Round 2, Vote 15 (HOH Top Centers)

[tarheelhockey]

I'm really surprised that Bill Thoms didn't center the Leafs first line in 35-36, considering he was a 2nd Team All Star that season. And what we used to think was the Leafs top line then (Buzz Boll, Bill Thoms, Charlie Conacher) finished the top 3 on the team in scoring.

Thoms also tied Conacher for the league lead in goals. The Leafs got a LOT of support scoring that season. Metz picking up 14 goals off the third line is impressive.

If nothing else, Primeau HAD to have lost his spot on the PP to Thoms for the stats to make any sense. At a time when stars still saw the majority of the ice time, it would make no sense for Primeau to finish 8th in team scoring otherwise.

Possibly so, and unfortunately it's almost impossible to make headway with PP units because we're at the mercy of what shows up in the scoring lines. Game narratives rarely went out of their way to note who was on the ice for a failed PP.

Irvin (along with other coaches) was also in the process of figuring out how to use a 3-line system. That Boll - Thoms - Finnigan line was basically untouched all season. You can tell indirectly by the way those three players were never involved in changes to the other lines. It would be ideal to know exactly how the lines were rolled, how Irvin was using them in-game, and that might give us some idea of what caused Toronto's 2nd line to click so often.

Anyway, well done. I know the Kid Line had something of a reputation as chokers, but had not seen the article that opposing strategy was to shadow the wingers and ignore the center (Primeau). I guess it make sense when your center is known as a playmaker without much of a shot of his own

Pretty much. It's not entirely Primeau's fault (Smythe certainly went out of his way to blame it on the other guys) but it highlights a very exploitable weakness in his game, which was a lack of individual goal scoring ability.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Used to Think

I'm really surprised that Bill Thoms didn't center the Leafs first line in 35-36, considering he was a 2nd Team All Star that season. And what we used to think was the Leafs top line then (Buzz Boll, Bill Thoms, Charlie Conacher) finished the top 3 on the team in scoring.

If nothing else, Primeau HAD to have lost his spot on the PP to Thoms for the stats to make any sense. At a time when stars still saw the majority of the ice time, it would make no sense for Primeau to finish 8th in team scoring otherwise.

Anyway, well done. I know the Kid Line had something of a reputation as chokers, but had not seen the article that opposing strategy was to shadow the wingers and ignore the center (Primeau). I guess it make sense when your center is known as a playmaker without much of a shot of his own

The biggest success of the project. Challenging the various "used to think" beliefs and showing a number of them to be less than accurate.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

T
Pretty much. It's not entirely Primeau's fault (Smythe certainly went out of his way to blame it on the other guys) but it highlights a very exploitable weakness in his game, which was a lack of individual goal scoring ability.

Right, the old line given as to why Forsberg was so much better in the playoffs than Thornton - Forsberg picked up the goal scoring in the playoffs, while teams were able to just cover Thornton's wingers, as he wouldn't shoot.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Frank Boucher

Pretty much. It's not entirely Primeau's fault (Smythe certainly went out of his way to blame it on the other guys) but it highlights a very exploitable weakness in his game, which was a lack of individual goal scoring ability.

More or less on a par with Frank Boucher in the 18-22 per season range if adjusted to 70 games and for era.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

More or less on a par with Frank Boucher in the 18-22 per season range if adjusted to 70 games and for era.

Boucher was an outstanding playoffs performer, however

 

[Hardyvan123]

More or less on a par with Frank Boucher in the 18-22 per season range if adjusted to 70 games and for era.

Sure but Frank is in for other reasons than his goal scoring though right?

Boucher was an outstanding playoffs performer, however

And had twice the length in his career at a much higher rate as well.

 

[overpass]

I'm really surprised that Bill Thoms didn't center the Leafs first line in 35-36, considering he was a 2nd Team All Star that season. And what we used to think was the Leafs top line then (Buzz Boll, Bill Thoms, Charlie Conacher) finished the top 3 on the team in scoring.

If nothing else, Primeau HAD to have lost his spot on the PP to Thoms for the stats to make any sense. At a time when stars still saw the majority of the ice time, it would make no sense for Primeau to finish 8th in team scoring otherwise.

