 year version. There were others who excelled at play making more. Same thing defensively when looking at forwards.

Morenz certainly wasn't THAT good in the postseason either.

For somebody who supposedly dominated hockey like no other between 1900-1950, like that 1950 poll tries to convince us of, he didn't exactly set the world on fire in terms of numbers/hardware. Certainly not more so than his peers.

Again, I have no doubts he was a great, great player. But to the point ONE poll tries and makes us believe? Not a chance.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I find that poll extremely weak. Nobody that has studied hockey history thinks Morenz was light years better than other players in the first half century. It stinks of eastern Canadien/Montreal bias.

Shore was a western Canada born, US based player that rubbed a lot of people the wrong way with his style so it's no surprise he, for one, didn't fare well in retrospective polling. Same thing with Cyclone Taylor who played almost his entire career out west and probably was hurt by that.

Again, how dominant WAS Morenz really?

He lost the Hart vote to Billy Burch in 1925. In 1926 he finished a distant 6th behind Nels Stewart, Cleghorn, Nighbor, Worters and Hooley Smith. Didn't place in 27. In 28 he finally won his 1st, and beat out Worters, Shore, Hay and Ching Johnson the 2-5 finishers. Didn't place in 29. In 1930 he finished way down the list in 7th place. in 31 he won, and the next highest ranked F in the Hart was Nels Stewart in 5th.

How great is his Hart voting really? He won 3 yes, but was only top 5, one other time. He benefited from aging, dominant forwards in their twilight years (Nighbor and Cy Denneny come to mind immediately) nearing retirement. The forwards he beat out weren't exactly stellar either. Better than when Shore won, yes, but not drastically. And Shore won 4 Harts, with 3 more years as a finalist.

He led the league in goal scoring exactly once (there were multiple others who were better during his era). Points twice. His VsX numbers aren't much better than guys like Frank Boucher, Nels Stewart or Bill Cook, especially in the 10 year version. There were others who excelled at play making more. Same thing defensively when looking at forwards.

Morenz certainly wasn't THAT good in the postseason either.

For somebody who supposedly dominated hockey like no other between 1900-1950, like that 1950 poll tries to convince us of, he didn't exactly set the world on fire in terms of numbers/hardware. Certainly not more so than his peers.

Again, I have no doubts he was a great, great player. But to the point ONE poll tries and makes us believe? Not a chance.

Everyone could have thought he was the best by a slim margin, and he would have still dominated a poll where everyone only picked their first choice. Anyway, his Hart record doesn't look that great by modern terms, but it was, again, quite easily better than anyone else at the time.

And no, Morenz wasn't as good as Jean Beliveau or Marty Barry in the playoffs, but I think his record was quite a bit better than Shore's.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Everyone could have thought he was the best by a slim margin, and he would have still dominated a poll where everyone only picked their first choice. Anyway, his Hart record doesn't look that great by modern terms, but it was, again, quite easily better than anyone else at the time.

And no, Morenz wasn't as good as Jean Beliveau or Marty Barry in the playoffs, but I think his record was quite a bit better than Shore's.

How so? What way can anyone quantify that his Hart record was so much better than anyone else? Other than just saying it which doesn't really do anything.

I've outlined why it wasn't exactly like he dominated over a stellar group of forwards in his Hart winning years. And he doesn't have any depth in terms of Hart voting. Shore at least bests him in that regard easily.

And lets look at Cup finals.

1924 he was very good, especially against Calgary in the SCF, netting a hatrick in game 1. But this was before consolidation to be fair.

In 1925 he was very good against the Toronto Patricks in the Semi Finals, scoring 3 goals in 2 games. But the finals were canceled due to players strike.

In 1930 he scored 1 goal in 2 games. Albert Ludac scored 3 points to lead all Montreal players and Sylvio Mantha had 2 goals and Pit Lepine 2 points. Eddie Shore scored 1 of Boston's 3 goals in the 2 game series.

In 1931 he scored 1 single goal in 5 games against Chicago. Hardly an effort to get excited about. Johnny Gagnon and Pit Lepine were the stars it seems.

