Round 2, Vote 15 (HOH Top Centers)

[Dennis Bonvie]

Bergeron isn't as good as Carbonneau defensively. Still, in some years, if I do the same exercise, I'll probably had Berger on ahead of Carbo.

I did have Bergeron in my Top-80. 71st, I think. And I'd have him over a few guys currently up for voting.

Remember, you're discussing with someone who has seen Bergeron more than anyone else here.

 

[MXD]

Remember, you're discussing with someone who has seen Bergeron more than anyone else here.

And I'm one of the two who saw Carbo the most. And also saw Bergeron. As I said -- I had Bergeron in my list, certainly not under evaluating him. I think the world of him. That doesn't make him a better defensive player than Carbonneau.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Time on ice is a recent stat, prior to 1998 we have to rely on estimates.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/c/carbogu01.html

Carbonneau as a situational center the last two years of his career logged 16-17 minutes in the playoffs, slightly less during the regular season.

Patrice Bergeron, prime is in the 19:30-19:45 range.

Prime Carbonneau assigned key #1 centers - Gretzky, Lemieux, etc #1 PK, end of game situations would have been in the 20-22 minute range.

Bergeron is 19:45 for his entire career and it's highly unlikely that Carbs was, even in his prime anywhere close to a 22 MPG player.

Not that i'm going to run the numbers and make the guess but given team mates scoring, and both players ES, PK and SH points and TGF/TGA versus their team mates my guess is that both players icetime is probably really close at the same point of their careers.

the Carbs slightly less in regualr season to playoffs is interesting as well.

Last 2 seasons

13:21
16:38 and in the playoffs

17:22
16:21

so the slightly less would probably be greater than the difference in regular season MPG between Bergeron and Carbs, thus making me wonder what this post is supposed to convey?

 

[Hardyvan123]

the largest factor still remains as to how valuable Carbs defense is to his overall value seeing how extremely low his offense value is (I wish his VsX was posted so we could see how really low it is).

I'm a huge advocate for defensive play but it has less subjective value than raw actual scoring which is easier to prove or indicates a players value as goals win hockey games.

It is much more difficult to determine defensive value for a center since so many variables are at play, including team mates and the goalie especially.

I haven't seen anyone respond but in which season, if any was Carbs considered a top 20 player, or forward in the world?

Surely a top 60 center of all time for hockey, which spans over a Century, that would be a must right?

Heck even a strong of 15 top 30 seasons would at least give him an argument but I think the reason it hasn't met a response its because most, if not all of us, know the answer to this question.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

the largest factor still remains as to how valuable Carbs defense is to his overall value seeing how extremely low his offense value is (I wish his VsX was posted so we could see how really low it is).

Again, showing VsX for a guy who saw limited power play time would underrate him, which is why I didn't bother going through the calculations. (The number was too low to appear on hockey outsider's tables).

This is a better metric:

Adjusted even strength points per season over a player's best 7 seasons

The numbers are only available for post-expansion seasons, so I'm only including post-expansion players.

Sedin 63
Turgeon 60
Lemaire 57
Roenick 55
Lafontaine 53
Federko 52
Brind'amour 52
Nieuwendyk 49
Carbonneau 39

(Stamkos averaged 60 adjusted even strength points per season over his 5 year career, but didn't play enough seasons for me to give him a 7 year average)

I originally did this to show that, while Carbonneau is easily the worst offensive player of this group, it isn't by as much as you think if you just look at even strength scoring. But the thing that stands out to me after going through the data? C1958's contention that crazy genius Scottie Bowman did not give Lemaire #1 center PP time has statistical backing. His even strength scoring looks to have been on a similar level to Turgeon and Roenick - that is if overpass's "adjusted even strength scoring" formula isn't missing a huge variable, but I've never seen reason to believe that it would overrate 70s guys.

And unlike Pete Mahovlich, who saw a massive bump in even strength scoring with Lafleur, Jacques Lemaire was mostly unaffected. His best 2 seasons (1973, 1978) had 67 adjusted even strength points each - once with Lafleur, once without him. His next best season (1972 - 59) was without Lafleur, and then he has 2 seasons of 53 (1969, 1977), one with Lafleur, one without him.