Anyway, well done. I know the Kid Line had something of a reputation as chokers, but had not seen the article that opposing strategy was to shadow the wingers and ignore the center (Primeau). I guess it make sense when your center is known as a playmaker without much of a shot of his own

It's very possible that Primeau was dropped from the power play unit late in his career. Power play scoring was an important part of the game back then as well, and it's hard to find specific information on the players used.

I came across some detailed game descriptions of Detroit playoff games from the 1930s in the Border Cities Star/Windsor Daily Star. Primeau was playing on the PP in the 1934 playoffs (with Conacher, Blair, Cotton, and Doraty - Jackson was injured and was played sparingly.) But regular season game recaps basically never had that kind of information.

Also on the topic of Primeau's 1936 playoffs, here's a boxscore from the April 13, 1936 Calgary Herald. Note the minutes played and shots column. Primeau played 27 minutes, took 6 shots (tied for the team lead), and scored 1 goal. Charlie Conacher played 39 minutes - he probably saw a lot of ice time late in the game as a fourth forward while the Leafs pressed to tie the game.

April 13, 1936 Calgary Herald.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Also on the topic of Primeau's 1936 playoffs, here's a boxscore from the April 13, 1936 Calgary Herald. Note the minutes played and shots column. Primeau played 27 minutes, took 6 shots (tied for the team lead), and scored 1 goal. [/B

That makes sense in light of what we know about the opposing strategy to deny Primeau's wingers the puck. It also squares with the trend of his career playoff goal-scoring:

1931-35 combined with the exception of 3/28/34: 28 games, 2 goals (both scored on 3/28/34)
1936: 9 games, 3 goals

Good find -- I wish we had detailed game info like that more often.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Here are the "short career" NHL guys who are up for consideration.

Player | 50%+ seasons | Top-5 goals | Top-5 assists | All Star | Playoffs >0.7 PPG |vsX 7yr
Pat Lafontaine |11|2|0|2nd (93)|5|78.8
Joe Primeau |7|0|3|2nd (34), 3rd (32)|3|76|
Henrik Sedin |13|0|5|1st (10), 1st (11)|6|82.8
Steven Stamkos |5|4|0|2nd (11), 2nd (12), 3rd (10), 3rd (13)|1|63.6

Looking at it this way, Sedin and Stamkos are still decently high in my opinion. Stamkos' peak would easily have him on the list if he had played longer. Sedin's peak is lower, but still respectable in terms of the other players in this round, and he has logged a lot more mileage than the rest of this group.

I'm conscious of promoting two active players, but I think the "career span" list might justify it at this point:

1896-1904: one
1904: two
1905-08: three
1909: two
1910-11: three
1912: four
1913: five
1914-20: six
1921-22: seven
1923-26: eight
1927: nine
1928-30: eight
1931: seven
1932-33: five
1934-35: six
1936-38: eight
1939: seven
1940: eight
1941: six
1942-43: seven (six)
1944-45: seven (three)
1946-47: seven
1948: six
1949: five
1950-54: seven
1955: six
1956-59: five
1960-61: seven
1962: eight
1963-64: nine
1965-66: ten
1967-68: eleven
1969: twelve
1970: fourteen
1971: fifteen
1972-76: fourteen
1977: fifteen
1978-79: sixteen
1980: seventeen
1981: eighteen
1982: sixteen
1983: seventeen
1984: fourteen
1985: fifteen
1986-88: fourteen
1989: fifteen
1990-91: sixteen
1992-93: seventeen
1994: eighteen
1995: seventeen
1996: sixteen
1997: seventeen
1998-99: fifteen
2000: fourteen
2001: fifteen
2002-03: sixteen
2004: fifteen
2005-06: thirteen
2007: eleven
2008-09: ten
2010-11: seven
2012-14: five

That's a pretty big drop in a very short timespan... though I realize partial-careers are the main reason for that.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Great Find

It's very possible that Primeau was dropped from the power play unit late in his career. Power play scoring was an important part of the game back then as well, and it's hard to find specific information on the players used.

