HOH Top 40 Stanley Cup Playoff Performers of All Time

[MXD]

See... Spontaneously, I would've thought that, production-wise, Howe and Beliveau had the two best individual playoffs ever out of anyone not named Gretzky and Lemieux.

What I didn't expect is that the "out of anyone not named Gretzky and Lemieux" could be completely dropped. And I'm not sure I like Howe's best being THAT far ahead from Gretztky's best. Which tells me there might be something a bit off about this.

EDIT : Wait... Did you forget to adjust the RS numbers for a 70 games season?

 

[Black Gold Extractor]

See... Spontaneously, I would've thought that, production-wise, Howe and Beliveau had the two best individual playoffs ever out of anyone not named Gretzky and Lemieux.

What I didn't expect is that the "out of anyone not named Gretzky and Lemieux" could be completely dropped. And I'm not sure I like Howe's best being THAT far ahead from Gretztky's best. Which tells me there might be something a bit off about this.

EDIT : Wait... Did you forget to adjust the RS numbers for a 70 games season?

Don't worry, I remembered the season length.

Howe had 23 adjusted points in 11 games while Gretzky (in his final two series in 1985) had 21 adjusted points in 11 games. Explanation: Howe had a couple more lucky bounces. I think most of us accept that Howe at his very peak was pretty close to peak Gretzky. The lucky bounces just don't get to be cancelled out as often in a short stretch.

 

[MXD]

Okay. I get it. Howe'55 (and to a lesser extent, Beliveau'56) see a radical jump with their adjusted scoring because they played against each others teams, who were both very solid defensively. And Howes'55 opponents in the first round were also very solid defensively compared to the league's norm (teams allowing 75% of the goals allowed by "Team League Average" are usually not first round fodder, which was exactly what the Maple Leafs were).

To give an idea of how that number is impressive, the Washington Capitals allowed 81% of the goals allowed by "Team League Average" in 16-17. To give a further idea, the historically defensively inept Colorado Avalanche, 16-17 edition, allowed 121% of the goals allowed by "Team League Average". Which is still quite a bit better than what the Chicago Black Hawks achieved in 1955.

 

[quoipourquoi]

BGE has done some great O6 work.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=2203541

 

[daver]

See... Spontaneously, I would've thought that, production-wise, Howe and Beliveau had the two best individual playoffs ever out of anyone not named Gretzky and Lemieux.

What I didn't expect is that the "out of anyone not named Gretzky and Lemieux" could be completely dropped. And I'm not sure I like Howe's best being THAT far ahead from Gretztky's best. Which tells me there might be something a bit off about this.

We can also add a few other players from that era too like Lindsay, Mikita and Geoffrion.

http://www.nhl.com/stats/player?agg...mesPlayed,gte,1&sort=points,goals,gamesPlayed

Compare this with the 80 to 93 time period:

http://www.nhl.com/stats/player?agg...mesPlayed,gte,1&sort=points,goals,gamesPlayed

Wayne is the obvious outlier here with Mario being the obvious 2nd (assuming Coffey is viewed as being helped by Wayne).

Still not convinced this method is anything other than a way to potentially differentiate two players with similar peer performance resumes, and even then it would become an "arguably" type of differentiation rather than anything concrete.

The # of games played by each player, the difference in variance in GAs from different seasons, the drop in GAs league-wide in the playoffs, and most importantly, the lack of any consideration for a team's actual playoff defensive performance make this a very sketchy metric to use for claims of "Best Playoff performer" or "Best Playoff Run"

 

[MXD]

The # of games played by each player, the difference in variance in GAs from different seasons, the drop in GAs league-wide in the playoffs, and most importantly, the lack of any consideration for a team's actual playoff defensive performance make this a very sketchy metric to use for claims of "Best Playoff performer" or "Best Playoff Run"

To me, due to the nature of playoffs, the team defensive performance in the playoffs is too much tied to their opponent offensive performance, making it a bit tough to dissociate one with the other and not really painting how efficient they were defensively.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

To me, due to the nature of playoffs, the team defensive performance in the playoffs is too much tied to their opponent offensive performance, making it a bit tough to dissociate one with the other and not really painting how efficient they were defensively.

Indeed. Was Nashville incredible defensively in Round 1 this year? The numbers suggest so, but should we adjust them since they were playing the awful Blackhawks (easily the worst team in the playoffs)? This is circular logic.

There are instances where a team's defensive or offensive prowess going into the playoffs has been significantly affected for better or worse (key late season injury or trade deadline upgrade), but for the most part the 82 game sample size is a reasonable proxy. I don't think a precise formula is necessary; quick math and mental adjustments are probably sufficient, but the alternative of just treating every opponent as equal since a precise formula has limitations is ridiculous.

 

[MadLuke]

This, you cannot use the actual defensive achievement of the playoff team much (at least not in goal against), sample size of games and opposition and it is also what we are trying to achieve.

If the oilers score 20 goal in just 4 games in round 1, we are trying to look if they did it against a good or bad defensive team we cannot use that team goal against much, how impressive the performance is, is what we are trying to achieve.

How good they were defensively during the regular season (and I guess in previous round if the sample of games is big enough) will not be perfect, but it just need to be better than the league average to become useful.

 

[seventieslord]

Indeed. Was Nashville incredible defensively in Round 1 this year? The numbers suggest so, but should we adjust them since they were playing the awful Blackhawks (easily the worst team in the playoffs)? This is circular logic.

There are instances where a team's defensive or offensive prowess going into the playoffs has been significantly affected for better or worse (key late season injury or trade deadline upgrade), but for the most part the 82 game sample size is a reasonable proxy. I don't think a precise formula is necessary; quick math and mental adjustments are probably sufficient, but the alternative of just treating every opponent as equal since a precise formula has limitations is ridiculous.

Just weighing in to say I 100% agree with this and it should be obvious.

 

[Black Gold Extractor]

I've been thinking about a possible way to refine adjustments to opponent GA. As most of us know, the proportion of team offense scored by top players has varied over time. For those who don't, this is a good overview. The causes of this include ice time (a zero-sum game for players), goaltending and defense (affects all players), and number of powerplay opportunities (affects only top players).

In the hopes of excluding outliers, I decided to take the second and third highest-scoring forwards of each final four team and determined the percentage of offense that they participated in (i.e. player points divided by team goals for). This should allow someone performing adjustments to determine the *fraction* of opponent GA that should be allotted to first-liners. (Of course, this might be a flawed assumption for teams with two high-scoring forwards on different lines, such as Crosby and Malkin or Sakic and Forsberg. Ideally, ice time could be used, plus it would be team and player specific, but that's limited to 1998-99 onward...)

As one could imagine, the final result was fairly noisy due to small sample sizes. A moving average was performed to determine the general trend. Unsurprisingly, the share of offense by first-liners has varied with time.

In order to create a share of team offense adjustment without noise, I made the assumption that league-wide trends evolve gradually with time without major jumps or drops over the span of a single season. Then, I fitted the data to a 12th-order polynomial, which came back with a R-squared value of 0.47. Finally, I calculated a weighted fit combining the smooth polynomial model (R = 0.683 of the final value) and the original share of team offense results (1-R = 0.317).

The O6 era jump puzzles me in the sense that it's the opposite of the regular season, where top forwards tended to get less of the offensive share than the post-WHA era. This indicates that either there was a change in strategy/deployment in the post-season, or there's something wrong with my methodology.

In any case, here's are a couple of tables comparing results using quoipourquoi's method and using the moving-average fit (best 5 years, minimum of two rounds, of players). Please note that the rankings are not an all-time ranking... just the ranking of the players on this particular list.