As I said before, he doesn't strike me as a guy I'd qualify as a stellar postseason performer, especially when looking at his post consolidation numbers.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

How so? What way can anyone quantify that his Hart record was so much better than anyone else? Other than just saying it which doesn't really do anything.

I've outlined why it wasn't exactly like he dominated over a stellar group of forwards in his Hart winning years. And he doesn't have any depth in terms of Hart voting. Shore at least bests him in that regard easily.

Eddie Shore's playoff issues are well-documented. Morenz was inconsistent in the playoffs, but he does have 3 Cups and one well-deserved retro Conn Smythe.

It's also a fact that Shore didn't win a single Hart trophy while Morenz was in his prime. Shore won 4 Harts in 6 years from 1933 - 1938. Simply counting the number of Hart / All-Star nods doesn't tell us anything, other than that Shore had much better longevity as an elite player.

As a counter, there is a case that Shore wasn't quite in his true prime as a two-way player when Morenz was at his best, so there is that. But I do think that the overall competition for Morenz's Harts was quite a bit stronger.

The issue with Morenz is that his prime was relatively short - from 1925 - 1932, and that he didn't do all that much outside of it. Very sharp decline between his age 29, 30, and 31 seasons. 1932 (age 29) - still a superstar. 1933 (age 30) - fringe top 10 scorer. 1934 (age 31) - nothing special.

 

[ImporterExporter]

I guess I just can't get excited about him as a definitive top 20 player. For all the nostalgic, mythical like sentiments that you read, he didn't truly dominate the game as you'd expect given what you can find in newspaper clippings and other retroactive material.

I'd expect somebody of his lure to have more scoring titles, Richards, dominant playoff performances, etc. I have no doubt that he was the very best all around forward in the late 20's and very early 30's, but on the whole, all time, I don't see what makes him definitively better than say a Stan Mikita, who had better scoring averages and overall hardware to his name, played against tougher competition by a pretty wide margin, and doesn't give up any ground as a postseason player unless you strictly Cup count, which is pointless. And Mikita has far better longevity.

I'm working on a months long project top 50 of my own (I'll be posting it hopefully later this week on the HoH forum) and Morenz placed 21st all time for me. I couldn't go higher.

 

[BenchBrawl]

39th might be too late, but the drop to the 29th/30th range was absolutely warranted. It was ridiculous when Trottier was drafted in Morenz/ Mikita range. Being drafted in Esposito/Sakic range makes a lot more sense to me.

I don't think the drop to 29th/30th was warranted.Sure, if you check his value on the Top 60 Centers Project and other all-time lists, then it was warranted.But in the ATD, Trottier is more valuable than Mikita as far as I'm concerned, though I cannot prove it.

If I could build hundreds of teams around both (taken at the same spot), with whom would I win more championships? I think it would be with Trottier, but maybe I'm wrong.

I feel the same about Potvin over Shore, Lidstrom, Kelly.

 

[seventieslord]

You might be right. My own visual assessment of Messier's defensive ability is closer to yours. But there are posters here who have a dimmer view of Messier's two-way ability. And it is a fact that Messier's Selke record isn't so hot, even compared to other two-way players of the era, like Trottier and Kurri.

I wouldn't care too much about Messier's Selke record when discussing his defensive play. For his entire prime, the Selke was voted on with a three-man ballot. And you have guys like Carbonneau, Gainey and Ramsay dominating 1-3 of those spots until 1993, plus whatever flavour of the year got attention. So using Selke voting is really just looking at how large the very small minority of voters was, who thought Messier was top-3 in the league, and incorrectly so. He was not at that level. Comparing him to players like Morenz, Crosby, Mikita and Beliveau defensively is going to be more effective going by eye test and contemporary reports and forming a bit of a "composite sketch" from there. Selke voting has its place too, but it's a really small place in this case.

Shore was a western Canada born, US based player that rubbed a lot of people the wrong way with his style so it's no surprise he, for one, didn't fare well in retrospective polling.

Morenz also died early and tragically, adding to his "francophone folk hero" status, while Shore was still alive and adding to his legend as an Ol' Dirty ******* as an AHL coach.