I came across some detailed game descriptions of Detroit playoff games from the 1930s in the Border Cities Star/Windsor Daily Star. Primeau was playing on the PP in the 1934 playoffs (with Conacher, Blair, Cotton, and Doraty - Jackson was injured and was played sparingly.) But regular season game recaps basically never had that kind of information.

Also on the topic of Primeau's 1936 playoffs, here's a boxscore from the April 13, 1936 Calgary Herald. Note the minutes played and shots column. Primeau played 27 minutes, took 6 shots (tied for the team lead), and scored 1 goal. Charlie Conacher played 39 minutes - he probably saw a lot of ice time late in the game as a fourth forward while the Leafs pressed to tie the game.

April 13, 1936 Calgary Herald.

Great find. Provides insight into player and line rotations. Interesting to learn how TOI was recorded as a quick count reveals overages due to round-off and PIM. Adding the forward - by position, and defensemen minutes is revealing as well.

60 minute game yields 60 goaltender minutes and 300 skater minutes. In this case the PIMs are included in the minutes played.

Detroit

Goalie = 60.
Defensemen = 107 including(2 PIMs)
Forwards ( very interesting splits) = 193 minutes
Total = 360 minutes

C = 59 minutes
LW = 49 minutes
RW = 85 minutes including (2 PIMs)


Some of the Red Wing skaters - Syd Howe were known to play LW. The Leafs had 10PIMs so chances are the Wings ran a five forward PP. Their PK may have been a three forward one d-man situation.

Leafs

Goalie = 60 minutes
Defensemen = 108 minutes including (6 PIMs)

Forwards = 202 minutes including (4 PIMs)

Center = 45 minutes
LW = 71 minutes including (2 PIMs)
RW = 86 minutes including (2 PIMs)

Leafs total 370 minutes, so simply Conacher may be a typo or roundoff bumps the total.

Regardless, Primeau played the dominant center minutes and the differential could be the result of multi position players with a history of playing center slipping in for a little bit especially if Leaf centers did not play on the PK.

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

Great find. Provides insight into player and line rotations. Interesting to learn how TOI was recorded as a quick count reveals overages due to round-off and PIM. Adding the forward - by position, and defensemen minutes is revealing as well.

60 minute game yields 60 goaltender minutes and 300 skater minutes. In this case the PIMs are included in the minutes played.

Detroit

Goalie = 60.
Defensemen = 107 including(2 PIMs)
Forwards ( very interesting splits) = 193 minutes
Total = 360 minutes

C = 59 minutes
LW = 49 minutes
RW = 85 minutes including (2 PIMs)


Some of the Red Wing skaters - Syd Howe were known to play LW. The Leafs had 10PIMs so chances are the Wings ran a five forward PP. Their PK may have been a three forward one d-man situation.

Leafs

Goalie = 60 minutes
Defensemen = 108 minutes including (6 PIMs)

Forwards = 202 minutes including (4 PIMs)

Center = 45 minutes
LW = 71 minutes including (2 PIMs)
RW = 86 minutes including (2 PIMs)

Leafs total 370 minutes, so simply Conacher may be a typo or roundoff bumps the total.

Regardless, Primeau played the dominant center minutes and the differential could be the result of multi position players with a history of playing center slipping in for a little bit especially if Leaf centers did not play on the PK.

Nice bit of deduction, shows what can be learned from just looking at a simple boxscore with a critical eye

 

[Canadiens1958]

Frank Boucher

That makes sense in light of what we know about the opposing strategy to deny Primeau's wingers the puck. It also squares with the trend of his career playoff goal-scoring:

1931-35 combined with the exception of 3/28/34: 28 games, 2 goals (both scored on 3/28/34)
1936: 9 games, 3 goals

Good find -- I wish we had detailed game info like that more often.

Over the same stretch Frank Boucher had the same number of "Goose Egg" playoffs.

Comparing Joe Primeau's career NHL playoffs to Howie Morenz

Joe Primeau 38GP 5G 18A = 23 PTS
Howie Morenz 39GP 13G 9A = 22 PTS

So Joe Primeau managed to get the puck to his wingers at a very good rate.