Rk. (bge)	Rk. (qpq)	Player	GP	Adj. PTS (qpq)	Adj. PTS (bge)	Adj. PTS/GP (qpq)	Adj. PTS/GP (bge)
1	1	Wayne Gretzky	73	120	122	1.64	1.67
2	3	Mario Lemieux	78	108	107	1.39	1.37
3	2	Gordie Howe	57	85	73	1.50	1.28
4	4	Jaromir Jagr	60	78	76	1.30	1.26
5	8	Guy Lafleur	69	85	84	1.23	1.22
6	6	Joe Sakic	90	113	110	1.25	1.22
7	9	Peter Forsberg	75	92	89	1.23	1.18
8	7	Maurice Richard	50	63	56	1.25	1.13
9	11	Stan Mikita	64	77	71	1.20	1.12
10	13	Sidney Crosby	95	108	105	1.14	1.10
11	10	Jean Beliveau	69	84	75	1.22	1.09
12	16	Mike Bossy	82	86	89	1.05	1.09
13	12	Bobby Hull	64	75	69	1.18	1.08
14	5	Bernie Geoffrion	51	66	54	1.29	1.07
15	17	Evgeni Malkin	107	112	109	1.05	1.02
16	20	Bryan Trottier	89	84	87	0.94	0.98
17	14	Ted Lindsay	52	58	50	1.12	0.97
18	18	Patrick Kane	103	100	99	0.97	0.96
19	19	Doug Gilmour	90	86	86	0.95	0.95
20	15	Dickie Moore	50	54	46	1.09	0.91

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Accumulated data here:

Spoiler

Player	Seas.	R1 P	Op. GA	R2 P	Op. GA	R3 P	Op. GA	R4 P	Op. GA	% off. 5-yr.	R1 Adj.	R2 Adj.	R3 Adj.	R4 Adj.	GP	Adj. PTS	Adj. P/G
Crosby	2010	14	238	5	223		200		200	28.9%	11.3	4.3	0.0	0.0	13	16	1.20
Crosby	2008	8	247	6	199	7	233	6	184	29.4%	6.1	5.7	5.7	6.1	20	24	1.18
Crosby	2017	7	195	7	182	6	214	7	224	27.7%	7.2	7.7	5.6	6.3	24	27	1.11
Crosby	2009	8	238	13	245	7	226	3	244	29.6%	6.3	9.9	5.8	2.3	24	24	1.01
Crosby	2013	9	237	6	178	0	186		200	27.5%	7.6	6.8	0.0	0.0	14	14	1.03
Crosby	2016	8	217	2	193	5	201	4	210	27.7%	7.4	2.1	5.0	3.8	24	18	0.76
Malkin	2009	9	238	10	245	9	226	8	244	29.6%	7.1	7.6	7.5	6.1	24	28	1.18
Malkin	2017	11	195	8	182	6	214	4	224	27.7%	11.3	8.8	5.6	3.6	25	29	1.17
Malkin	2013	11	237	5	178	0	186		200	27.5%	9.3	5.7	0.0	0.0	15	15	1.00
Malkin	2008	7	247	7	199	5	233	3	184	29.4%	5.3	6.6	4.0	3.1	20	19	0.95
Malkin	2016	7	217	2	193	6	201	3	210	27.7%	6.5	2.1	6.0	2.9	23	17	0.76
Malkin	2010	8	238	3	223		200		200	28.9%	6.4	2.6	0.0	0.0	13	9	0.69
Lemieux	1992	17	268	2	240	8	268	7	230	28.3%	12.4	1.6	5.8	6.0	15	26	1.72
Lemieux	1991	8	271	9	264	15	271	12	273	28.0%	5.9	6.7	11.0	8.7	23	32	1.40
Lemieux	1996	10	204	10	237	7	234		200	28.1%	9.7	8.3	5.9	0.0	18	24	1.33
Lemieux	1989	5	315	14	292		200		200	28.5%	3.1	9.3	0.0	0.0	11	12	1.13
Lemieux	1993	9	292	9	290		200		200	27.7%	6.2	6.2	0.0	0.0	11	12	1.12
Lemieux	2001	7	211	7	184	3	195		200	28.6%	6.4	7.4	3.0	0.0	18	17	0.93
Gretzky	1981	11	238	10	267		200		200	26.9%	9.5	7.7	0.0	0.0	9	17	1.92
Gretzky	1985	5	334	13	340	18	306	11	247	27.2%	3.0	7.8	12.0	9.1	18	32	1.77
Gretzky	1983	8	341	14	325	12	275	4	232	26.6%	4.9	9.0	9.1	3.6	16	27	1.66
Gretzky	1988	11	318	6	313	13	276	13	257	27.6%	6.9	3.8	9.5	10.1	19	30	1.60
Gretzky	1989	13	314	9	232		200		200	28.5%	8.1	7.6	0.0	0.0	11	16	1.42
Gretzky	1993	10	275	13	271	10	235	7	273	27.7%	7.3	9.6	8.5	5.1	24	30	1.27
Gretzky	1997	6	201	5	182	9	231		200	28.2%	5.9	5.4	7.7	0.0	15	19	1.26
Gretzky	1986	6	341	13	323		200		200	27.2%	3.6	8.2	0.0	0.0	10	12	1.18
Gretzky	1984	5	383	13	322	10	353	7	276	26.7%	2.7	8.4	5.9	5.3	19	22	1.17
Gretzky	1996	9	252	7	181		200		200	28.1%	7.0	7.6	0.0	0.0	13	15	1.13
Gretzky	1987	15	350	6	278	2	281	11	251	27.1%	8.8	4.4	1.5	9.0	21	24	1.12
Howe	1955		200		200	8	158	12	184	32.9%	0.0	0.0	8.5	11.0	11	19	1.77
Howe	1963		200		200	10	209	6	211	31.6%	0.0	0.0	8.4	5.0	11	13	1.22
Howe	1964		200		200	11	198	8	201	31.0%	0.0	0.0	9.9	7.1	14	17	1.22
Howe	1961		200		200	7	206	8	211	32.4%	0.0	0.0	5.8	6.5	11	12	1.12
Howe	1956		200		200	6	212	6	153	34.3%	0.0	0.0	4.6	6.3	10	11	1.09
Howe	1949		200		200	9	172	2	220	29.6%	0.0	0.0	9.8	1.7	11	11	1.04
Howe	1952		200		200	4	184	3	192	29.7%	0.0	0.0	4.1	2.9	8	7	0.87
Howe	1954		200		200	6	153	3	165	32.2%	0.0	0.0	6.7	3.1	12	10	0.82
Beliveau	1956		200		200	9	238	10	173	34.3%	0.0	0.0	6.1	9.3	10	15	1.54
Beliveau	1965		200		200	6	203	10	206	30.5%	0.0	0.0	5.4	8.8	13	14	1.09
Beliveau	1969		200	4	211	6	238	5	169	29.0%	0.0	3.6	4.8	5.6	14	14	1.00
Beliveau	1955		200		200	5	220	8	157	32.9%	0.0	0.0	3.8	8.6	12	12	1.03
Beliveau	1971		200	8	218	10	234	4	193	29.1%	0.0	7.0	8.1	3.9	20	19	0.95
Beliveau	1954		200		200	8	212	2	155	32.2%	0.0	0.0	6.5	2.2	10	9	0.87
Beliveau	1968		200	2	239	9	246	0	212	28.5%	0.0	1.6	7.1	0.0	10	9	0.87
Beliveau	1967		200		200	5	221	6	247	28.9%	0.0	0.0	4.3	4.7	10	9	0.90
Beliveau	1958		200		200	6	242	6	227	33.5%	0.0	0.0	4.1	4.4	10	8	0.85
Beliveau	1966		200		200	5	219	5	227	29.7%	0.0	0.0	4.3	4.1	10	8	0.83
Beliveau	1957		200		200	10	266	2	204	34.7%	0.0	0.0	6.0	1.6	10	8	0.76
Beliveau	1960		200		200	3	211	4	228	33.1%	0.0	0.0	2.4	2.9	8	5	0.67
Lindsay	1955		200		200	8	158	11	184	32.9%	0.0	0.0	8.5	10.1	11	19	1.69
Lindsay	1952		200		200	4	184	3	192	29.7%	0.0	0.0	4.1	2.9	8	7	0.87
Lindsay	1956		200		200	4	212	5	153	34.3%	0.0	0.0	3.0	5.3	10	8	0.83
Lindsay	1949		200		200	5	172	3	220	29.6%	0.0	0.0	5.4	2.6	11	8	0.73
Lindsay	1954		200		200	4	153	4	165	32.2%	0.0	0.0	4.5	4.2	12	9	0.72
Mikita	1962		200		200	13	194	8	211	31.8%	0.0	0.0	11.6	6.6	12	18	1.52
Mikita	1973		200	9	264	3	219	8	193	29.1%	0.0	6.5	2.6	7.9	15	17	1.13
Mikita	1970		200	7	215	3	233		200	28.8%	0.0	6.3	2.5	0.0	8	9	1.09
Mikita	1968		200	9	203	3	185		200	28.5%	0.0	8.6	3.1	0.0	11	12	1.07
Mikita	1971		200	8	237	5	186	5	227	29.1%	0.0	6.4	5.1	4.2	18	16	0.88
Mikita	1974		200	3	243	8	232		200	28.3%	0.0	2.4	6.7	0.0	11	9	0.83
Mikita	1961		200		200	4	220	7	252	32.4%	0.0	0.0	3.1	4.7	12	8	0.65
Geoffrion	1957		200		200	12	266	6	204	34.7%	0.0	0.0	7.2	4.7	10	12	1.19
Geoffrion	1960		200		200	6	211	6	228	33.1%	0.0	0.0	4.8	4.4	8	9	1.15
Geoffrion	1956		200		200	8	238	6	173	34.3%	0.0	0.0	5.4	5.6	10	11	1.10
Geoffrion	1955		200		200	5	220	8	157	32.9%	0.0	0.0	3.8	8.6	12	12	1.03
Geoffrion	1954		200		200	8	212	3	155	32.2%	0.0	0.0	6.5	3.3	11	10	0.89
Geoffrion	1959		200		200	6	244	7	235	32.5%	0.0	0.0	4.2	5.1	11	9	0.84
Geoffrion	1958		200		200	3	242	8	227	33.5%	0.0	0.0	2.0	5.8	10	8	0.79
Geoffrion	1953		200		200	9	205	1	201	31.7%	0.0	0.0	7.7	0.9	12	9	0.71
Moore	1959		200		200	12	244	5	235	32.5%	0.0	0.0	8.4	3.6	11	12	1.09
Moore	1954		200		200	10	212	3	155	32.2%	0.0	0.0	8.1	3.3	11	11	1.04
Moore	1960		200		200	5	211	5	228	33.1%	0.0	0.0	4.0	3.7	8	8	0.96
Moore	1958		200		200	5	242	6	227	33.5%	0.0	0.0	3.4	4.4	10	8	0.78
Moore	1957		200		200	6	266	4	204	34.7%	0.0	0.0	3.6	3.1	10	7	0.67
Moore	1956		200		200	6	238	3	173	34.3%	0.0	0.0	4.1	2.8	10	7	0.69
Forsberg	2002	7	190	12	199	8	187		200	29.2%	7.0	11.5	8.1	0.0	20	27	1.33
Forsberg	1999	8	191	9	202	7	168		200	29.3%	7.9	8.4	7.9	0.0	19	24	1.28
Forsberg	2004	8	175	3	183		200		200	28.4%	8.9	3.2	0.0	0.0	11	12	1.10
Forsberg	2001	6	238	8	228		200		200	28.6%	4.9	6.8	0.0	0.0	11	12	1.06
Forsberg	1997	9	210	7	247		200		200	28.2%	8.4	5.6	0.0	0.0	14	14	1.00
Forsberg	2000	4	228	6	210	5	184		200	28.5%	3.4	5.5	5.3	0.0	16	14	0.89
Forsberg	1996	10	278	2	220	4	181	5	234	28.1%	7.1	1.8	4.4	4.2	22	17	0.79
Sittler	1977	9	258	12	218		200		200	28.1%	6.9	10.8	0.0	0.0	9	18	1.96
Blake	1944		200		200	10	285	8	307	28.4%	0.0	0.0	6.8	5.1	9	12	1.33
Mackell	1958		200		200	14	220	5	185	33.5%	0.0	0.0	10.5	4.5	12	15	1.25
Bossy	1981	10	376	11	335	6	325	8	270	26.9%	5.5	6.8	3.8	6.1	18	22	1.23
Bossy	1980	2	321	4	240	6	206	11	260	26.5%	1.3	3.5	6.1	8.8	16	20	1.23
Bossy	1983	5	290	4	294	13	234	4	323	26.6%	3.6	2.8	11.6	2.6	19	21	1.08
Bossy	1985	7	246	4	247		200		200	27.2%	5.8	3.3	0.0	0.0	10	9	0.91
Bossy	1982	4	345	8	314	7	354	8	293	26.5%	2.4	5.3	4.1	5.7	19	18	0.92
Bossy	1984	2	312	6	232	7	302	3	322	26.7%	1.3	5.4	4.8	1.9	21	13	0.64
Trottier	1980	4	321	11	240	6	206	8	260	26.5%	2.6	9.6	6.1	6.4	21	25	1.18
Trottier	1981	10	376	8	335	4	325	7	270	26.9%	5.5	4.9	2.5	5.4	18	18	1.02
Trottier	1982	6	345	10	314	6	354	7	293	26.5%	3.6	6.7	3.5	5.0	19	19	0.99
Trottier	1983	6	290	2	294	8	234	4	323	26.6%	4.3	1.4	7.1	2.6	17	15	0.91
Trottier	1987	6	285	7	251		200		200	27.1%	4.3	5.7	0.0	0.0	14	10	0.72
Jagr	2000	10	194	6	179		200		200	28.5%	10.0	6.5	0.0	0.0	11	17	1.50
Jagr	2008	8	197	7	216		200		200	29.4%	7.7	6.1	0.0	0.0	10	14	1.38
Jagr	1999	5	196	7	231		200		200	29.3%	4.8	5.7	0.0	0.0	9	11	1.17
Jagr	1995	11	205	4	207		200		200	28.1%	10.6	3.8	0.0	0.0	12	14	1.20
Jagr	1996	9	204	9	237	5	234		200	28.1%	8.7	7.5	4.2	0.0	18	20	1.13
Jagr	2007	7	245	4	242		200		200	29.2%	5.4	3.1	0.0	0.0	10	9	0.86
Jagr	1992	7	268	7	240	8	268	2	230	28.3%	5.1	5.7	5.8	1.7	21	18	0.87
Lafleur	1977		200	12	283	5	198	9	246	28.1%	0.0	8.3	5.0	7.2	14	21	1.47
Lafleur	1975		200	9	260	10	246		200	28.6%	0.0	6.7	7.9	0.0	11	15	1.32
Lafleur	1976		200	5	268	5	195	7	214	28.1%	0.0	3.7	5.1	6.4	13	15	1.17
Lafleur	1978		200	8	273	8	243	5	223	27.4%	0.0	5.9	6.6	4.5	15	17	1.14
Lafleur	1979		200	8	258	12	277	3	299	27.5%	0.0	6.2	8.7	2.0	16	17	1.06
Kane	2010	7	225	8	222	5	215	8	225	28.9%	6.0	6.9	4.5	6.8	22	24	1.10
Kane	2014	6	191	4	206	10	174		200	27.3%	6.4	3.9	11.6	0.0	19	22	1.16
Kane	2015	7	208	6	201	7	226	3	211	27.5%	6.8	6.0	6.2	2.9	23	22	0.95
Kane	2013	5	217	4	196	5	202	5	186	27.5%	4.6	4.1	5.0	5.4	23	19	0.83
Kane	2009	4	248	8	220	2	244		200	29.6%	3.0	6.8	1.5	0.0	16	11	0.71
Hull	1971		200	8	237	8	186	9	227	29.1%	0.0	6.4	8.2	7.6	18	22	1.23
Hull	1970		200	9	215	2	233		200	28.8%	0.0	8.1	1.6	0.0	8	10	1.21
Hull	1965		200		200	13	205	4	217	30.5%	0.0	0.0	11.5	3.4	14	15	1.06
Hull	1962		200		200	6	194	8	211	31.8%	0.0	0.0	5.4	6.6	12	12	1.00
Hull	1961		200		200	7	220	7	252	32.4%	0.0	0.0	5.4	4.7	12	10	0.85
Hull	1972		200	5	271	3	202		200	29.1%	0.0	3.5	2.8	0.0	8	6	0.79
Gilmour	1994	8	234	16	259	4	269		200	27.5%	6.9	12.5	3.0	0.0	18	22	1.24
Gilmour	1988	11	301	6	276		200		200	27.6%	7.3	4.4	0.0	0.0	10	12	1.17
Gilmour	1993	12	273	10	271	13	332		200	27.7%	8.8	7.4	7.8	0.0	21	24	1.14
Gilmour	1989	3	259	7	343	5	343	7	223	28.5%	2.3	4.0	2.8	6.1	22	15	0.69
Gilmour	1986	8	313	8	396	5	323		200	27.2%	5.2	4.1	3.2	0.0	19	12	0.66
Gilmour	1984	7	331	4	353		200		200	26.7%	4.4	2.4	0.0	0.0	11	7	0.61
Sakic	1996	11	278	8	220	10	181	5	234	28.1%	7.8	7.2	10.9	4.2	22	30	1.37
Sakic	1997	12	210	7	247	6	197		200	28.2%	11.2	5.6	6.0	0.0	17	23	1.34
Sakic	2004	6	175	6	183		200		200	28.4%	6.7	6.4	0.0	0.0	11	13	1.19
Sakic	2001	7	238	2	228	8	195	9	195	28.6%	5.7	1.7	7.9	8.9	21	24	1.16
Sakic	1999	12	191	2	202	5	168		200	29.3%	11.9	1.9	5.6	0.0	19	19	1.02
Richard	1951		200		200	6	163	7	162	29.1%	0.0	0.0	6.9	8.1	11	15	1.37
Richard	1944		200		200	10	285	7	307	28.4%	0.0	0.0	6.8	4.4	9	11	1.24
Richard	1956		200		200	10	238	4	173	34.3%	0.0	0.0	6.7	3.7	10	10	1.04
Richard	1958		200		200	10	242	5	227	33.5%	0.0	0.0	6.7	3.6	10	10	1.03
Richard	1947		200		200	8	239	3	235	27.0%	0.0	0.0	6.8	2.6	10	9	0.94
Richard	1946		200		200	6	292	5	256	27.9%	0.0	0.0	4.0	3.8	9	8	0.87
Richard	1957		200		200	7	266	4	204	34.7%	0.0	0.0	4.2	3.1	10	7	0.73

