Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 6

[MXD]

Canadiens1958... you say that with a straight face?

• In 1976 the Soviet Wings ( not Red Army) beat 3 of 4 NHL teams faced.
• In 1978 the Soviet Spartak club (not Red Army) beat 3 of 5 NHL clubs faced.
• In 1979 the Soviet Wings (remember: no Red Army) beat NHL teams with 2 wins (each by three goals), 1 tie and a single loss 6-5.
• In 1980 Dynamo ( no Red Army) won against NHL teams with a 2-1-1 record and clear goal advantage on top of it.
• In 1986 Dynamo (no Red Army players again) beat NHL teams 2-1-1 with wins by 2 and 3 goals but the sole loss in OT.

NO CHERRY PICKING ABOVE. EVERY SINGLE SOVIET CLUB TOUR WAS VICTORIOUS - i have not mentioned any of the several Red Army and national team tour victories to try and strike home to those who weren't there nor who looked into it, to realize the Red Army team was NOT the only great Soviet team. Gawd if only this board would only stop ever embarrassing itself with this claim.

As far as I know, none of these teams were your average Russian League teams either.

 

[VanIslander]

Every reference of mine was to non-Red Army teams.

If any Soviet club teams I mentioned (every single one of them had winning records - yes, every one ever, no cherry picking) had a single ADDITION FROM THE RED ARMY... please inform me.

Otherwise, your point is beside my point.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Canadiens1958... you say that with a straight face?

In 1976 the Soviet Wings ( not Red Army) beat 3 of 4 NHL teams faced.

In 1978 the Soviet Spartak club (not Red Army) beat 3 of 5 NHL clubs faced.

In 1979 the Soviet Wings (remember: no Red Army) beat NHL teams with 2 wins (each by three goals), 1 tie and a single loss 6-5.

In 1980 Dynamo ( no Red Army) won against NHL teams with a 2-1-1 record and clear goal advantage on top of it.

In 1986 Dynamo (no Red Army players again) beat NHL teams 2-1-1 with wibs by 2 and 3 goals but the sole liss in OT.

NO CHERRY PICKING ABOVE. EVERY SINGLE SOVIET CLUB TOUR WAS VICTORIOUS - i have not mentioned any of the several Red Army and national team tour victories to try and strike home to those who weren't there nor who looked into it, to realize the Red Army team was NOT the only great Soviet team. Gawd if only this board would only stop ever embarrassing itself with this claim.

Were the Soviet Teams reinforced in any fashion for their tours?

Simple yes or no answer.

Make it easy 1976 Red Army borrowed Vasilyiev and Maltsev, So they were not a pure club team.

The Greatest Tie Ever: Montreal Versus Red Army in 1975 | HockeyAdventure.com

 

[MXD]

Conn Smythe said if he had to go to war again (WWI & WWII legend - seriously, hockey should pimp him more) he would take lacrosse players. This helps explain why he once said that Newsy Lalonde was what hockey should be (Newsy being one of the most recognized greats of lacrosse). GRIT, Conn Smythe said, is the mind refusing to die. THAT is what Phil had.

I can count on my hands the number of players I have witnessed that resilient commitment. Two fingers go to inducted Gretzky and Bourque (I could write a 1000-word essay on how Messier mailed it in in Vancouver - ugh). One finger we certainly won't induct is Kasparaitis; another is Claude Lemieux. (Everybody and their dog knows that Stevie Y is one of my digits, but details will be trumped out in time).

Clarke was a better player, and it's pretty clearly so in my opinion. Clarke is a better skater, so much better defensively, a better passer, better in transition and, truth be told, he had better hands than Espo too...Espo is a better goal scorer, no doubt...better shot...but to justify Espo over Clarke, you'd have to really love Richard and Ovechkin, among some others, really highly...like, really really highly...

What was IE using, "stat junkie"...? That may well apply here, otherwise, I can't see the justification...

Hard to believe Esposito beats Clarke at "grit" too...

Steering this one here, since Clarke and Esposito are eligible.

Wasn't Espo great at withstanding punishment, and isn't that a significant reason why he got to such numbers? Maybe that's what VI meant by "grit", and that wouldn't be wrong.

 

[Nick Hansen]

We should not use the opinions of people who were clearly wrong to bolster our cases.

There is something odd about the Pearson/Hart voting during those years. Did people not realize what a monster they were witnessing? Just doesn't jive with the image I have in my mind of Bobby Orr.