 

[tarheelhockey]

It's a damn shame the Calgary Herald didn't print those detailed summaries after every game. I was able to find one from Game 2, but it's missing the minutes-played column:

We can see that Primeau was carrying far more than his normal load of the shooting relative to Conacher (and also that Buzz Boll was probably shooting the puck at every opportunity -- Boll led the league in scoring during that playoff season).

Similarly the Herald provided a shooting chart for the entire 1936 finals series against Detroit:

For Primeau to lead his team in shots, and especially for Conacher to fail to even appear on the list, is remarkable. Bear in mind that at the time, Conacher had led the league in goals for 5 of 6 years. For him not to even get shots speaks to the degree to which Herb Lewis managed to tie Conacher down during that series, and indirectly it confirms that Primeau was having to create shots at a rate that wasn't normal for him at all.

Jack Adams deserves a great deal of credit for designing and executing such an effective gameplan -- it really is remarkable that the Wings were able to do this to such a high-powered attacking team.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Over the same stretch Frank Boucher had the same number of "Goose Egg" playoffs.

Almost but not quite:

Year|Boucher|Primeau
1931|4gp, 0-2-2|2gp, 0-0-0
1932|7gp, 3-6-9|7gp, 0-6-6
1933|8gp, 2-2-4|8gp, 0-1-1
1934|2gp, 0-0-0|5gp, 2-4-6
1935|4gp, 0-3-3|7gp, 0-3-3
Total|25gp, 5-11-16|29gp, 2-14-16

So Joe Primeau managed to get the puck to his wingers at a very good rate.

Absolutely -- he was a passer for sure. The way to beat the Leafs was to take away Primeau's passing options and let him shoot the puck himself.



It just crossed my mind -- Primeau scored both his goals in 1934 in one game against the Red Wings. Then scored all 3 of his goals in 1936 in the series against... the Red Wings. The Wings were the only team that ever allowed Primeau to score a playoff goal, and the Wings won both those series.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Comparing another 4 modern contemporaries...

I think these guys can be fairly measured in terms of raw numbers, since they overlap almost perfectly.

Player | Seasons/GP | G (per game) | A (per game) | P (per game) | Awards | 7yr vsX | Playoff notables
Rod Brind'Amour|20/ 1484 |452 (.30)|732 (.49)|1184 (0.80)| Selke (06, 07) |72.8| Goal leader (1997), Cup captain (2006)
Joe Nieuwendyk|20/1257| 564 (.45) |562 (.45)|1126 (0.90)| Smythe (99) |70.5| Goal leader (1999), 3 Cups (89, 99, 03), Olympic gold
Jeremy Roenick|20/1363|513 (.38)|703 (.52)|1216 (0.89)||81.5|
Pierre Turgeon|19/1294|515 (.40)| 812 (.63) | 1327 (1.03) || 82.3 |

Turgeon is clearly the best point scorer, both per-game and cumulative, though Nieuwendyk leads in goal scoring.

I wouldn't have guessed that Brind'Amour had more points in his career than Nieuwendyk (due to more GP) and definitely wouldn't have guessed that his 7-year vsX would be higher.

Roenick's vsX looks pretty good, but he's a step down from Turgeon in terms of career and per-game production.

Once you figure intangibles into this picture (especially faceoffs and defense), it's really really close between the four of them. I'm not sure there's a definitive separation.

On a gut-feeling level, Roenick always seemed like the biggest star. But Brind'Amour and Nieuwendyk were guys you win with, and also more versatile. Turgeon produced the numbers, but he just seemed to leave you wanting more -- which perhaps is something that we wouldn't hold against a guy who played longer ago.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Comparing another 4 modern contemporaries...

I think these guys can be fairly measured in terms of raw numbers, since they overlap almost perfectly.

Player | Seasons/GP | G (per game) | A (per game) | P (per game) | Awards | 7yr vsX | Playoff notables
Rod Brind'Amour|20/ 1484 |452 (.30)|732 (.49)|1184 (0.80)| Selke (06, 07) |72.8| Goal leader (1997), Cup captain (2006)
Joe Nieuwendyk|20/1257| 564 (.45) |562 (.45)|1126 (0.90)| Smythe (99) |70.5| Goal leader (1999), 3 Cups (89, 99, 03), Olympic gold
Jeremy Roenick|20/1363|513 (.38)|703 (.52)|1216 (0.89)||81.5|
Pierre Turgeon|19/1294|515 (.40)| 812 (.63) | 1327 (1.03) || 82.3 |

Turgeon is clearly the best point scorer, both per-game and cumulative, though Nieuwendyk leads in goal scoring.