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Thoughts?

P.S. Darryl Sittler has to be the greatest "small sample size player" ever.

 

[Canadiens1958]

O6

...
Thoughts?
P.S. Darryl Sittler has to be the greatest "small sample size player" ever.

O6, take it you are refering to the upward trend starting with 1954?

A variety of reasons. Upward swing in PP performance, especially 1954-56 where a PPG did not end the penalty. 1957 onwards, PP ended with a goal against. This has to be considered, especially if more minors were called. Once the missing PPO and PPG data and penalty breakdowns are available you might have your explanation.

Also you did not have the various coincidental penalty rules. Coincidental minors and majors produce 4 on 4 and 3 on 3 hockey until the penalties expired, so TOI gets impacted at times.Short playoff series more of a factor than over the length of the RS.

Darryl Sittler - true, for various reasons he played very well against Bobby Clarke.

 

[daver]

There are instances where a team's defensive or offensive prowess going into the playoffs has been significantly affected for better or worse (key late season injury or trade deadline upgrade), but for the most part the 82 game sample size is a reasonable proxy. I don't think a precise formula is necessary; quick math and mental adjustments are probably sufficient, but the alternative of just treating every opponent as equal since a precise formula has limitations is ridiculous.

I would say that assuming a player would hypothetically would not score as well as against hypothetically tougher competition, and ranking players based on this assumption, is ridiculous.

When we are comparing a player against another player from the same era who both have played 20 to 30 rounds of hockey, you have to think there would not be a significant difference in the hypothetical defensive strength, let alone the actual defensive performances, of the teams they faced. Therefore, performance vs. peers seems to be the best way to view things.

Look at Wayne vs. Bossy and Trottier from 80 to 88. Is there any surprise of the gap between their PPGs? Or Mario's PPG vs. the other high playoff point getters in his prime?

Look at Forsberg and Sakic vs. Yzerman and Federov from 95 to 04. The gaps in their PPGs seems reasonable based on what they have done in the RS. And it's no surprise that Jagr has the best PPG of that group. That Jagr did not play much nearly as much as those other four past the 2nd round is significant, and is reflected in him being behind them in points. That is enough to place him behind Sakic and Forsberg as a playoff performer, IMO.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

I would say that assuming a player would hypothetically would not score as well as against hypothetically tougher competition, and ranking players based on this assumption, is ridiculous.

Strength of competition is merely one piece of the pie. It's not about hypotheticals, it's about understanding that goals scored against the 1999 Dallas Stars came under different conditions than goals scored against the 1987 LA Kings.

When we are comparing a player against another player from the same era who both have played 20 to 30 rounds of hockey, you have to think there would not be a significant difference in the hypothetical defensive strength, let alone the actual defensive performances, of the teams they faced. Therefore, performance vs. peers seems to be the best way to view things.

Why would we speculate when all the data is readily available? Players who played predominantly in the Campbell Conference in the 80's had demonstrably weaker defensive opponents than those in the Wales Conference. Until the last couple years, the salary cap era East has been clearly weaker than the West in this regard. None of this is speculative, all the data is there. But something tells me the part about the East being weak defensively for most of a certain listed player's career is the real reason you'd prefer to just ignore strength of competition.

Look at Wayne vs. Bossy and Trottier from 80 to 88. Is there any surprise of the gap between their PPGs? Or Mario's PPG vs. the other high playoff point getters in his prime?