_________________________

I ran the career numbers of the long career guys earlier. I think they are less useful than the above numbers, but I might as well post them

Here's a quick and dirty comparison of their even strength scoring. I'm just looking at career adjusted even strength points per 82 game season. Why? Because it's easy.

I'm only comparing Carbs to guys who played a similar number of games. Again, this is a career metric, not a peak/prime one.

Turgeon = 53 over 1294 games
Roenick = 47 over 1363 games
Niewendyk = 47 over 1257 games
Brind'amour = 43 over 1484 games
Carbonneau = 32 over 1318 games

THis metric will obviously hurt players who were shells of themselves in their last few seasons (Roenick, Brind'amour)

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

And I'm one of the two who saw Carbo the most. And also saw Bergeron. As I said -- I had Bergeron in my list, certainly not under evaluating him. I think the world of him. That doesn't make him a better defensive player than Carbonneau.

I also saw Carbonneau. But I had neither on my original list.

Also, never said Bergeron was a better defensive player.

 

[Hardyvan123]

So even in adjusted ES points his VsX is a full 10 points less than the next closest guy or a full 70 points behind in a 7 year comparison and that's before the PP contributions of all those players ahead of Carbs.

That pretty much confirms to me why he shouldn't be here right now. I usually take a 75/25 split as the highest for any players regular season/ playoff (international, intangibles like leadership ect) as for offense/defense the split might be around the same but I'm not sure maybe it can go to 65/35 for excellent defensive centers but I really have to wonder if the guys giving Carbs the benefit of the doubt (or the defensive bump) gave the same considerations to Feds?

At his worst it would be hard to keep Carbs out of any top 10 defensive player list (anywhere in there as it's really subjective though) but is that advantage nearly as great as his offensive disadvantage is?

 

[Hardyvan123]

I also saw Carbonneau. But I had neither on my original list.

Also, never said Bergeron was a better defensive player.

Bergeron might have a chance next time we do this as his regular season scoring is decent and his playoff resume is very good overall.

I can't remember if I had either guy on my top 80 list, something to look back at next week.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Third Line Center

Made for some interesting reading, thank you.

I'm a little surprised at some of the vociferous arguments in his favor though. He might have been the best 3rd line center of his era, good enough to be a strong 2nd line C in some of his best offensive years, but there's many 1st line centers still available who were extremely good in their roles as well, and played well-rounded games in doing so. In terms of adaptability, he lags behind other candidates. It's been shown that a team could be successful with a Jacques Lemaire or Rod Brind'Amour taking on 1st, 2nd, or 3rd line responsibilities. Could a team be successful with Carbonneau as their 1st line center? The evidence for that seems scant.

Calling Guy Carbonneau a third line center with the Canadiens is not supported by the scoring data. 1982-83 thru 1993-94, amongst Canadiens centers in scoring, Carbonneau, finished:

1st twice
2nd six times
3rd twice
4th twice, rookie year and injured 1992-93.

Hardly the characteristice scoring results of a third line center.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Adjusted ESGA

Again, showing VsX for a guy who saw limited power play time would underrate him, which is why I didn't bother going through the calculations. (The number was too low to appear on hockey outsider's tables).

This is a better metric:

Adjusted even strength points per season over a player's best 7 seasons

The numbers are only available for post-expansion seasons, so I'm only including post-expansion players.

Sedin 63
Turgeon 60
Lemaire 57
Roenick 55
Lafontaine 53
Federko 52
Brind'amour 52
Nieuwendyk 49
Carbonneau 39

(Stamkos averaged 60 adjusted even strength points per season over his 5 year career, but didn't play enough seasons for me to give him a 7 year average)

I originally did this to show that, while Carbonneau is easily the worst offensive player of this group, it isn't by as much as you think if you just look at even strength scoring. But the thing that stands out to me after going through the data? C1958's contention that crazy genius Scottie Bowman did not give Lemaire #1 center PP time has statistical backing. His even strength scoring looks to have been on a similar level to Turgeon and Roenick - that is if overpass's "adjusted even strength scoring" formula isn't missing a huge variable, but I've never seen reason to believe that it would overrate 70s guys.