 

[ImporterExporter]

There is something odd about the Pearson/Hart voting during those years. Did people not realize what a monster they were witnessing? Just doesn't jive with the image I have in my mind of Bobby Orr.

Orr should have won the Hart every year he was healthy.

Norris voting took some of the Hart attention away from Dmen unfortunately. Forwards don't have a positional award so they have long dominated Hart shares, which I find to be a shame.

Goalies are on the ice for 60 minutes. Dmen play more than forwards. Why do we so often flock to F's for MVP?

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Orr should have won the Hart every year he was healthy.

Norris voting took some of the Hart attention away from Dmen unfortunately. Forwards don't have a positional award so they have long dominated Hart shares, which I find to be a shame.

Goalies are on the ice for 60 minutes. Dmen play more than forwards. Why do we so often flock to F's for MVP?

Part of the reason is, as you suggested, defensemen and goalies "have their own award", so I think so voters are less likely to consider them. (You see the same thing in baseball - pitchers have the Cy Young and don't get as much support for MVP as you'd expect).

The other reason is what gets measured gets rewarded. It's relatively easy to measure a forward's offensive impact. But it's tougher to quantify the impact of goaltending and especially defense. In 2014, was Keith's defense worth the ~25 points it would have taken to put him roughly on par with the best non-Crosby players (Getzlaf, Giroux, etc)? Maybe - probably. But because it's tough to figure that out in any sort of rigorous way, a lot of voters ignored him (and other blueliners), so he finished only 15th in Hart voting.

 

[Captain Bowie]

Clarke was never the best player in the league. However, he was definitely most valuable to his team. Personally, I've always thought that the Hart should be for Most Outstanding which to me means more, and is easier to define, than Most Valuable. But whatever...

However, that doesn't mean that I diminish what Clarke accomplished. To walk away with the Hart while Orr, Esposito and Lafleur look on is amazing.

What would have been cool if they used the Hart and Lindsay/Pearson to make such a distinction. Hart for Most Outstanding Player, Lindsay/Pearson for Most Valuable to their Team. Then neither would try to be both at once, and possibly leaving both the Most Outstanding (ex. 17/18 McDavid) and the Most Valuable (ex. 06/07 Luongo) awardless.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

Clarke was never the best player in the league. However, he was definitely most valuable to his team.

Oh, in the name of the Holy Trinity of Geno's, Pat's, and D'Alessandro's... do we have to go over this again!?!

In 1973-74... the best player on the Flyers, AND the most valuable to his team, was Bernie Parent. True during the regular season. True in the Playoffs. Just full-on, unadulterated true.

For 1974-75, it was close (in the regular season). Could go either way, maybe one could give the benefit-of-the-doubt to Clarke. In the Playoffs, though, it was NOT close. It's Bernie- no two ways about it.

Clarke never enjoyed playing for a dynasty either.

And that's the thing. Clarke is, by type, a High-Skill SuperPest. And (style-judgements aside), the 'Pest' nature of his play is part of what made him effective. I'd say it's something of a challenge to construct a dynasty around that typology. I'd argue the Flyers did a pretty good job gathering supplemental parts- and taking that thing about as far as it could be expected to go. Yeah... they would have been aided by that Alpha-Type #1-level puck-moving Defenseman... but the other parts dovetailed quite nicely. I'll post more about this later. [That's my teaser.]

 

[Captain Bowie]

Gawd if only this board would only stop ever embarrassing itself with this claim.

Is this line supposed to help encourage positive discussion?

 

[DannyGallivan]

In 1973-74... the best player on the Flyers, AND the most valuable to his team, was Bernie Parent. True during the regular season. True in the Playoffs. Just full-on, unadulterated true.

So let me see if I got this right. I'm just reading between the lines here, but it seems as if you're saying that Bernie Parent may have been the most valuable to his team in '74. Don't mince your words, give it to me straight.

If that's what you're saying (and I won't disagree... in keeping with my appreciation of great peaks, I had Parent 120th on my list of the top 120, based on the best two years of goaltending I had ever seen.

But... if the league wasn't appreciating goaltenders for the Hart in the '70's, then Clarke made a lot of sense as most VALUABLE over better players like Orr, Espo and Lafleur.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Orr should have won the Hart every year he was healthy.