Look at Forsberg and Sakic vs. Yzerman and Federov from 95 to 04. The gaps in their PPGs seems reasonable based on what they have done in the RS. And it's no surprise that Jagr has the best PPG of that group. That Jagr did not play much nearly as much as those other four past the 2nd round is significant, and is reflected in him being behind them in points. That is enough to place him behind Sakic and Forsberg as a playoff performer, IMO.

Finding specific isolated comparisons that pass the so called smell test before examining them in finer detail isn't particularly enlightening.

 

[Black Gold Extractor]

When we are comparing a player against another player from the same era who both have played 20 to 30 rounds of hockey, you have to think there would not be a significant difference in the hypothetical defensive strength, let alone the actual defensive performances, of the teams they faced. Therefore, performance vs. peers seems to be the best way to view things.

By taking the % of team offense provided by first liners during the playoffs, one can get a corrective factor that seems to take care of the performance vs. peer issues while also taking defensive ability into consideration. From my latest fit (13th-order polynomial with an R-squared value of 0.48):

As you can see, first-liners were scoring the largest share of the pie in the O6 era.

Best 5 years, minimum of two rounds (with results from quoipourquoi's method labeled "qpq" and my amended method labeled "bge"):

Rk. (bge)	Rk. (qpq)	Player	GP	Adj. PTS (qpq)	Adj. PTS (bge)	Adj. PTS/GP (qpq)	Adj. PTS/GP (bge)
1	1	Wayne Gretzky	73	120	122	1.64	1.67
2	3	Mario Lemieux	78	108	107	1.39	1.37
3	2	Gordie Howe	57	85	73	1.50	1.28
4	4	Jaromir Jagr	60	78	76	1.30	1.26
5	8	Guy Lafleur	69	85	84	1.23	1.22
6	6	Joe Sakic	90	113	110	1.25	1.22
7	9	Peter Forsberg	75	92	89	1.23	1.18
8	7	Maurice Richard	50	63	56	1.25	1.13
9	11	Stan Mikita	64	77	71	1.20	1.12
10	13	Sidney Crosby	95	108	105	1.14	1.10
11	10	Jean Beliveau	69	84	75	1.22	1.09
12	16	Mike Bossy	82	86	89	1.05	1.09
13	12	Bobby Hull	64	75	69	1.18	1.08
14	5	Bernie Geoffrion	51	66	54	1.29	1.07
15	17	Evgeni Malkin	107	112	109	1.05	1.02
16	20	Bryan Trottier	89	84	87	0.94	0.98
17	14	Ted Lindsay	52	58	50	1.12	0.97
18	18	Patrick Kane	103	100	99	0.97	0.96
19	19	Doug Gilmour	90	86	86	0.95	0.95
20	15	Dickie Moore	50	54	46	1.09	0.91

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

For example, before taking % of team offense into account, almost every O6 player of note was outperforming or performing similarly to Crosby, which doesn't make much sense since Crosby is the best offensive playoff performer in this era. After taking % of team offense into account, well I think the results make more sense.

All other data so far:

Spoiler

Player	Seas.	R1 P	Op. GA	R2 P	Op. GA	R3 P	Op. GA	R4 P	Op. GA	% off. 5-yr.	R1 Adj.	R2 Adj.	R3 Adj.	R4 Adj.	GP	Adj. PTS	Adj. P/G
Sidney Crosby	2010	14	238	5	223		200		200	28.9%	11.3	4.3	0.0	0.0	13	16	1.20
Sidney Crosby	2008	8	247	6	199	7	233	6	184	29.4%	6.1	5.7	5.7	6.1	20	24	1.18
Sidney Crosby	2017	7	195	7	182	6	214	7	224	27.7%	7.2	7.7	5.6	6.3	24	27	1.11
Sidney Crosby	2009	8	238	13	245	7	226	3	244	29.6%	6.3	9.9	5.8	2.3	24	24	1.01
Sidney Crosby	2013	9	237	6	178	0	186		200	27.5%	7.6	6.8	0.0	0.0	14	14	1.03
Sidney Crosby	2016	8	217	2	193	5	201	4	210	27.7%	7.4	2.1	5.0	3.8	24	18	0.76
Evgeni Malkin	2009	9	238	10	245	9	226	8	244	29.6%	7.1	7.6	7.5	6.1	24	28	1.18
Evgeni Malkin	2017	11	195	8	182	6	214	4	224	27.7%	11.3	8.8	5.6	3.6	25	29	1.17
Evgeni Malkin	2013	11	237	5	178	0	186		200	27.5%	9.3	5.7	0.0	0.0	15	15	1.00
Evgeni Malkin	2008	7	247	7	199	5	233	3	184	29.4%	5.3	6.6	4.0	3.1	20	19	0.95
Evgeni Malkin	2016	7	217	2	193	6	201	3	210	27.7%	6.5	2.1	6.0	2.9	23	17	0.76
Evgeni Malkin	2010	8	238	3	223		200		200	28.9%	6.4	2.6	0.0	0.0	13	9	0.69
Mario Lemieux	1992	17	268	2	240	8	268	7	230	28.3%	12.4	1.6	5.8	6.0	15	26	1.72
Mario Lemieux	1991	8	271	9	264	15	271	12	273	28.0%	5.9	6.7	11.0	8.7	23	32	1.40
Mario Lemieux	1996	10	204	10	237	7	234		200	28.1%	9.7	8.3	5.9	0.0	18	24	1.33
Mario Lemieux	1989	5	315	14	292		200		200	28.5%	3.1	9.3	0.0	0.0	11	12	1.13
Mario Lemieux	1993	9	292	9	290		200		200	27.7%	6.2	6.2	0.0	0.0	11	12	1.12
Mario Lemieux	2001	7	211	7	184	3	195		200	28.6%	6.4	7.4	3.0	0.0	18	17	0.93
Wayne Gretzky	1981	11	238	10	267		200		200	26.9%	9.5	7.7	0.0	0.0	9	17	1.92
Wayne Gretzky	1985	5	334	13	340	18	306	11	247	27.2%	3.0	7.8	12.0	9.1	18	32	1.77
Wayne Gretzky	1983	8	341	14	325	12	275	4	232	26.6%	4.9	9.0	9.1	3.6	16	27	1.66
Wayne Gretzky	1988	11	318	6	313	13	276	13	257	27.6%	6.9	3.8	9.5	10.1	19	30	1.60
Wayne Gretzky	1989	13	314	9	232		200		200	28.5%	8.1	7.6	0.0	0.0	11	16	1.42
Wayne Gretzky	1993	10	275	13	271	10	235	7	273	27.7%	7.3	9.6	8.5	5.1	24	30	1.27
Wayne Gretzky	1997	6	201	5	182	9	231		200	28.2%	5.9	5.4	7.7	0.0	15	19	1.26
Wayne Gretzky	1986	6	341	13	323		200		200	27.2%	3.6	8.2	0.0	0.0	10	12	1.18
Wayne Gretzky	1984	5	383	13	322	10	353	7	276	26.7%	2.7	8.4	5.9	5.3	19	22	1.17
Wayne Gretzky	1996	9	252	7	181		200		200	28.1%	7.0	7.6	0.0	0.0	13	15	1.13
Wayne Gretzky	1987	15	350	6	278	2	281	11	251	27.1%	8.8	4.4	1.5	9.0	21	24	1.12
Gordie Howe	1955		200		200	8	158	12	184	32.9%	0.0	0.0	8.5	11.0	11	19	1.77
Gordie Howe	1963		200		200	10	209	6	211	31.6%	0.0	0.0	8.4	5.0	11	13	1.22
Gordie Howe	1964		200		200	11	198	8	201	31.0%	0.0	0.0	9.9	7.1	14	17	1.22
Gordie Howe	1961		200		200	7	206	8	211	32.4%	0.0	0.0	5.8	6.5	11	12	1.12
Gordie Howe	1956		200		200	6	212	6	153	34.3%	0.0	0.0	4.6	6.3	10	11	1.09
Gordie Howe	1949		200		200	9	172	2	220	29.6%	0.0	0.0	9.8	1.7	11	11	1.04
Gordie Howe	1952		200		200	4	184	3	192	29.7%	0.0	0.0	4.1	2.9	8	7	0.87
Gordie Howe	1954		200		200	6	153	3	165	32.2%	0.0	0.0	6.7	3.1	12	10	0.82
Jean Beliveau	1956		200		200	9	238	10	173	34.3%	0.0	0.0	6.1	9.3	10	15	1.54
Jean Beliveau	1965		200		200	6	203	10	206	30.5%	0.0	0.0	5.4	8.8	13	14	1.09
Jean Beliveau	1969		200	4	211	6	238	5	169	29.0%	0.0	3.6	4.8	5.6	14	14	1.00
Jean Beliveau	1955		200		200	5	220	8	157	32.9%	0.0	0.0	3.8	8.6	12	12	1.03
Jean Beliveau	1971		200	8	218	10	234	4	193	29.1%	0.0	7.0	8.1	3.9	20	19	0.95
Jean Beliveau	1954		200		200	8	212	2	155	32.2%	0.0	0.0	6.5	2.2	10	9	0.87
Jean Beliveau	1968		200	2	239	9	246	0	212	28.5%	0.0	1.6	7.1	0.0	10	9	0.87
Jean Beliveau	1967		200		200	5	221	6	247	28.9%	0.0	0.0	4.3	4.7	10	9	0.90
Jean Beliveau	1958		200		200	6	242	6	227	33.5%	0.0	0.0	4.1	4.4	10	8	0.85
Jean Beliveau	1966		200		200	5	219	5	227	29.7%	0.0	0.0	4.3	4.1	10	8	0.83
Jean Beliveau	1957		200		200	10	266	2	204	34.7%	0.0	0.0	6.0	1.6	10	8	0.76
Jean Beliveau	1960		200		200	3	211	4	228	33.1%	0.0	0.0	2.4	2.9	8	5	0.67
Ted Lindsay	1955		200		200	8	158	11	184	32.9%	0.0	0.0	8.5	10.1	11	19	1.69
Ted Lindsay	1952		200		200	4	184	3	192	29.7%	0.0	0.0	4.1	2.9	8	7	0.87
Ted Lindsay	1956		200		200	4	212	5	153	34.3%	0.0	0.0	3.0	5.3	10	8	0.83
Ted Lindsay	1949		200		200	5	172	3	220	29.6%	0.0	0.0	5.4	2.6	11	8	0.73
Ted Lindsay	1954		200		200	4	153	4	165	32.2%	0.0	0.0	4.5	4.2	12	9	0.72
Stan Mikita	1962		200		200	13	194	8	211	31.8%	0.0	0.0	11.6	6.6	12	18	1.52
Stan Mikita	1973		200	9	264	3	219	8	193	29.1%	0.0	6.5	2.6	7.9	15	17	1.13
Stan Mikita	1970		200	7	215	3	233		200	28.8%	0.0	6.3	2.5	0.0	8	9	1.09
Stan Mikita	1968		200	9	203	3	185		200	28.5%	0.0	8.6	3.1	0.0	11	12	1.07
Stan Mikita	1971		200	8	237	5	186	5	227	29.1%	0.0	6.4	5.1	4.2	18	16	0.88
Stan Mikita	1974		200	3	243	8	232		200	28.3%	0.0	2.4	6.7	0.0	11	9	0.83
Stan Mikita	1961		200		200	4	220	7	252	32.4%	0.0	0.0	3.1	4.7	12	8	0.65
Bernie Geoffrion	1957		200		200	12	266	6	204	34.7%	0.0	0.0	7.2	4.7	10	12	1.19
Bernie Geoffrion	1960		200		200	6	211	6	228	33.1%	0.0	0.0	4.8	4.4	8	9	1.15
Bernie Geoffrion	1956		200		200	8	238	6	173	34.3%	0.0	0.0	5.4	5.6	10	11	1.10
Bernie Geoffrion	1955		200		200	5	220	8	157	32.9%	0.0	0.0	3.8	8.6	12	12	1.03
Bernie Geoffrion	1954		200		200	8	212	3	155	32.2%	0.0	0.0	6.5	3.3	11	10	0.89
Bernie Geoffrion	1959		200		200	6	244	7	235	32.5%	0.0	0.0	4.2	5.1	11	9	0.84
