TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
True - with the "rate players overall" projects, we had 2 top 100 projects and loads of ATDs to fall back on.
HOH Top 40 Stanley Cup Playoff Performers of All Time
- Thread starter quoipourquoi
- Start date
Canadiens1958
Registered User
Data and Projects
The NHL releasing data during the project and in the future, hopefully by the start of the 2017-18 season, should go a long way to defining future efforts.
Talking projects, a top 40 for coaches could be very interesting.
The NHL releasing data during the project and in the future, hopefully by the start of the 2017-18 season, should go a long way to defining future efforts.
Talking projects, a top 40 for coaches could be very interesting.
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
Teams, Seasons, and Coaches is probably a good three-year plan if we're addressing new categories.
In the Fall, I'm setting up a repository for voluntary top-100 lists to be published late-November and early-December.
Canadiens1958
Registered User
Coaches
Hopefully next as the way hockey is trending it is becoming more and more of a coaches game. Putting players in a position to optimize team success while buffering individual weaknesses.
Historically coaching is underappreciated, often the difference between success and failure at both levels, team and individual.
Would go a long way to answering some of the issues regarding individual performances within a team. Prerequisite to an individual project.
Hopefully next as the way hockey is trending it is becoming more and more of a coaches game. Putting players in a position to optimize team success while buffering individual weaknesses.
Historically coaching is underappreciated, often the difference between success and failure at both levels, team and individual.
Would go a long way to answering some of the issues regarding individual performances within a team. Prerequisite to an individual project.
ImporterExporter
"You're a boring old man"
We agree on this 100%. I've long argued that coaching and goal tending is badly underrated in the All Time Draft section for years now.
ResilientBeast
Proud Member of the TTSAOA
I don't know if it is specifically in the ATD, goaltending maybe but even then it's the most complex thing to argue for. Goalies have significant variance in performance all the time.
If your coach isn't within the top 50% you don't make it to the finals
Quantifying why coaching of all things should matter so much in a hypothetical match up between amateurs from the early 1900s and a player from the 1970s WHA boggles my mind. If your coach fits your team well and you can compensate in other areas that make sense. So many times an inferior coach with a better roster has defeated a better coach
ImporterExporter
"You're a boring old man"
That's why Toe Blake and Scotty Bowman own a combined 17 Stanley Cups. Hap Day has 5, Al Arbour 4, Sather 4, Imlach 4, and a number of other higher end coaches have 3.
Funny how you don't have what would be considered all time inferior coaches with multiple titles.
MXD
Partying Hard
- Oct 27, 2005
- 51,743
- 17,655
That's why Toe Blake and Scotty Bowman own a combined 17 Stanley Cups. Hap Day has 5, Al Arbour 4, Sather 4, Imlach 4, and a number of other higher end coaches have 3.
Funny how you don't have what would be considered all time inferior coaches with multiple titles.
You know what?
There's at least one active Head Coach with only one Stanley Cup that I'd have a really hard time keeping out of my Top-25.
To prevent any triggering, that is NOT Dan Bylsma.
ImporterExporter
"You're a boring old man"
Dan Bylsma is probably the worst all time SC winning coach. You don't have to worry
Bowman
Blake
Arbour
Day
Imlach
Ivan
Cecil Hart
Sather
L Patrick
Jack Adams
D Irvin
Shero
Gorman
Green
Plus a handful of Russian coaches if we're going global.
That's off the top of my head. I'm sure there are more I'm forgetting.
Bowman
Blake
Arbour
Day
Imlach
Ivan
Cecil Hart
Sather
L Patrick
Jack Adams
D Irvin
Shero
Gorman
Green
Plus a handful of Russian coaches if we're going global.
That's off the top of my head. I'm sure there are more I'm forgetting.
ResilientBeast
Proud Member of the TTSAOA
Part of the problem inherent in ranking playoff performers is sample size. You're taking NHL careers and boiling them down to, essentially, a few Cup runs. So you end up comparing a couple dozen games vs. another couple dozen. Individual biases and preferences are naturally going to result in wildly different answers from such a limited amount of evidence to work with.
Canadiens1958
Registered User
Others
Tom Johnson, Al McNeil.
Dan Bylsma is probably the worst all time SC winning coach. You don't have to worry
Bowman
Blake
Arbour
Day
Imlach
Ivan
Cecil Hart
Sather
L Patrick
Jack Adams
D Irvin
Shero
Gorman
Green
Plus a handful of Russian coaches if we're going global.
That's off the top of my head. I'm sure there are more I'm forgetting.
Tom Johnson, Al McNeil.