Norris voting took some of the Hart attention away from Dmen unfortunately. Forwards don't have a positional award so they have long dominated Hart shares, which I find to be a shame.

Goalies are on the ice for 60 minutes. Dmen play more than forwards. Why do we so often flock to F's for MVP?

Reflects the origins of the NHL with little or no substitution so game time was about the same for each position.

Today the awards are out of sync with the way the game is evaluated.

Prime example is the Calder which now reflects graduating draftees as opposed to rookies.

 

[Captain Bowie]

Reflects the origins of the NHL with little or no substitution so game time was about the same for each position.

Today the awards are out of sync with the way the game is evaluated.

Prime example is the Calder which now reflects graduating draftees as opposed to rookies.

What do you mean?

 

[DannyGallivan]

What do you mean?

My own take on the Calder: it means next to nothing. If (and this is a big if) it judged purely those kids coming straight out of junior, and didn't make them compete for the award against older players who spent more time developing both physically and skill wise in college or a men's elite league in Europe, then it may be making a statement.

It never helped that the league itself couldn't figure out what a rookie was (Gretzky vs Makarov).

 

[Captain Bowie]

My own take on the Calder: it means next to nothing. If (and this is a big if) it judged purely those kids coming straight out of junior, and didn't make them compete for the award against older players who spent more time developing both physically and skill wise in college or a men's elite league in Europe, then it may be making a statement.

It never helped that the league itself couldn't figure out what a rookie was (Gretzky vs Makarov).

It certainly means nothing for this project, but in general it means something. I'm just confused as to what's wrong with the standard for the Calder today. I don't see why it should be limited to only players coming straight from Junior. It's simply an award for the best new NHL player.

 

[Canadiens1958]

My own take on the Calder: it means next to nothing. If (and this is a big if) it judged purely those kids coming straight out of junior, and didn't make them compete for the award against older players who spent more time developing both physically and skill wise in college or a men's elite league in Europe, then it may be making a statement.

It never helped that the league itself couldn't figure out what a rookie was (Gretzky vs Makarov).

Graduating draftees includes junior, NCAA, International.

Could easily be expanded to best graduating draftee by position which would reflect how development is evolving.

Defencemen, eventually there will be a drift back to the initial RD/LD rating.

 

[seventieslord]

First of all, great work. Between your posts, and BM67's post that IMO more or less proved that Brodeur at least was a factor in his team taking fewer penalties (something I don't think your posts really account for, but that's a really tough thing to account for), Brodeur is definitely joining Hall and the two Soviets in my top 5; likely to be joined by either Sakic, Clarke, or Esposito.

Regarding Johnny Bower, there absolutely was something funny going on there - Toronto was officially crediting more shots against than other teams, which is absurd when you think about how played there and their style of play. Note this would probably affect a few years of Sawchuk too...

Yes, I'd have to agree that the Leafs overcounted shots. It has never made sense with what we know about them.

As far as Sawchuk is concerned, it doesn't affect what I did in this study, because his seasons with the Leafs are just his 8th and 11th best "full" seasons, and one incomplete season.

Even if shots were overcounted and it overrates Bower, it sure doesn't overrate his play compared to Sawchuk's - he had a .926 compared to .912 in their three seasons together.

Might want to save that PPOA adjustment formula for when Parent shows up looking at how many penalties the Flyers took.

Looking at post 76 Clarke you can see a lot of PP goals being racked up once Parent is winding down or gone. It made the Leafs a challenge and the Isles nearly unkillable if you spot them a game where they get 5 PP goals (and 1 SHG) and none at ES.

The 77-79 period looks rough. Clarke eats 37 minuses in 30 playoff games. Lazy 1-way Phil Esposito played 30 playoff games in New York and was on for 26 minuses.

The - 11 Clarke got against the Esposito Rangers looks particularly painful. Probably unfair to let Shero coach the other team there.

Yes, I noticed that about Parent before - his sv% certainly underrates him in the years where the Flyers took a ton of penalties.

But... you mean IF Parent shows up in this project, not when.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Graduating draftees includes junior, NCAA, International.

Could easily be expanded to best graduating draftee by position which would reflect how development is evolving.

Defencemen, eventually there will be a drift back to the initial RD/LD rating.

Look at this year.