Anyway, his Hart record doesn't look that great by modern terms, but it was, again, quite easily better than anyone else at the time.

I am surprised this is not a more compelling point to IE. He spends most of his spare time, from what I can tell, defending Crosby in the HOH section against people who say "boy, for such a great player he has ONLY two scoring titles and ONLY two Harts!!!" when a deeper look at how close he was to those awards and how often shows his record is clearly unmatched in this era.

on the whole, all time, I don't see what makes him definitively better than say a Stan Mikita, who had better scoring averages and overall hardware to his name, played against tougher competition by a pretty wide margin, and doesn't give up any ground as a postseason player unless you strictly Cup count, which is pointless. And Mikita has far better longevity.

I'm definitely not as hard on Morenz as you are, but I still rank Mikita ahead. Mainly due to the set of top-5 or so players Mikita competed against in his prime, consistently placing top-4 in the league in scoring.

 

[jarek]

Morenz didn't dominate his peers? He only ranks 14th all time in VsX7.. the next closest player of the era, Charlie Conacher, is a healthy 6 points behind.

 

[monster_bertuzzi]

Morenz didn't dominate his peers? He only ranks 14th all time in VsX7.. the next closest player of the era, Charlie Conacher, is a healthy 6 points behind.

I agree Morenz was a beast and on par with Eddie Shore as clearly the two best from that late 20's/30-35 era. It's not simply all about numbers 87, even though Morenz's numbers are pretty amazing in their own right, every vibe you get its like he was Sergei Fedorov on steroids...if thats even possible.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Morenz also died early and tragically, adding to his "francophone folk hero" status, while Shore was still alive and adding to his legend as an Ol' Dirty ******* as an AHL coach.

I am surprised this is not a more compelling point to IE. He spends most of his spare time, from what I can tell, defending Crosby in the HOH section against people who say "boy, for such a great player he has ONLY two scoring titles and ONLY two Harts!!!" when a deeper look at how close he was to those awards and how often shows his record is clearly unmatched in this era.

The first paragraph just extends my point about his nostalgic lure/folk here status as you put it. He gets the benefit of eastern bias, which absolutely factors into these type of polls and retroactive views/votes. There have been plenty of discussions about this in the ATD and HoH sections that I can recall.

I'm not sure how to take the 2nd part, given I've rarely engaged in deep Crosby discussion since I've come back. The main culprits that I've noticed over the past month in that regard are daver and to a lesser degree, a few others.

To expand on the depth of awards/points....

Morenz won 3 Harts.

Let's take a look at each year from his first season in 23-24.

1923-24
-Doesn't place and Frank Nighbor wins the first ever Hart trophy despite only scoring 17 points, which placed him 8th overall.

1924-25
-Morenz finishes 4th in scoring, and 2nd in Hart, losing to Billy Burch.

1925-26
-finishes tied for 5th in scoring, and a distant 6th in Hart, behind Stewart, Cleghorn, Nighbor, Worters, and Hooley Smith. Frank Nighbor, an aging vet now has a 1st and 3rd place in Hart voting. He's a guy who almost surely bests Morenz if the Hart had been around earlier, IMHO, given what he did in the NHA/NHL in the late teens and early 20's and what we know about what people thought of Nighbor during that time period.

1926-27
-finishes 3rd in scoring, and doesn't place in the Hart vote that I can see.

1927-28
-Morenz's first dominant season, at age 25, wins the Art Ross and Hart. The next best forward in Hart voting that year? George Hay. Awesome year, no doubt, but Hart competition was pretty weak by my estimation.

1928-29
-Tied for 3rd in scoring, doesn't place in Hart vote that I can see.

1929-30
-Places a distant 7th in scoring, and this year saw Cooney Weiland of all people post the most dominant offensive season of the NHL existence to date and would stand as such for 15 years. (Yes I know that forward passing came into effect without offsides, but Morenz played a full year under these conditions).

1930-31
-Morenz wins his 2nd Art Ross, edging out Goodfellow and wins his 2nd of 3 Harts, besting Shore, Clancy, Goodfellow an Stewart. Stellar year.