Bernie Geoffrion	1958		200		200	3	242	8	227	33.5%	0.0	0.0	2.0	5.8	10	8	0.79
Bernie Geoffrion	1953		200		200	9	205	1	201	31.7%	0.0	0.0	7.7	0.9	12	9	0.71
Dickie Moore	1959		200		200	12	244	5	235	32.5%	0.0	0.0	8.4	3.6	11	12	1.09
Dickie Moore	1954		200		200	10	212	3	155	32.2%	0.0	0.0	8.1	3.3	11	11	1.04
Dickie Moore	1960		200		200	5	211	5	228	33.1%	0.0	0.0	4.0	3.7	8	8	0.96
Dickie Moore	1958		200		200	5	242	6	227	33.5%	0.0	0.0	3.4	4.4	10	8	0.78
Dickie Moore	1957		200		200	6	266	4	204	34.7%	0.0	0.0	3.6	3.1	10	7	0.67
Dickie Moore	1956		200		200	6	238	3	173	34.3%	0.0	0.0	4.1	2.8	10	7	0.69
Peter Forsberg	2002	7	190	12	199	8	187		200	29.2%	7.0	11.5	8.1	0.0	20	27	1.33
Peter Forsberg	1999	8	191	9	202	7	168		200	29.3%	7.9	8.4	7.9	0.0	19	24	1.28
Peter Forsberg	2004	8	175	3	183		200		200	28.4%	8.9	3.2	0.0	0.0	11	12	1.10
Peter Forsberg	2001	6	238	8	228		200		200	28.6%	4.9	6.8	0.0	0.0	11	12	1.06
Peter Forsberg	1997	9	210	7	247		200		200	28.2%	8.4	5.6	0.0	0.0	14	14	1.00
Peter Forsberg	2000	4	228	6	210	5	184		200	28.5%	3.4	5.5	5.3	0.0	16	14	0.89
Peter Forsberg	1996	10	278	2	220	4	181	5	234	28.1%	7.1	1.8	4.4	4.2	22	17	0.79
Darryl Sittler	1977	9	258	12	218		200		200	28.1%	6.9	10.8	0.0	0.0	9	18	1.96
Toe Blake	1944		200		200	10	285	8	307	28.4%	0.0	0.0	6.8	5.1	9	12	1.33
Fleming Mackell	1958		200		200	14	220	5	185	33.5%	0.0	0.0	10.5	4.5	12	15	1.25
Mike Bossy	1981	10	376	11	335	6	325	8	270	26.9%	5.5	6.8	3.8	6.1	18	22	1.23
Mike Bossy	1980	2	321	4	240	6	206	11	260	26.5%	1.3	3.5	6.1	8.8	16	20	1.23
Mike Bossy	1983	5	290	4	294	13	234	4	323	26.6%	3.6	2.8	11.6	2.6	19	21	1.08
Mike Bossy	1985	7	246	4	247		200		200	27.2%	5.8	3.3	0.0	0.0	10	9	0.91
Mike Bossy	1982	4	345	8	314	7	354	8	293	26.5%	2.4	5.3	4.1	5.7	19	18	0.92
Mike Bossy	1984	2	312	6	232	7	302	3	322	26.7%	1.3	5.4	4.8	1.9	21	13	0.64
Bryan Trottier	1980	4	321	11	240	6	206	8	260	26.5%	2.6	9.6	6.1	6.4	21	25	1.18
Bryan Trottier	1981	10	376	8	335	4	325	7	270	26.9%	5.5	4.9	2.5	5.4	18	18	1.02
Bryan Trottier	1982	6	345	10	314	6	354	7	293	26.5%	3.6	6.7	3.5	5.0	19	19	0.99
Bryan Trottier	1983	6	290	2	294	8	234	4	323	26.6%	4.3	1.4	7.1	2.6	17	15	0.91
Bryan Trottier	1987	6	285	7	251		200		200	27.1%	4.3	5.7	0.0	0.0	14	10	0.72
Jaromir Jagr	2000	10	194	6	179		200		200	28.5%	10.0	6.5	0.0	0.0	11	17	1.50
Jaromir Jagr	2008	8	197	7	216		200		200	29.4%	7.7	6.1	0.0	0.0	10	14	1.38
Jaromir Jagr	1999	5	196	7	231		200		200	29.3%	4.8	5.7	0.0	0.0	9	11	1.17
Jaromir Jagr	1995	11	205	4	207		200		200	28.1%	10.6	3.8	0.0	0.0	12	14	1.20
Jaromir Jagr	1996	9	204	9	237	5	234		200	28.1%	8.7	7.5	4.2	0.0	18	20	1.13
Jaromir Jagr	2007	7	245	4	242		200		200	29.2%	5.4	3.1	0.0	0.0	10	9	0.86
Jaromir Jagr	1992	7	268	7	240	8	268	2	230	28.3%	5.1	5.7	5.8	1.7	21	18	0.87
Guy Lafleur	1977		200	12	283	5	198	9	246	28.1%	0.0	8.3	5.0	7.2	14	21	1.47
Guy Lafleur	1975		200	9	260	10	246		200	28.6%	0.0	6.7	7.9	0.0	11	15	1.32
Guy Lafleur	1976		200	5	268	5	195	7	214	28.1%	0.0	3.7	5.1	6.4	13	15	1.17
Guy Lafleur	1978		200	8	273	8	243	5	223	27.4%	0.0	5.9	6.6	4.5	15	17	1.14
Guy Lafleur	1979		200	8	258	12	277	3	299	27.5%	0.0	6.2	8.7	2.0	16	17	1.06
Patrick Kane	2010	7	225	8	222	5	215	8	225	28.9%	6.0	6.9	4.5	6.8	22	24	1.10
Patrick Kane	2014	6	191	4	206	10	174		200	27.3%	6.4	3.9	11.6	0.0	19	22	1.16
Patrick Kane	2015	7	208	6	201	7	226	3	211	27.5%	6.8	6.0	6.2	2.9	23	22	0.95
Patrick Kane	2013	5	217	4	196	5	202	5	186	27.5%	4.6	4.1	5.0	5.4	23	19	0.83
Patrick Kane	2009	4	248	8	220	2	244		200	29.6%	3.0	6.8	1.5	0.0	16	11	0.71
Bobby Hull	1971		200	8	237	8	186	9	227	29.1%	0.0	6.4	8.2	7.6	18	22	1.23
Bobby Hull	1970		200	9	215	2	233		200	28.8%	0.0	8.1	1.6	0.0	8	10	1.21
Bobby Hull	1965		200		200	13	205	4	217	30.5%	0.0	0.0	11.5	3.4	14	15	1.06
Bobby Hull	1962		200		200	6	194	8	211	31.8%	0.0	0.0	5.4	6.6	12	12	1.00
Bobby Hull	1961		200		200	7	220	7	252	32.4%	0.0	0.0	5.4	4.7	12	10	0.85
Bobby Hull	1972		200	5	271	3	202		200	29.1%	0.0	3.5	2.8	0.0	8	6	0.79
Doug Gilmour	1994	8	234	16	259	4	269		200	27.5%	6.9	12.5	3.0	0.0	18	22	1.24
Doug Gilmour	1988	11	301	6	276		200		200	27.6%	7.3	4.4	0.0	0.0	10	12	1.17
Doug Gilmour	1993	12	273	10	271	13	332		200	27.7%	8.8	7.4	7.8	0.0	21	24	1.14
Doug Gilmour	1989	3	259	7	343	5	343	7	223	28.5%	2.3	4.0	2.8	6.1	22	15	0.69
Doug Gilmour	1986	8	313	8	396	5	323		200	27.2%	5.2	4.1	3.2	0.0	19	12	0.66
Doug Gilmour	1984	7	331	4	353		200		200	26.7%	4.4	2.4	0.0	0.0	11	7	0.61
Joe Sakic	1996	11	278	8	220	10	181	5	234	28.1%	7.8	7.2	10.9	4.2	22	30	1.37
Joe Sakic	1997	12	210	7	247	6	197		200	28.2%	11.2	5.6	6.0	0.0	17	23	1.34
Joe Sakic	2004	6	175	6	183		200		200	28.4%	6.7	6.4	0.0	0.0	11	13	1.19
Joe Sakic	2001	7	238	2	228	8	195	9	195	28.6%	5.7	1.7	7.9	8.9	21	24	1.16
Joe Sakic	1999	12	191	2	202	5	168		200	29.3%	11.9	1.9	5.6	0.0	19	19	1.02
Maurice Richard	1951		200		200	6	163	7	162	29.1%	0.0	0.0	6.9	8.1	11	15	1.37
Maurice Richard	1944		200		200	10	285	7	307	28.4%	0.0	0.0	6.8	4.4	9	11	1.24
Maurice Richard	1956		200		200	10	238	4	173	34.3%	0.0	0.0	6.7	3.7	10	10	1.04
Maurice Richard	1958		200		200	10	242	5	227	33.5%	0.0	0.0	6.7	3.6	10	10	1.03
Maurice Richard	1947		200		200	8	239	3	235	27.0%	0.0	0.0	6.8	2.6	10	9	0.94
Maurice Richard	1946		200		200	6	292	5	256	27.9%	0.0	0.0	4.0	3.8	9	8	0.87
Maurice Richard	1957		200		200	7	266	4	204	34.7%	0.0	0.0	4.2	3.1	10	7	0.73