I wouldn't have guessed that Brind'Amour had more points in his career than Nieuwendyk (due to more GP) and definitely wouldn't have guessed that his 7-year vsX would be higher.

Roenick's vsX looks pretty good, but he's a step down from Turgeon in terms of career and per-game production.

Once you figure intangibles into this picture (especially faceoffs and defense), it's really really close between the four of them. I'm not quite sure how to separate them.

Comparing raw statistics over a long time frame that involves both higher and lower scoring years will always favor the players who peaked when scoring was higher. Of these 4, Roenick in particular had some top 20 finishes in Phoenix when scoring was lower that will not be given full credit by looking at the raw stats. It's a big reason his VsX score (which compares him to his peers) is so much higher than Brind'amour or Nieuwendyk.

I also don't like the binary either/or, either you won or you didn't. Does anyone have any doubt that Roenick has a significantly better playoff resume than Turgeon, even if he didn't win the Cup?

________________

Here's another category. Here are their All-Star records (posted earlier in the threads):

Jeremy Roenck: 4th (1992), 4th (2000), 5th (1991), 5th (2002), 5th (1994)*
Joe Nieuwendyk: 5th (1998), 6th (1995)*
Pierre Turgeon: 6th (1990)*
Rod Brind'amour: NO VOTES AS CENTER. As a LW = 3rd (1998)

*small number of votes

Roenick's 1992 behind Messier, Lemieux, and Gretzky is one of the more impressive 4th place finishes you'll see.

It's possible that Turgeon, as someone the media didn't like, would be underrated by the voting records.

The awards record of Joe Nieuwendyk - a man loved by the media - supports what comparing his offensive stats compared to his peers say - he just wasn't that impressive a regular season performer.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Well....

Almost but not quite:

Year|Boucher|Primeau
1931|4gp, 0-2-2|2gp, 0-0-0
1932|7gp, 3-6-9|7gp, 0-6-6
1933|8gp, 2-2-4|8gp, 0-1-1
1934|2gp, 0-0-0|5gp, 2-4-6
1935|4gp, 0-3-3|7gp, 0-3-3
Total|25gp, 5-11-16|29gp, 2-14-16

Absolutely -- he was a passer for sure. The way to beat the Leafs was to take away Primeau's passing options and let him shoot the puck himself.



It just crossed my mind -- Primeau scored both his goals in 1934 in one game against the Red Wings. Then scored all 3 of his goals in 1936 in the series against... the Red Wings. The Wings were the only team that ever allowed Primeau to score a playoff goal, and the Wings won both those series.

Almost..... helps if the team makes the playoff. Boucher and the Rangers did not make the 1936 playoffs even though they had center support from Howie Morenz, Butch Keeling plus a young Phil Watson

Your how to beat the Leafs thesis does not hold water.Previously I posted upthread a Dink Carroll column where Dick Irvin clearly explained the Leafs problem facing the 1934 and 1936 Red Wings in the playoffs.

First some background data.

Leafs GF/GA for the seasons in question.

1933-34 = 48 games, 179 GF / 119 GA
1934-35 = 48 games, 157 GF / 111 GA
1935-36 = 48 games, 126 GF / 106 GA

The 1934 Leafs/Red Wings series was quirky. Red Wings won 3-2 but were outscored 12 to 11. Jack Adams did shut down the Leafs scoring - 2.4 GF/G as opposed to the regular season of ~3.66 GF/G.

Dick Irvin made some modifications which saw the offense decrease by first 22 goals then 31 goals, while defensively the team improved 8 then a further 5 goals.

The thesis you suggest for the 1936 playoffs raises a few questions.

Regular season the Leafs scored ~ 2.65 GPG against the league but only 14(inflated by a 6-1 win) in 6 games ~2.33 GPG, giving up the same numbers, against the Red Wings.