And unlike Pete Mahovlich, who saw a massive bump in even strength scoring with Lafleur, Jacques Lemaire was mostly unaffected. His best 2 seasons (1973, 1978) had 67 adjusted even strength points each - once with Lafleur, once without him. His next best season (1972 - 59) was without Lafleur, and then he has 2 seasons of 53 (1969, 1977), one with Lafleur, one without him.

_________________________

I ran the career numbers of the long career guys earlier. I think they are less useful than the above numbers, but I might as well post them

Here's a quick and dirty comparison of their even strength scoring. I'm just looking at career adjusted even strength points per 82 game season. Why? Because it's easy.

I'm only comparing Carbs to guys who played a similar number of games. Again, this is a career metric, not a peak/prime one.

Turgeon = 53 over 1294 games
Roenick = 47 over 1363 games
Niewendyk = 47 over 1257 games
Brind'amour = 43 over 1484 games
Carbonneau = 32 over 1318 games

THis metric will obviously hurt players who were shells of themselves in their last few seasons (Roenick, Brind'amour)

Intersting data. What happens if ESGA adjusted to era over the same seven season are factored in an the net result produced.

Consider the following ESGA / GP - regular season data.

Sedin 479 /994
Turgeon 912 /1294
Lemaire 556 / 853
Roenick 858 / 1363
Lafontaine 810 / 865
Federko 1019 / 1000
Brind'Amour 1145 / 1484
Nieuwendyk 800 / 1257
Carbonneau 712 / 1318

Turgeon, Lafontaine, Federko, Brind'Amour quickly drop. Sedin, adjusting for era and offensive zone starts quickly sees his numbers neutralized especially when considering the +/- turnaround from a regular season career +206 to a playoff -15.Very telling given that the team and goaltenders do not change from the regular season to playoffs. .

Lemaire and Carbonneau quickly rise as the two best ES centers in the group. The rest get shuffled around.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Calling Guy Carbonneau a third line center with the Canadiens is not supported by the scoring data. 1982-83 thru 1993-94, amongst Canadiens centers in scoring, Carbonneau, finished:

1st twice
2nd six times
3rd twice
4th twice, rookie year and injured 1992-93.

Hardly the characteristice scoring results of a third line center.

Yes I suppose I was thinking more of the St. Louis/Dallas version of Carbonneau when calling him the top 3rd line C of the era. Pretty clear that he was Montreal's #2 behind Bobby Smith for a good number of years.

You mentioned you estimate Carbonneau at around 20-22 minutes per game in some circumstances. Do you figure Bobby Smith would have been around the same level, Montreal relying heavily on their top 2 centers?

 

[Hardyvan123]

Intersting data. What happens if ESGA adjusted to era over the same seven season are factored in an the net result produced.

Consider the following ESGA / GP - regular season data.

Sedin 479 /994
Turgeon 912 /1294
Lemaire 556 / 853
Roenick 858 / 1363
Lafontaine 810 / 865
Federko 1019 / 1000
Brind'Amour 1145 / 1484
Nieuwendyk 800 / 1257
Carbonneau 712 / 1318

Turgeon, Lafontaine, Federko, Brind'Amour quickly drop. Sedin, adjusting for era and offensive zone starts quickly sees his numbers neutralized especially when considering the +/- turnaround from a regular season career +206 to a playoff -15.Very telling given that the team and goaltenders do not change from the regular season to playoffs. .

Lemaire and Carbonneau quickly rise as the two best ES centers in the group. The rest get shuffled around.

sure that tells us what we already knew though, Carbs was a defensive center who probably didn't have the ice time some of the top line centers had.

A complete picture of scoring ie ESGF/ESGA and role on team, heck as many views and metrics as possible and then a complete picture emerges, in which Carbs falls far behind all of his modern peers in this round, and by quite a bit as well.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Montreal Centers

Yes I suppose I was thinking more of the St. Louis/Dallas version of Carbonneau when calling him the top 3rd line C of the era. Pretty clear that he was Montreal's #2 behind Bobby Smith for a good number of years.

You mentioned you estimate Carbonneau at around 20-22 minutes per game in some circumstances. Do you figure Bobby Smith would have been around the same level, Montreal relying heavily on their top 2 centers?