1931-32
-Finishes 3rd in scoring, but gets his 3rd Hart trophy, besting Ching Johnson.

1932-33
-Finishes 10th in scoring, doesn't place in Hart voting

1933-34
-Doesn't place in Hart voting, outside top 10 in scoring

1934-35
-Doesn't place in Hart voting, outside top 10 in scoring. Eddie Shore wins the Hart, besting Charlie Conacher, Art Coulter, Frank Boucher and Aurele Joliat. Hardly weak competition.

1935-36
-Same as previous 2 years. Nothing to note other than his career was about over. Eddie Shore wins the Hart again, over Hooley Smith, Charlie Conacher, Sweeney Schriner and Red Dutton. Not quite as strong as the year before, but certainly not any worse then Morenz's comp in 1927-28.


Again, Morenz won 3 Harts, was runner up once and never had another top 5 finish.

And furthermore, his competition, other than a 25 year old Shore in 27-28, was very weak.

Eddie Shore was competing for Hart's as early as 1927-28, when he finished 3rd. He then finished 3rd again the following year, 2 votes behind 2nd. He finishes 2nd behind Morenz in 31, 15 votes shy and then started rolling in the Hart's in 1932-33.

Shore's Hart voting record:

1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 3, 3, 5

Morenz's Hart voting record:

1, 1, 1, 2, 6, 7

Not only does Shore best him at the top end, he has greater depth as well.

Eddie Shore was an 8 time AS, and that's cutting off his 28 and 29 seasons (AS's didn't exist) where he was the highest ranking D to finish in the Hart vote both years, so you can almost surely add 2 more nods there.

So yeah, in 1950, one poll paints Morenz out to be a mythological beast of a hockey player, but how badly did he break away from the other players during the mid 20's through mid 30's, when he didn't have the best peak or longevity Hart vote, won exactly 2 scoring titles, 1 goal title, and frankly was at best, average in the postseason, at least on an all time level (unless a person finds Cup counting a reasonable way to give credit to a player for postseason success).

 

[ImporterExporter]

Morenz didn't dominate his peers? He only ranks 14th all time in VsX7.. the next closest player of the era, Charlie Conacher, is a healthy 6 points behind.

If you want to ONLY focus on VsX (7 year version) fine. But when grading out a player I like to go much further than 1 single metric. In the 10 year version he's exactly one tenth of a point better than Frank Boucher and 2.5 points ahead of Nels Stewart.

Also:

He wasn't the best goal scorer of his era (I'd say Conacher or Bill Cook were). He wasn't the best play maker (Frank Boucher was probably the gold standard). He wasn't the best defensive forward. Certainly wasn't anywhere near the best playoff performer.

Exactly how dominant is he?

 

[seventieslord]

I'm not sure how to take the 2nd part, given I've rarely engaged in deep Crosby discussion since I've come back. The main culprits that I've noticed over the past month in that regard are daver and to a lesser degree, a few others.
[/I]

Oh yeah, not much, only 49 posts in the HOH section in the last 15 days!

I don't mean this as an insult or even a friendly jab, just that you are always dealing with these exact same objections when it comes to Crosby, so it shouldn't be so hard to convince you about Morenz's greatness, yet... it is.

He wasn't the best goal scorer of his era (I'd say Conacher or Bill Cook were). He wasn't the best play maker (Frank Boucher was probably the gold standard). He wasn't the best defensive forward. Certainly wasn't anywhere near the best playoff performer.

Exactly how dominant is he?

Certainly wasn't anywhere near the best playoff performer?

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=2181507

Who was a better playoff performer, aside from Frank Boucher?

 

[jarek]

If you want to ONLY focus on VsX (7 year version) fine. But when grading out a player I like to go much further than 1 single metric. In the 10 year version he's exactly one tenth of a point better than Frank Boucher and 2.5 points ahead of Nels Stewart.

Also:

He wasn't the best goal scorer of his era (I'd say Conacher or Bill Cook were). He wasn't the best play maker (Frank Boucher was probably the gold standard). He wasn't the best defensive forward. Certainly wasn't anywhere near the best playoff performer.