In the playoffs the Leafs scored 11 goals in 4 games against the Wings ~2.75 GPG but gave up 18 or ~4.5 GPG. So Irvin had adjusted the offense around Primeau and Boll but the defense was still a problem.. Adams did nothing to diminish the Leafs offense. The Wings simply rode defensive weaknesses that the Leafs had.

Full details will eventually emerge. Laying blame at Primeau's skates is not supportable.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Brind'amour and Carbonneau are the two modern players without any All-Star votes at center (Brind'amour received a significant amount of votes at LW in 1998).

Here are their Selke records:

Carbonneau:

1985: 5th
1986: 3rd
1987: 2nd
1988: 1st
1989: 1st
1990: 2nd
1991: 4th
1992: 1st
1994: 4th
2000: 9th

One of the most impressive strings you'll ever see from 1985 to 1992 with another strong finish in 1994.

Brind'amour:

1998: 13th (as a LW)
1999: 9th
2001: 17th
2006: 1st
2007: 1st
2009: 16th

Other than the two times he won, Brind'amour never received more than a handful of votes, though he did so on 4 occasions.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Roenick's 1992 behind Messier, Lemieux, and Gretzky is one of the more impressive 4th place finishes you'll see.

Definitely. Also top-five in Hart voting, appearing on 28% of the 5-3-1 ballots - which is no easy feat considering his teammates' reputations and how little space there was on the ballot in what was a one/two horse race; third-place (and previous year's winner) Hull appeared on only two more ballots than Roenick - he was that close.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Comparing raw statistics over a long time frame that involves both higher and lower scoring years will always favor the players who peaked when scoring was higher.

In this case it would help Turgeon and Nieuwendyk, both of whose peaks were before the 1994 scoring plunge.

Just a quick & dirty way to look at it, but here are raw vs adjusted versions of their best 3 scoring seasons.

Brind'Amour - 270 raw vs 257 adj
Nieuwendyk - 272 raw vs 245 adj
Roenick - 317 raw vs 275 adj
Turgeon - 334 raw vs 287 adj

That makes 2 areas where it really surprises me to see Brind'Amour finish ahead of Nieuwendyk. Even as a Canes fan I never realized his offensive peak was quite that high.

I also don't like your binary either/or, either you won or you didn't. Does anyone have any doubt that Roenick has a significantly better playoff resume than Turgeon, even if he didn't win the Cup?

It wasn't intended to be binary, I'm just not sure what one could write about Roenick's playoffs in such a small space. He didn't have that signature moment for easy shorthand notation. Edit: I would like to see a long-form playoff comparison of the 3, especially since Nieuwendyk gets so much mileage from his playoffs.

 

[MXD]

Brind'amour and Carbonneau are the two modern players without any All-Star votes at center (Brind'amour received a significant amount of votes at LW in 1998).

Here are their Selke records:

Carbonneau:

1985: 5th
1986: 3rd
1987: 2nd
1988: 1st
1989: 1st
1990: 2nd
1991: 4th
1992: 1st
1994: 4th
2000: 9th

One of the most impressive strings you'll ever see from 1985 to 1992 with another strong finish in 1994.

Not to mention -- one of the reasons why he's a legend is the 1993 SCF (and he got no votes).

Gretzky shut to 3 points in 4 games (Carbo wasn't up against Gretz in the first game). Gretzky had 40 points in 24 playoffs games that year.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Almost..... helps if the team makes the playoff. Boucher and the Rangers did not make the 1936 playoffs even though they had center support from Howie Morenz, Butch Keeling plus a young Phil Watson

So you're penalizing Boucher's playoff performance in a year when his team didn't even make the playoffs.

Ok, let's go with that... Primeau still scored less than half as many goals in more games. And the two seasons he did score goals, they were against the same team, by design, in losses. Whether he compares to Boucher or not, it's a pretty straightforward fact that the guy was not a goal scorer at all.

Your how to beat the Leafs thesis does not hold water.Previously I posted upthread a Dink Carroll column where Dick Irvin clearly explained the Leafs problem facing the 1934 and 1936 Red Wings in the playoffs.

And I posted direct interviews from 2 opposing coaches explaining their game plans at the time the series were being played. Which do you think is more likely to be accurate?