From the start of the Toe Blake era thru the Jacques Demers era the Canadiens tended to rotate 4-6 centers. This surpressed scoring especially Jean Beliveau. Scotty Bowman first used a regular center - Doug Jarvis full time on the PK. Carbonneau was used as the lead cnter on the PK while Bobby Smith was the lead center on the PP. Both would have been around the TOI, difference being the scoring opportunities that resulted. Carbonneau would sneak some extra time as the first situational center for faceoffs, especially when a RHS was needed.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

the Carbs slightly less in regualr season to playoffs is interesting as well.

Last 2 seasons

13:21
16:38 and in the playoffs

17:22
16:21

so the slightly less would probably be greater than the difference in regular season MPG between Bergeron and Carbs, thus making me wonder what this post is supposed to convey?

Increased playoff ice time is likely a result of OT games. A couple triple OT games will noticeably inflate everyone's ice time totals.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

From the start of the Toe Blake era thru the Jacques Demers era the Canadiens tended to rotate 4-6 centers. This surpressed scoring especially Jean Beliveau. Scotty Bowman first used a regular center - Doug Jarvis full time on the PK. Carbonneau was used as the lead cnter on the PK while Bobby Smith was the lead center on the PP. Both would have been around the TOI, difference being the scoring opportunities that resulted. Carbonneau would sneak some extra time as the first situational center for faceoffs, especially when a RHS was needed.

So perhaps Carbonneau did show himself as being part of a successful team in a 1/1A situation at least. I still don't think I could rate him ahead of Lemaire or Brind'Amour, but it might help his argument against a Nieuwendyk for example, who was only briefly a #1 C, doing so on Calgary teams that repeatedly stumbled in the first round of the playoffs.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Rod Brind'Amour

So perhaps Carbonneau did show himself as being part of a successful team in a 1/1A situation at least. I still don't think I could rate him ahead of Lemaire or Brind'Amour, but it might help his argument against a Nieuwendyk for example, who was only briefly a #1 C, doing so on Calgary teams that repeatedly stumbled in the first round of the playoffs.

Rod Brind'Amour. Rarely a #1 center. Weak ESGA as posted above especially early in his career.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Rod Brind'Amour. Rarely a #1 center. Weak ESGA as posted above especially early in his career.

Brind'Amour was at least a 1/1A situation for most of his time in Carolina. Francis and later Staal scored more points, but Brind'Amour was always the ice time leader, usually by a significant margin. He was in fact usually amongst NHL forward ice time leaders overall.

Brind'Amour of course did play wing at times, but I do remember him mainly as a center in Carolina. Perhaps a Hurricanes fan or someone else can elaborate or confirm/deny.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Increased playoff ice time is likely a result of OT games. A couple triple OT games will noticeably inflate everyone's ice time totals.

Yes i thought of that too, it was the Carbs playing (speculated of course and non verifiable) 20-22 MPG in his primes when Bergeron is slightly under 19:45 for his entire.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Brind'Amour of course did play wing at times, but I do remember him mainly as a center in Carolina. Perhaps a Hurricanes fan or someone else can elaborate or confirm/deny.

Brind'Amour played center exclusively for the Hurricanes until his final season, when Paul Maurice tried him at LW from time to time.

As a rookie in St. Louis, he played LW on a line with Adam Oates and Paul McLean, and made the All-Rookie team at that position. The next year the Blues tried moving him to center, though he did play some with Hull & Oates.

Then in Philly, he was moved so often that it's hard to keep track...

Terry Murray did it.

Wayne Cashman did it.

Even Roger Neilson has done it.

Each Flyer coach has moved Rod Brind'Amour from center to wing when a need arose.
...
"I think we'll find out this year that our lines will be more in twos," Neilson said. "Roddy can switch anywhere depending upon the situation."

Lindros said playing with Brind'Amour gives the Flyers an advantage on certain faceoffs.
"He can take faceoff and the way they got it structured with the markings on the ice, with having to pull back on your forehand, it's a serious advantage to do it on your backhand," Lindros said. "Having a lefthanded shot in there to take those draws in key situations in the game when our line is out there, it's a big factor."

As a lefthanded shot, Brind'Amour prefers playing left wing. For now, however, he's on the right side.

