Round 2, Vote 2 (HOH Top Centers)

[Canadiens1958]

Both Were Problematic

Exactly how is a 33-9-17-26 line worse of a problem than a 29-4-4-8 line? It's not like Phil was even close to Stan in terms of defensive play was it?

The stats above reflect playoff scoring for the 1964-1967 Playoffs.
Will complete with the scoring data for Bobby Hull for the same playoffs, 33-18-16-34. Bill Hay 33-6-5-11, shared centering the Bobby Hull line with Phil Esposito

Then you have to consider the competition and their two top centers.
Montreal Jean Beliveau 38-21-18-39, Henri Richard 38-12-17-29.
Toronto Dave Keon 36-12-11-23, Red Kelly 36-7-16-25. Detroit 1964-1966, Norm Ullman 33-19-23-42, Alex Delvecchio 33-5-22-27.

The Chicago centers even if you combine Hay and Esposito at 33-10-9-19, simply did not get the job done either offensively or defensively the majority of the time. When your #1 center, triple Art Ross winner, 1964-67 is at best fifth per Art Ross criteria amongst centers, let alone overall - before wingers like Hull, Howe, Frank Mahovlich enter the picture, there is a problem.

This was recognized after the 1965 SC finals when Chicago management admitted that the key difference was at center. Link provided previously.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

Actually...
Just to put things in context.
Who's the best PMD the Flyers had during Clarke's tenure...?

Best I could come up with is... well, it's either Behn Wilson or Bob Dailey. I think we're on to something here.

In the final two years of his career, Hall of Famer Mark Howe arrived on the team. I suppose that goes some ways towards explaining Clarke's "Lion-in-Winter" 82-83 campaign.

Earlier, I had wondered if that was the year Clarke discovered DMSO. Not that I hold it against Clarke's memory- lots of players used DMSO. But (so the stories go) he used to soak in the stuff.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Bobby Clarke

In the final two years of his career, Hall of Famer Mark Howe arrived on the team. I suppose that goes some ways towards explaining Clarke's "Lion-in-Winter" 82-83 campaign.

Earlier, I had wondered if that was the year Clarke discovered DMSO. Not that I hold it against Clarke's memory- lots of players used DMSO. But (so the stories go) he used to soak in the stuff.

So would recovery from a broken foot suffered during the 1981-82 season and giving-up the assistant coaching responsibilities:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/c/clarkbo01.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Clarke

Mark Howe. Interesting theory. Regular season, there seems to be a synergy between Howe, Clarke and team success but Mark Howe's contribution disappeared come playoff time.

 

[MXD]

in the final two years of his career, hall of famer mark howe arrived on the team. I suppose that goes some ways towards explaining clarke's "lion-in-winter" 82-83 campaign.

Earlier, i had wondered if that was the year clarke discovered dmso. Not that i hold it against clarke's memory- lots of players used dmso. But (so the stories go) he used to soak in the stuff.

...duhh!!!!

 

[Hardyvan123]

Messier also played on very, very offensive teams. The 80's Oilers and then some of those Rangers teams really liked to push the pace as well with four-man attacks. Not that Mike Keenan was Mr. Offense, but that '94 team didn't sit back and lie in the weeds.

Bobby Clarke was on a defensive team that never really had a #1 PMD. Messier had Coffey and Leetch and Zubov. Clarke had whom to outlet the puck to him? Who had the bomb from the point that could penetrate from distance? I'm not sure what the adjustment is for goals per game in the seasons in question and how that would effect the even ppg pace, but further adjustment for style of play and teammates must be considered here I feel. When you factor that in and then factor in how much Clarke was defensively than Messier, it gets pretty tight, I feel.

Your're probably right up to the age of 34 (generally speaking although the Flyers were hardly the Devils or minny offensively either but I will look that up later), but Mark has so much more on his resume after that with Clarke having nothing.

And that playoff resume that was pointed out earlier, even though alot of it was in the 80's is simply much better than Clarke's as well.