Adams did nothing to diminish the Leafs offense. The Wings simply rode defensive weaknesses that the Leafs had.

It's flat-out incorrect that Adams did nothing to diminish the Leafs' offense. That's completely clear, even moreso than what has been posted in this thread so far (read the game summaries, they're explicit about how much the Wings out the clamps on Conacher).

You are right about the Wings taking advantage of the Leafs' defense. The Calgary Herald (hat tip to overpass for thinking of that source) is even more explicit than the Gazette in ripping the Leafs for poor defensive coverage against the Wings.

Is it Primeau's "fault"? Not any more so than any other player whose team is being out coached in the playoffs. The Wings knew his limitations and forced him to play to them. Same thing has happened many other times to playmakers like Thornton, Sedin, possibly Boucher as discussed upthread.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

In this case it would help Turgeon and Nieuwendyk, both of whose peaks were before the 1994 scoring plunge.

Yes, this is what I'm getting at.

Just a quick & dirty way to look at it, but here are raw vs adjusted versions of their best 3 scoring seasons.

Brind'Amour - 270 raw vs 257 adj
Nieuwendyk - 272 raw vs 245 adj
Roenick - 317 raw vs 275 adj
Turgeon - 334 raw vs 287 adj

That makes 2 areas where it really surprises me to see Brind'Amour finish ahead of Nieuwendyk. Even as a Canes fan I never realized his offensive peak was quite that high.

When it comes to this calibre of player, I think it's more than Nieuwendyk's regular season peak as a point producer is very low (second lowest VsX scorer after Carbonneau among guys who have had full careers - meaning no Stamkos).

Even looking at points rankings - Niewendyk was never top 10 (neither was Brind'amour), only top 15 once (lowest this round among non-Carbonneau NHLers), and top 20 just 3 times (tied with Brind'amour for lowest this round among non-Carbonneau NHLers). These are just points though - Nieuwendyk was more of a goal scorer, and goals are somewhat more valuable than assists. But I think it's clear that Niewendyk is the 2nd worst playmaker available this round after Carbs, at least among NHL players.

It wasn't intended to be binary, I'm just not sure what one could write about Roenick's playoffs in such a small space. He didn't have that signature moment for easy shorthand notation. Edit: I would like to see a long-form playoff comparison of the 3, especially since Nieuwendyk gets so much mileage from his playoffs.

I thought vadim already wrote a bunch about Roenick's playoffs.

IMO, Nieuwendyk gets way too much mileage from the "3 Cups with 3 different teams" thing - he won a Smythe with Dallas (though Modano or Belfour just as easily could have won), but was more of a strong support player in Calgary and NJ. He was a strong playoff performer, definitely, but not strong enough to overcome his weakness as a regular season player IMO, at least to have a shot at our list.

 

[quoipourquoi]

In this case it would help Turgeon and Nieuwendyk, both of whose peaks were before the 1994 scoring plunge.

Just a quick & dirty way to look at it, but here are raw vs adjusted versions of their best 3 scoring seasons.

Brind'Amour - 270 raw vs 257 adj
Nieuwendyk - 272 raw vs 245 adj
Roenick - 317 raw vs 275 adj
Turgeon - 334 raw vs 287 adj

That makes 2 areas where it really surprises me to see Brind'Amour finish ahead of Nieuwendyk. Even as a Canes fan I never realized his offensive peak was quite that high.

But Joe Nieuwendyk missed 12 games in those three seasons (probably closer to 14 adjusted games because of 1995 being used), while Rod Brind'Amour didn't miss any. It's not like missing 4 games each year is a kiss of death to a hockey club, but for something like this, sure, it's enough to make him finish behind. So I don't know that you can call that a "win" for Brind'Amour. Just "quick & dirty," really.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Not to mention -- one of the reasons why he's a legend is the 1993 SCF (and he got no votes).

Gretzky shut to 3 points in 4 games (Carbo wasn't up against Gretz in the first game). Gretzky had 40 points in 24 playoffs games that year.

Most definitely. And I know you know this, but just so it's out there - Conn Smythe winner Patrick Roy backed up Carbs, so it certainly wasn't all him. But he did get a lot of credit.