Exactly how dominant is he?

How dominant was he? He was 6 points better than the next best in the 7 year metric. Even if you take 10 years, and thus start taking years out of his career that aren't so good, he still comes out ahead. That's how much better he was at his absolute peak.

I'm really surprised at you, 87. What changed? You used to be such a huge proponent of peak over prime. That was your main argument with respect to Erik Karlsson.

The fact of the matter is, the best of Howie Morenz up to at least 7 years was only bested, and not necessarily in slam dunk fashion, by a single player, and that player, as has been demonstrated, was not considered better than Morenz when they played against each other during the prime of Morenz.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Oh yeah, not much, only 49 posts in the HOH section in the last 15 days!

I don't mean this as an insult or even a friendly jab, just that you are always dealing with these exact same objections when it comes to Crosby, so it shouldn't be so hard to convince you about Morenz's greatness, yet... it is.

Certainly wasn't anywhere near the best playoff performer?

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=2181507

Who was a better playoff performer, aside from Frank Boucher?

Well to be fair, I didn't bring Crosby up at all here....you did Just want the record to show that!

Crosby has a legitimate excuse for not having 4 Hart trophies though. Deliberate (2010) and freak (2013) injuries that cost him a pair of Art Ross and Hart trophies. Both years he easily had enough sample size and was so far ahead of the field that it's pretty safe to assume Crosby only lacks a better case of hardware due to a couple of injuries that weren't his fault. You can't say the same about Morenz unless you count his late career leg injury when he was already well into his 30's.

Plus Crosby is a vastly better playoff performer, in a tougher era. It's not even debatable. That's why Morenz didn't come up for discussion until the very end in the top 40 HoH playoff performer project (didn't make the cut)...and rightfully so.

Do I really need to go over, once again Morenz's weak post consolidation efforts?

1927 - 1 goal in 4 games. Out in semi's.

1928 - 0 points in 2 games. Out in round 1.

1929 - 0 points in 3 games. Out in round 1.

1930 - He has 1 goal in the 2 game Cup final. 4 players scored more than he did for Montreal.

1931 - He scores 1 lonely goal in 5 (FIVE) games in Cup final. 5 players score more, including Johnny Gagnon with 4 goals and 6 points.

1932 - 1 goal in 4 games. Knocked out in round 1. 5 players score more.

1933 - Morenz was better with 3 assists in 2 games. Montreal still knocked in quarters.

1934 - 2 points in 2 games. Montreal out in quarters.

1935 - 0 points in 2 games. Hawks out in round 1.

15 points in 35 games after consolidation. And in the 2 years Montreal did win the Cup, Morenz was almost completely shut down. We see far less talented players stepping up.

Other random players totals in same or similar time periods (all post consolidation #'s):

Johnny Gagnon - 24 points in 32 games
Aurele Joliat - 19 in 40
Bill Cook - 24 in 46
Joe Primeau 23 in 38
Charlie Conacher 35 in 49
Harry Oliver 16 in 35

 

[jarek]

Why did you leave out his playoff leading assist total of 4 in 1931?

Regardless, I agree that Howie Morenz has a very inconsistent playoff record. He still has one of the best regular season peak/primes ever.

Also, why are you looking exclusively at post-consolidation playoffs?

 

[ImporterExporter]

Why did you leave out his playoff leading assist total of 4 in 1931?

I didn't. I credited him with his points in the bolded part below.

15 points in 35 games = 0.43 PPG. See other players below that have considerably better averages.

And those assists didn't come in the Cup final. in 1931 he was basically a non factor in the Cup final with the 1 goal in 5 games. Johnny Gagnon was the hero for Montreal that year, by a wide margin.

What is your definition/difference between peak and prime sir?

 

[jarek]

What is your definition/difference between peak and prime sir?

Why does it matter? Generally it means the same thing to me, some people just use different words for it.

With Morenz, he wasn't necessarily the best at any one particular skill. However, he was exceptionally good at all of them. As a complete package, there are few better.

 

[seventieslord]

Also, why are you looking exclusively at post-consolidation playoffs?

This