Note: After 71-72 and previously, the flyers did struggle offensively but after that and for the rest of his career, they averaged in the top 1/3 of the league in scoring despite a true PP QB type of dman

 

[Hardyvan123]

So would recovery from a broken foot suffered during the 1981-82 season and giving-up the assistant coaching responsibilities:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/c/clarkbo01.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Clarke

Mark Howe. Interesting theory. Regular season, there seems to be a synergy between Howe, Clarke and team success but Mark Howe's contribution disappeared come playoff time.

as it was linked earleirr Howe was in on 31 of Clarke's points in that season.

also I watched a ton of hockey in the 70's and clearing the zone and going up ice certainly wasn't very ahrd as the checking wasn't like it is in the recent past, post clutch and grab.

Furthmore alot of teams shyed away from playing the flyers tight due to the intimidation factor as well, so the lack of a great Dman needs to be taken with a grain of slat, Clarke wasn't in a Dionne type of situation either and most centers didn't have great Dmen to play with during the decade.

 

[Hardyvan123]

The stats above reflect playoff scoring for the 1964-1967 Playoffs.
Will complete with the scoring data for Bobby Hull for the same playoffs, 33-18-16-34. Bill Hay 33-6-5-11, shared centering the Bobby Hull line with Phil Esposito

Then you have to consider the competition and their two top centers.
Montreal Jean Beliveau 38-21-18-39, Henri Richard 38-12-17-29.
Toronto Dave Keon 36-12-11-23, Red Kelly 36-7-16-25. Detroit 1964-1966, Norm Ullman 33-19-23-42, Alex Delvecchio 33-5-22-27.

The Chicago centers even if you combine Hay and Esposito at 33-10-9-19, simply did not get the job done either offensively or defensively the majority of the time. When your #1 center, triple Art Ross winner, 1964-67 is at best fifth per Art Ross criteria amongst centers, let alone overall - before wingers like Hull, Howe, Frank Mahovlich enter the picture, there is a problem.

This was recognized after the 1965 SC finals when Chicago management admitted that the key difference was at center. Link provided previously.

Mikita was very good overall in the playoffs with 8 years of 10 plus points, Phil on the other hand had 6 and 7 respectively.

Also Phil while still scoring well for his age towards the end of his career, became something of a Mario lite, ie PP specialist and wasn't even average 2 ways after the 75 season.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Perhaps

Mikita was very good overall in the playoffs with 8 years of 10 plus points, Phil on the other hand had 6 and 7 respectively.

Also Phil while still scoring well for his age towards the end of his career, became something of a Mario lite, ie PP specialist and wasn't even average 2 ways after the 75 season.

Perhaps, but often very good is simply not good enough when others are demonstrably better offensively and defensively.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Perhaps, but often very good is simply not good enough when others are demonstrably better offensively and defensively.

Don't think you've demonstrated anything beyond better scoring from depth in the playoffs on Detroit, Montreal and Toronto between '64 and '67. From the numbers you provided, Hull and Mikita seem right in line with everyone else, but seeing Hay lag so far behind tells me the short-comings on the Blackhawks had relatively little to do with the performance of the '65/66/67/68 Hart winners, and more to do with those around them. A young Esposito having little impact on the entire '64 season, let alone the playoffs, Hay+Esposito combining for 1 point in 12 combined playoff games in '67, for another example.

But the small sample size of a 4 team, 2 round playoffs is always going to yield strange statistical weirdness that doesn't necessarily provide concrete support to whatever someone might think they've gleaned from the numbers. Think of the impact a goalie alone can have on such a small sample, and how it's interpreted 50 years after the fact.

 

[Hardyvan123]

From 60-78 Stan over his playoff career had 150 points, which is 23 more points than the neext guy.

Just an impressive playoff career given his strong 2 way play as well.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Perhaps, but often very good is simply not good enough when others are demonstrably better offensively and defensively.

But it was just Beliveau who dominated Mikita head to head, right? And he's already on the list.

(that said, I can't see anyone consistently getting the best of Messier in the playoffs).