The odd thing is, every step of the way Brind'Amour made it clear that he preferred to play center. Felt most comfortable in the middle of the ice. But he was always the guy who was best suited to slide over when the need arose.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Rod Brind'Amour. Rarely a #1 center. Weak ESGA as posted above especially early in his career.

Rod also played more than Carbs did and was on for over 1100 ESGF but somehow being on for over 600 PP goals is a negative here in the comp to Carbs?

Rod certainly did alot more to be considered in our top 60 list...period, it's not the top 60 defensive centers of all time list is it?

 

[Hardyvan123]

Brind'Amour played center exclusively for the Hurricanes until his final season, when Paul Maurice tried him at LW from time to time.

As a rookie in St. Louis, he played LW on a line with Adam Oates and Paul McLean, and made the All-Rookie team at that position. The next year the Blues tried moving him to center, though he did play some with Hull & Oates.

Then in Philly, he was moved so often that it's hard to keep track...



The odd thing is, every step of the way Brind'Amour made it clear that he preferred to play center. Felt most comfortable in the middle of the ice. But he was always the guy who was best suited to slide over when the need arose.

It's odd that the poster that most often trumps versatility in forwards is pumping the tires of a less dimensionless center in Carbs here.

Rod won't make my top 3, there are too many good candidates here for that but he is miles ahead of Carbs for a top 8 spot.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Versatility

It's odd that the poster that most often trumps versatility in forwards is pumping the tires of a less dimensionless center in Carbs here.

Rod won't make my top 3, there are too many good candidates here for that but he is miles ahead of Carbs for a top 8 spot.

Carbonneau had the versatility. In junior he had played the right point on the power play. Played RW as well on the depth or youth line.

Question is does playing Carbonneau elsewhere make the team stronger or does it create a weakness that cannot be compensated for?

 

[Hardyvan123]

Carbonneau had the versatility. In junior he had played the right point on the power play. Played RW as well on the depth or youth line.

Question is does playing Carbonneau elsewhere make the team stronger or does it create a weakness that cannot be compensated for?

Thanks for responding, we don't always agree but you always discuss things which is good for projects like this.

As to your second point I'm not sure but you are the guy who most often brings up versatility as a positive factor why or how would it be a negative for Rod?

teams are teams they are weaker or stronger comparatively but versatility has been promoted as a strength by yourself for many other players in this project, one would assume it's the versatility that is the strength right?

Either way Rod's superior offensive and playoff resume has to trump the edge that Carbs has defensively right?

If not it would be interesting to hear as to why not?

 

[overpass]

Here are some situational and adjusted stats for the post-expansion centres up for voting.

Since a standard of seven years has been set for looking at a player's prime, I have run the numbers for the best seven consecutive seasons for each player. In addition, I have run a second seven season period for Brind'Amour, Nieuwendyk, and Roenick, as they each had many significant seasons outside of their seven season prime.

Adjusted and Situational Stats - Even Strength
[table="css=transp;head"]Years | Player | GP | Seasons | EV% | TmEV+ | $ESGF/S | $ESGA/S | R-ON | R-OFF | $AEV+/-/S | $ESP/S
72-78 | Jacques Lemaire | 511 | 6.5 | 33% | 1.74 | 83 | 43 | 1.94 | 1.64 | 20 | 57
79-85 | Bernie Federko | 535 | 6.7 | 35% | 0.94 | 64 | 63 | 1.02 | 0.90 | 6 | 54
85-91 | Guy Carbonneau | 543 | 6.8 | 28% | 1.23 | 55 | 42 | 1.29 | 1.20 | 6 | 40
87-93 | Pat Lafontaine | 524 | 6.5 | 38% | 0.98 | 69 | 63 | 1.09 | 0.92 | 9 | 54
89-95 | Joe Nieuwendyk | 493 | 6.5 | 32% | 1.29 | 69 | 49 | 1.40 | 1.23 | 12 | 50
91-97 | Jeremy Roenick | 498 | 6.4 | 35% | 1.16 | 62 | 47 | 1.33 | 1.07 | 13 | 50
93-99 | Pierre Turgeon | 486 | 6.3 | 37% | 1.05 | 76 | 63 | 1.20 | 1.01 | 12 | 64
93-99 | Rod Brind'Amour | 541 | 7.0 | 34% | 1.18 | 64 | 63 | 1.01 | 1.26 | -9 | 50
96-02 | Jeremy Roenick | 496 | 6.3 | 35% | 1.11 | 62 | 54 | 1.16 | 1.07 | 6 | 50
98-04 | Joe Nieuwendyk | 482 | 5.9 | 31% | 1.21 | 60 | 47 | 1.29 | 1.19 | 7 | 47
01-08 | Rod Brind'Amour | 501 | 6.1 | 34% | 0.92 | 62 | 61 | 1.03 | 0.88 | 7 | 45
07-13 | Henrik Sedin | 540 | 7.0 | 36% | 1.18 | 76 | 49 | 1.56 | 1.01 | 27 | 63
10-13 | Steven Stamkos | 294 | 4.0 | 41% | 0.93 | 87 | 78 | 1.11 | 0.83 | 19 | 67
[/table]