K Fleur
Sacrifice
- Mar 28, 2014
- 15,866
- 26,807
ResilientBeast
Proud Member of the TTSAOA
ImporterExporter
"You're a boring old man"
These numbers do not pass the eye test, IMO. A performance vs. peers analysis shows a much bigger gap between Mario and Sakic/Forsberg; a gap that one would expect given the gap in their regular season performances and when one thinks about how dominant Mario was in his two Cups runs.
From 89 - 93, which comprises 4 of Mario's 5 top runs as noted above, his PPG of 1.92 is 73% better than the average PPG of the next best 14 scorers (less Wayne) of that time period.
http://www.nhl.com/stats/player?agg...mesPlayed,gte,1&sort=points,goals,gamesPlayed
From 96 - 01, which comprises 4 of Sakic's 5 top runs as noted above, his PPG of 1.16 is 34% better than the average PPG of the next best 14 scorers of that time period.
http://www.nhl.com/stats/player?agg...mesPlayed,gte,1&sort=points,goals,gamesPlayed
From 96 - 02, which comprises 4 of Forsberg's 5 top runs as noted above, his PPG of 1.18 is 38% better than the average PPG of the next best 14 scorers of that time period.
The gap between Mario and Sakic and Forsberg using this method is 29% (173/1.34)and 26% respectively vs. 10% (1.37/1.25) and 23% respectively from the method used above. I think using regular season team GAAs makes zero sense. Look no further than this year when the Preds went from being a slightly below average defensive team in the regular season to the best playoff defensive team by far thru 3 rounds before running into the Pens.
Last edited:
ImporterExporter
"You're a boring old man"
Which is precisely why using mathematical gymnastics and years that were not close to being anything special as barometers of greatness is absurd IMHO.
I don't think dismissing 2nd round runs is completely right but I think you have to defer to the Cup runs and in an XX best runs chart where more games were played to a certain extent.
And there are certainly individual situations that have to be considered too. I really think that there is not much too choose between the Avs circa 96 to 2004 and the Pens circa 08 to 17. You have to give the nod the Pens for making it to the SCFs more than the Avs in the same way you have to give the nod to the Wings over the Avs.
I think Forsberg, Sakic and Crosby all very close as playoff performers. It's almost like a Sakic vs. Yzerman overall comparison; it comes down to personal preference.
ImporterExporter
"You're a boring old man"
I have Crosby and Sakic very close to one another all time. Forsberg is a full notch below them.
It's an issue that's been beaten to death but that's where I stand on those 3 players in particular.
It's an issue that's been beaten to death but that's where I stand on those 3 players in particular.
I just don't see how you can look at this stat:
http://www.nhl.com/stats/player?agg...mesPlayed,gte,1&sort=points,goals,gamesPlayed
and put Forsberg a full notch below. I guess it depends on how much difference there is between a "nod" and a "notch".
ImporterExporter
"You're a boring old man"
Put it this way.
Crosby and Sakic are in the 15-20 range for me. Forsberg is probaby around 25.
Sakic was the leading scorer on both Avs title teams. In 96 he had an elite, all time Conn Smythe run. Between that run and the 01 title team, he had 4 OT goals, 9 game winning goals overall and 60 points total.
Forsberg was 3rd on team in scoring in 96 and he wasn't even needed to win in 2001.
THAT, is where Forsberg falls a notch below Sakic.
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
If you fully remove the context of who the opposition is, undoubtedly Mario Lemieux will fare better in that evaluation than he does in the other. He only played two teams in that sample you've given that were within 40 goals of the Jennings.
Mario Lemieux's Opposition GA (vs. Leader), 1989-1993
307 (218), 285 (218), 264 (211), 258 (211), 264 (211), 266 (211), 275 (207), 246 (207), 275 (207), 236 (207), 299 (230), 297 (230)
+89, +67, +53, +47, +53, +55, +68, +39, +68, +29, +69, +67
You're removing the main feature of a vs. opposition statistic - the idea that a player shooting on a good defensive team is not the same as shooting on a bad defensive team, even if they are doing so in the same playoff year. For someone who understands that a player will not produce the same if he is facing harder matchups than a teammate on a different line, I don't know why this would be a blind spot, even if you disagree with using ~80 game sample sizes to assess the defensive prowess of a team.
From 89 to 93, the Pens played 12 series against teams that averaged an 8.5 placing in league GAA and an average conference playoff seeding of 4.75. From 96 to 02, the AVs played 21 series against teams that averaged an 8.8 placing in league GAA and an average conference playoff seeding of 4.6 or so.
The Pens faced slightly better defensive teams in their era and slightly easier overall teams. I see no reason to consider the quality of the opposition as it appears to be quite similar on a relative basis. I am sure the same applies to Crosby.