From 60-78 Stan over his playoff career had 150 points, which is 23 more points than the neext guy.

Just an impressive playoff career given his strong 2 way play as well.

What a horrendous abuse of statistics. So Mikita outscored other players over an 18 year period that only he played every season of?

There are good reasons to vote Mikita high this round, but this isn't one of them.

 

[Hardyvan123]

I'm curious, does anyone not have Stan in their top 4 in the next round of voting?

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

But it was just Beliveau who dominated Mikita head to head, right? And he's already on the list.

(that said, I can't see anyone consistently getting the best of Messier in the playoffs).

That's a decently strong point, actually. Funny enough, given what you've pointed above that, one of the few series I can think of from "prime Messier years" where "the best was gotten of Messier" was when they faced the Gretzky-led Kings in '91. In fairness, though, the job they did on Gretzky - especially in some of those losses - was equally impressive. Finally point and +/- tally over the 6 games was, what, Gretzky 5 and -1, Messier 3 and even?

Ronnie Franchise and Rich Tocchet did a pretty good job on him the year after that, too, now that I'm flicking through the years double-checking this stuff, and kept him in check during most of their regular season meetings the following regular season. They won't hit this list above Messier, that's for sure.

 

[Hardyvan123]

But it was just Beliveau who dominated Mikita head to head, right? And he's already on the list.

(that said, I can't see anyone consistently getting the best of Messier in the playoffs).



What a horrendous abuse of statistics. So Mikita outscored other players over an 18 year period that only he played every season of?

There are good reasons to vote Mikita high this round, but this isn't one of them.

Really?

Being the best over that period of time is an abuse of stats?

I guess all stats are abused then eh?

Stan's playoff resume against his peers indicates 2 things, excellence and longevity.

If it was simply a GP stat it would be one thing but man really I have no idea on what you are getting at here.

here is the list BTW

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Really?

Being the best over that period of time is an abuse of stats?

I guess all stats are abused then eh?

Stan's playoff resume against his peers indicates 2 things, excellence and longevity.

If it was simply a GP stat it would be one thing but man really I have no idea on what you are getting at here.

here is the list BTW

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points

How many players on that list played the exact same 18 seasons Mikita did?

The only player on the list with close to the number of GP in the playoffs over that time period is Cournoyer.

Sort by points per game and you'll have a different story.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

How many players on that list played the exact same 18 seasons Mikita did?

The only player on the list with close to the number of GP in the playoffs over that time period is Cournoyer.

Sort by points per game and you'll have a different story.

Mikita = Beliveau?

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Really?

Being the best over that period of time is an abuse of stats?

I guess all stats are abused then eh?

Stan's playoff resume against his peers indicates 2 things, excellence and longevity.

If it was simply a GP stat it would be one thing but man really I have no idea on what you are getting at here.

here is the list BTW

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points

Look at his competition over that time period...

Bobby Hull with 6 less seasons
Cournoyer with 5 less seasons
Lemaire with 8 less seaons
Esposito with 4 less seasons
Mahovlich with 4 less seasons
Beliveau with 7 less seasons

everyone but Cournoyer and Lemaire have AT LEAST 30 less playoff games played too. What does this really tell us?


EDIT: And these players do not have less seasons or games played because they were not able to perform...their careers simply started at different times than Mikita's did (or in the case of Hull, left for another league).

 

[Hardyvan123]

How many players on that list played the exact same 18 seasons Mikita did?

The only player on the list with close to the number of GP in the playoffs over that time period is Cournoyer.

Sort by points per game and you'll have a different story.

Sure the PPG list is littered with guys with less games and the post expansion and 06 is a bit different too.

It's just one metric, just like his 8 10 plus point post seasons and 10 PPg or near it ones.

Every metric has it's strengths and weakness but it's a valid one and one should expect exceptional performance on that metric at this stage right?

As for PPG he still comes in at a reasonable 12th at .98 and the leader is only at 1.24.

here, let's look at it in anpther way and use use the 06 time epriod for stan, when others were at thier peak and it includes his early young years.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points

He is still a solid 4th in points here.