Stats Glossary
EV%: The percentage of the team’s even-strength goals the player was on the ice for, on a per-game basis.

TmEV+: The average strength of the player's team at even strength. Expressed as a GF/GA ratio.

$ESGF/S: On-ice even strength goals for per season, adjusted to a 180 ESG per team-season scoring level.

$ESGA/S: On-ice even strength goals against per season, adjusted to a 180 ESG per team-season scoring level.

R-ON: The team’s GF/GA ratio while the player is on the ice at even strength.

R-OFF: The team’s GF/GA ratio while the player is off the ice at even strength.

$ESP/S:Even strength points per season, adjusted to a 180 ESG per team-season scoring level.


Adjusted and Situational Stats - Special Teams
[table="css=transp;head"]Years | Player | GP | Seasons | PP% | TmPP+ | $PPP/S | SH% | TmSH+ | SHP/S
72-78 | Jacques Lemaire | 511 | 6.5 | 64% | 1.74 | 26 | 15% | 0.70 | 1
79-85 | Bernie Federko | 535 | 6.7 | 74% | 0.94 | 29 | 1% | 0.99 | 1
85-91 | Guy Carbonneau | 543 | 6.8 | 6% | 1.23 | 2 | 61% | 0.91 | 4
87-93 | Pat Lafontaine | 524 | 6.5 | 79% | 0.98 | 34 | 11% | 1.15 | 2
89-95 | Joe Nieuwendyk | 493 | 6.5 | 56% | 1.29 | 24 | 14% | 0.94 | 2
91-97 | Jeremy Roenick | 498 | 6.4 | 72% | 1.16 | 30 | 27% | 0.81 | 6
93-99 | Pierre Turgeon | 486 | 6.3 | 72% | 1.05 | 33 | 14% | 1.05 | 2
93-99 | Rod Brind'Amour | 541 | 7.0 | 57% | 1.18 | 24 | 52% | 0.97 | 4
96-02 | Jeremy Roenick | 496 | 6.3 | 73% | 1.11 | 29 | 28% | 0.87 | 4
98-04 | Joe Nieuwendyk | 482 | 5.9 | 51% | 1.21 | 22 | 2% | 0.86 | 0
01-08 | Rod Brind'Amour | 501 | 6.1 | 52% | 0.92 | 18 | 54% | 1.01 | 3
07-13 | Henrik Sedin | 540 | 7.0 | 66% | 1.18 | 29 | 4% | 0.95 | 2
10-13 | Steven Stamkos | 294 | 4.0 | 82% | 0.93 | 36 | 12% | 1.19 | 1[/table]

Stats Glossary
$PPP/S:Power play points per season, adjusted to a 70 PPG per team-season scoring level and a league-average number of power play opportunities.

PP%: The percentage of the team’s power play goals for which the player was on the ice.

TmPP+: The strength of the player’s team on the power play. 1.00 is average, higher is better.

SH%: The percentage of the team’s power play goals against for which the player was on the ice.

TmSH+: The strength of the player’s team on the penalty kill. 1.00 is average, lower is better.

$SHP/S: Shorthanded points per season, adjusted to a 10 SHG per team-season scoring level.

I won't say something about every player, but will focus especially on Guy Carbonneau because I think his statistics need to be presented fairly.