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

 

[quoipourquoi]

I like it, BGE. Probably aides that pesky Bossy/Trottier problem we were having.

 

[ImporterExporter]

That is tremendous work BGE. Thank you!

 

[Black Gold Extractor]

That is tremendous work BGE. Thank you!

I like it, BGE. Probably aides that pesky Bossy/Trottier problem we were having.

Thanks, guys! In any case, I just looked into Bossy and Trottier. Here's the 5 best years compilation so far.

Player|GP|QPQ. PTS|QPQ. P/G|Poly. PTS|Poly. P/G|Wgt. PTS|Wgt. P/G
Sidney Crosby|95|108|1.14|104|1.10|104|1.10
Evgeni Malkin|107|112|1.05|109|1.01|109|1.02
Mario Lemieux|78|108|1.39|105|1.35|104|1.34
Wayne Gretzky|73|120|1.64|122|1.66|122|1.67
Gordie Howe|57|85|1.50|73|1.27|72|1.26
Jean Beliveau|69|84|1.22|75|1.09|74|1.07
Ted Lindsay|52|58|1.12|50|0.96|49|0.95
Stan Mikita|64|77|1.20|71|1.11|70|1.10
Bernie Geoffrion|51|66|1.29|54|1.06|54|1.05
Dickie Moore|50|54|1.09|45|0.90|45|0.90
Peter Forsberg|75|92|1.23|89|1.18|88|1.18
Mike Bossy|82|86|1.05|88|1.07|88|1.07
Bryan Trottier|89|84|0.94|85|0.96|85|0.96

Here's the data I gathered for Bossy and Trottier.

Player|Seas.|GP|QPQ PTS|QPQ P/G|Poly. PTS|Poly. P/G|Wgt. PTS|Wgt. P/G
Mike Bossy|1981|18|22|1.19|22|1.21|22|1.22
Mike Bossy|1980|16|19|1.18|19|1.19|19|1.21
Mike Bossy|1983|19|20|1.04|20|1.07|20|1.05
Mike Bossy|1985|10|9|0.89|9|0.92|9|0.92
Mike Bossy|1982|19|17|0.89|17|0.91|17|0.91
Mike Bossy|1984|21|13|0.62|13|0.63|13|0.64
Bryan Trottier|1980|21|24|1.13|24|1.13|24|1.15
Bryan Trottier|1981|18|18|0.99|18|1.00|18|1.01
Bryan Trottier|1982|19|18|0.95|18|0.97|18|0.97
Bryan Trottier|1983|17|15|0.87|15|0.90|15|0.88
Bryan Trottier|1987|14|10|0.70|10|0.71|10|0.69

Plus, I added Bossy and Trottier to the tables in my above post if you want to compare with everyone else.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Thanks for running those numbers on the Islanders. I didn't think the adjustment would eliminate the gap between them and some of the other players, but it's good to see some numbers for it.

 

[Black Gold Extractor]

So, I've now also done Jagr, Lafleur, Kane, Hull, and Gilmour (plus I updated my post here if you want to compare with everyone else I've done so far).

Player|Seas.|GP|QPQ PTS|QPQ P/G|Poly. PTS|Poly. P/G|Wgt. PTS|Wgt. P/G
Jaromir Jagr|2000|11|17|1.55|16|1.50|16|1.45
Jaromir Jagr|2008|10|15|1.46|14|1.36|13|1.32
Jaromir Jagr|1999|9|11|1.24|11|1.20|11|1.22
Jaromir Jagr|1995|12|15|1.22|14|1.17|14|1.20
Jaromir Jagr|1996|18|21|1.15|20|1.11|20|1.10
Jaromir Jagr|2007|10|9|0.90|8|0.84|8|0.84
Jaromir Jagr|1992|21|19|0.89|18|0.86|18|0.86
Guy Lafleur|1977|14|21|1.49|20|1.46|20|1.40
Guy Lafleur|1975|11|15|1.37|15|1.32|14|1.31
Guy Lafleur|1976|13|15|1.19|15|1.15|15|1.17
Guy Lafleur|1978|15|17|1.13|17|1.12|17|1.13
Guy Lafleur|1979|16|17|1.05|17|1.05|17|1.05
Patrick Kane|2010|22|25|1.15|24|1.09|23|1.07
Patrick Kane|2014|19|22|1.14|22|1.15|22|1.17
Patrick Kane|2015|23|22|0.95|22|0.94|21|0.92
Patrick Kane|2013|23|19|0.83|19|0.83|19|0.83
Patrick Kane|2009|16|12|0.76|11|0.71|12|0.73
Bobby Hull|1971|18|23|1.29|22|1.23|22|1.22
Bobby Hull|1970|8|10|1.26|10|1.20|10|1.19
Bobby Hull|1965|14|16|1.17|15|1.06|15|1.05
Bobby Hull|1962|12|14|1.15|12|0.98|12|0.97
Bobby Hull|1961|12|12|0.99|10|0.83|10|0.85
Bobby Hull|1972|8|7|0.83|6|0.79|6|0.78
Doug Gilmour|1994|18|22|1.23|21|1.18|22|1.21
Doug Gilmour|1988|10|12|1.17|12|1.17|12|1.16
Doug Gilmour|1993|21|24|1.14|23|1.10|24|1.13
Doug Gilmour|1989|22|16|0.71|15|0.70|16|0.72
Doug Gilmour|1986|19|12|0.65|12|0.66|13|0.66
Doug Gilmour|1984|11|6|0.59|7|0.61|7|0.61

Player|GP|QPQ. PTS|QPQ. P/G|Poly. PTS|Poly. P/G|Wgt. PTS|Wgt. P/G|Notes
Sidney Crosby|95|108|1.14|104|1.10|104|1.10
Evgeni Malkin|107|112|1.05|109|1.01|109|1.02
Mario Lemieux|78|108|1.39|105|1.35|104|1.34
Wayne Gretzky|73|120|1.64|122|1.66|122|1.67
Gordie Howe|57|85|1.50|73|1.27|72|1.26
Jean Beliveau|69|84|1.22|75|1.09|74|1.07
Ted Lindsay|52|58|1.12|50|0.96|49|0.95
Stan Mikita|64|77|1.20|71|1.11|70|1.10
Bernie Geoffrion|51|66|1.29|54|1.06|54|1.05
Dickie Moore|50|54|1.09|45|0.90|45|0.90
Peter Forsberg|75|92|1.23|89|1.18|88|1.18
Mike Bossy|82|86|1.05|88|1.07|88|1.07
Bryan Trottier|89|84|0.94|85|0.96|85|0.96
Jaromir Jagr|60|78|1.30|75|1.25|74|1.24|No Finals appearances in best 5.
Guy Lafleur|69|85|1.23|83|1.21|83|1.21
Patrick Kane|103|100|0.97|98|0.95|98|0.95
Bobby Hull|64|75|1.18|68|1.07|68|1.06
Doug Gilmour|90|86|0.95|84|0.93|85|0.95

 

[10Ducky10]

He played in 8 playoffs and won the cup in 6 of them and Dryden is ranked 22nd?????

 

[quoipourquoi]

He played in 8 playoffs and won the cup in 6 of them and Dryden is ranked 22nd?????

Though I would have had him higher as well, he was ultimately ranked as the fourth best player of the 1970s, so landing as high as #22 is a credit to both Dryden and the quantity of top-end talent in the era.

With a longer career at a similar level, he'd obviously make a play for much higher.

 

[10Ducky10]

The best money goalie I have ever seen.He was the main reason the Habs won his first cup and a huge part of the other 5 cups. Deserves to be way up the list if this is playoff performers.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Can somebody fix the table in the OP by chance?

 

[quoipourquoi]

Can somebody fix the table in the OP by chance?

Yeah, I'll update it tonight. The photos are in ranked order and the list should be on the sticky thread.

 

[quoipourquoi]

It's updated (basically). Once I'm finished rebuilding my repository of overtime scoring that was lost when the tables went away, the final column will be added: Overtime Points and Overtime Wins. And I'll probably make a big deal about it. With a parade. And balloons.

Over the next 3 months, expect that thread, a recreation of the EvE playoff goaltending chart, and career/best-5-year opponent-adjusted playoff scoring for ~30 of the best NHL skaters. A lot of irons in the fire for playoff statistics.