The point of the matter is that if one looks at Stan's entire playoff resume, it's really very good, even among the guys in this round.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Look at his competition over that time period...

Bobby Hull with 6 less seasons
Cournoyer with 5 less seasons
Lemaire with 8 less seaons
Esposito with 4 less seasons
Mahovlich with 4 less seasons
Beliveau with 7 less seasons

everyone but Cournoyer and Lemaire have AT LEAST 30 less playoff games played too. What does this really tell us?


EDIT: And these players do not have less seasons or games played because they were not able to perform...their careers simply started at different times than Mikita's did (or in the case of Hull, left for another league).

Okay every metric has it's weaknesses and with part of the time period being in the 06 era it will include less players with close to equal amount of games and it's a better indication when the league is larger, in terms of players and teams.

but like I said, it also includes his early and declining years too, so don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, all guys being considered in this round should do quite well on the "playoff resume against their peers test" right?

 

[amnesiac]

Id like to see arguments for Sakic/Yzerman over Messter. As much as all 3 benefited from playing with great teams, who was the most fortuante?

Who was the greater 2 way player? Yzerman?

All 3 have 1 Conn Smyth each... but who was the greatest playoff performer?
Yzerman is the only without a Hart
None have an Art Ross

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Id like to see arguments for Sakic/Yzerman over Messter. As much as all 3 benefited from playing with great teams, who was the most fortuante?

Who was the greater 2 way player? Yzerman?

All 3 have 1 Conn Smyth each... but who was the greatest playoff performer?
Yzerman is the only without a Hart
None have an Art Ross

Might as well throw Trottier in there as well

 

[Rob Scuderi]

Okay every metric has it's weaknesses and with part of the time period being in the 06 era it will include less players with close to equal amount of games and it's a better indication when the league is larger, in terms of players and teams.

Eras have nothing to do with why this is a horrible use of stats.

but like I said, it also includes his early and declining years too, so don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, all guys being considered in this round should do quite well on the "playoff resume against their peers test" right?

Maybe we should start looking at that then?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Norm Ullman/Alex Delvecchio

But it was just Beliveau who dominated Mikita head to head, right? And he's already on the list.

(that said, I can't see anyone consistently getting the best of Messier in the playoffs).


What a horrendous abuse of statistics. So Mikita outscored other players over an 18 year period that only he played every season of?

There are good reasons to vote Mikita high this round, but this isn't one of them.

No. Detroit played Chicago in the 1964, 1965,1966 semi finals winning in 1964 and 1966.

Alex Delvecchio 20-4-15-19 and Norm Ullman 20-15-18-33, against Chicago.

Against Montreal, 1966 Finals, Delvecchio 6-0-3-3, Ullman 6-3-2-5.

Against Toronto, 1964 Finals, Delvecchio 7-1-4-5, Ullman 7-1-3-4.

Centers rated below Mikita - Delvecchio and Ullman had success against Mikita.

Yet against the Toronto and Montreal they did not perform nearly as well.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

No. Detroit played Chicago in the 1964, 1965,1966 semi finals winning in 1964 and 1966.

Alex Delvecchio 20-4-15-19 and Norm Ullman 20-15-18-33, against Chicago.

Against Montreal, 1966 Finals, Delvecchio 6-0-3-3, Ullman 6-3-2-5.

Against Toronto, 1964 Finals, Delvecchio 7-1-4-5, Ullman 7-1-3-4.

Centers rated below Mikita - Delvecchio and Ullman had success against Mikita.

Yet against the Toronto and Montreal they did not perform nearly as well.

Do you also have the numbers for Mikita against delvecchio and ullman to complete the analysis?

 

[quoipourquoi]

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=73890937&postcount=143


Gee, after all that research on Messier's longevity prior to joining the Canucks in response to the Trottier's/Clarke's last years vs. Messier's last years argument, I was at least hoping to hear someone tell me to take off the Rangers jersey and that I wasn't persuasive.