At even strength, Carbonneau had the lowest EV% of these players. This simply means that he was on the ice for the fewest even strength goals - both for and against - as a percentage of his team than any of these other players. We don't have ice time data, so this can mean two things. Either Carbonneau played less even strength ice time, or there were fewer goals scored when he was on the ice, or a combination of the two. Here's my best guess. Carbonneau was a checking centre who rarely played with skilled wingers, Iso think it's very likely that both GF and GA happened less frequently with Carbonneau on the ice. I would expect that Carbonneau played at least as much EV ice time as Joe Nieuwendyk (who had a 31-32% EV%, slightly higher than Carbonneau's 28%.)

Carbonneau also outperformed his team in GF/GA ratio in his prime. Most of these others players did so as well, so it doesn't sound so impressive - but again, consider that Carbonneau was matched up against the other team's best players and wasn't playing with his team's most skilled wingers. Very few players in that situation have every outperformed their team's GF/GA ratio. Rod Brind'Amour in Philadelphia was probably the only centre on this list who played in such a situation, and his on-ice goal ratio was well short of his team's.

At special teams, we heard about Carbonneau's shorthanded scoring compared to others. The problem with shorthanded scoring is that it's biased towards players who come out in the second half of the penalty kill and don't play against the opponent's first unit - like Jeremy Roenick. The best defensive players and penalty killers play against the opponent's first power play unit and play 5-on-3 minutes, which makes it harder to score shorties and more likely that they will be scored against. Looking at the SH% numbers - a measure of the percentage of the team's PPGA that each player was on the ice for - Carbonneau and Brind'Amour were the only two players who were go-to penalty killers in the toughest situations. We can infer this because they had a lot of goals scored against them and they kept being sent back out there over their careers. Comparing these two, Carbonneau played more/tougher minutes (higher SH%) for better penalty kills (better TmSH+). Although I must say that Roenick's numbers look pretty good for a second unit guy - good shorthanded scoring and he played for strong penalty kills.

General thoughts - keep in mind that these numbers are per-game and don't penalize players for missed games, so Pierre Turgeon's numbers look better. And on this per-game basis, we see that Pierre Turgeon and Henrik Sedin are the top two offensive players of the group - but I think we knew that already.

Power play numbers are all pretty similar, except for Carbonneau of course. Nieuwendyk and Brind'Amour both lag a little behind in power play points - but keep in mind both guys made their living around the net. Perimeter playmakers on the PP tend to get a higher number of points, especially assists, while the contribution of guys screening the goalie and playing around the net often goes unrecognized statistically.

Edit: I missed Lemaire and Stamkos the first time through - added them in. I only used Stamkos's four season peak. Take it for what it is - four seasons at higher level than these other players, but only four seasons. In terms of team strength, Stamkos and Lemaire were at opposite ends of the spectrum - Stamkos's teams were not particularly good, and Lemaire's were incredibly strong in all situations during his prime.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Versatility and Defense

Thanks for responding, we don't always agree but you always discuss things which is good for projects like this.

As to your second point I'm not sure but you are the guy who most often brings up versatility as a positive factor why or how would it be a negative for Rod?

teams are teams they are weaker or stronger comparatively but versatility has been promoted as a strength by yourself for many other players in this project, one would assume it's the versatility that is the strength right?

Either way Rod's superior offensive and playoff resume has to trump the edge that Carbs has defensively right?

If not it would be interesting to hear as to why not?

Superiority of offense - your basic point. Two key injuries in the NHL and International hockey. Steve Stamkos and Henrik Zetterberg. The offense provided by Steve Stamkos has not been missed by Tampa - team kept winning after he was hurt. Canada won gold without him. Offense is easily replaced, while defense is not.

Henrik Zetterberg was missed by Team Sweden and will be missed by Detroit for his defensive attributes.

Versatility has three main facets:

Development - young player plays out of his projected position because he is not physically ready or lacks the knowledge of the league to play a position.

Strategic - players who can play multiple positions and do so for strategic reasons.

Filler - two aspects, penalty or injury necessity, it is a positive attribute.
Nothing better available is a negative. Daniel Briere hanging around playing RW. Cannot play center anymore on a regular rotation but can score more than the likes of a Ryan White or a Travis Moen, RHS - handy for faceoffs if needed. But no one better is available so players hang around way beyond the expiry date.