Pettersson 20 (playing great mind you) is getting more attention for his scoring than Dahlin, an 18 year old, is getting for already showing like he's a legit top pairing Dman. I've seen a good amount of Buffalo this year and he's very impressive. As advertised. They're not sheltering him with a bunch of offensive zone starts. He's getting more than token time on special teams.

Playing D from Jr/NCAA/Europe and coming up to the NHL is the hardest transition for young players IMO. That learning curve is a big reason why Dmen generally peak later than F's age wise. And yet we're seeing many "experts" flocking to Pettersson because he's scoring lots of points.

There are too many casual hockey people that look like idiots, who hold the keys to placing value on players, because they don't want to go beyond the box score.

 

[seventieslord]

Further to Sawchuk, some numbers are available from The Hockey Summary Project and newspaper research.

1952 PO GP 8 MIN 480 W 8 L 0 SO 4 GA 5 GAA 0.63 SOG 224 SV% .978
52-53 GP 63 MIN 3780 W 32 L 15 T 16 SO 9 GA 120 GAA 1.90 SOG 1679 SV% .929 (league avg .916)
53 PO GP 6 MIN 372 W 2 L 4 SO 1 GA 21 GAA 3.39 SOG 160 SV% .869 (league avg .912)
53-54 GP 67 MIN 4004 W 35 L 19 T 13 SO 12 GA 129 GAA 1.93 SOG 1927 SV% .933 (league avg .919)
54 PO GP 12 MIN 751 W 8 L 4 SO 2 GA 20 GAA 1.60 SOG 334 SV% .940 (league avg .927)
54-55 GP 68 MIN 4040 W 40 L 17 T 11 SO 12 GA 132 GAA 1.96 SOG 1786 SV% .926 (league avg .915)
55 PO GP 11 MIN 660 W 8 L 3 SO 1 GA 26 GAA 2.36 SOG 310 SV% .916 (league avg .904)

The new NHL data changes the GA totals by removing ENG, but most goalies don't seem to have the EN time removed from their records.

Compare my 1953-54 goalie records vs the NHL.com - Stats

Player	Team	GP	Min	W	L	T	GA	GAA	Shots	Saves	SV%	ShO	SOG/60
Johnny Bower	NYR	70	4200	29	31	10	182	2.60	2342	2160	0.922	5	33.46
Dave Gatherum	DET	3	180	2	0	1	3	1.00	88	85	0.966	1	29.33
Jack Gelineau	CHI	2	120	0	2	0	18	9.00	65	47	0.723	0	32.50
Jim Henry	BOS	70	4200	32	28	10	181	2.59	2078	1897	0.913	8	29.69
Harry Lumley	TOR	69	4140	32	24	13	128	1.86	1667	1539	0.923	13	24.16
Jean Marois	CHI	2	120	0	2	0	11	5.50	72	61	0.847	0	36.00
Gilles Mayer	TOR	1	60	0	0	1	3	3.00	23	20	0.870	0	23.00
Gerry McNeil	MTL	53	3180	28	19	6	114	2.15	1457	1343	0.922	6	27.49
Jacques Plante	MTL	17	1020	7	5	5	27	1.59	445	418	0.939	5	26.18
Al Rollins	CHI	66	3960	12	47	7	213	3.23	2241	2028	0.905	5	33.95
Terry Sawchuk	DET	67	4004	35	19	13	129	1.93	1927	1798	0.933	12	28.88
Lefty Wilson	DET	1	16	0	0	0	0	0.00	4	4	1.000	0	15.00
		421	25200	177	177	66	1009	2.40	12409	11400	0.919	55	29.55

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Rollins is the only goalie to have time removed for EN, even though several goalies have ENG removed from their GA. Sawchuk has 1 GA less in 52-53, but his MIN remain the same for all 3 seasons.

- First, it's funny that you posted this, because the first thing I thought as I sat up in bed this morning was, "oh right, we have playoff save percentage numbers back to 1951! I can use them to verify my work!"

- I can see that my estimates were quite strong. I had Sawchuk at 14, 14, 16 points above the league average in 53, 54 and 55, and these numbers have him 13, 14, and 11 ahead.

- I guess the reason these aren't included in the stats rollout by the NHL is because they were not complete?

This is always brought out in defense of Clarke's defense but how do the other Flyers stack up in those 2 seasons as Parent had an impact as well right?

If it was mostly Clarke, would he also have a career trend in that regard or is the 2 season spike more Parent influenced is what I'm asking.

Of course Parent helped, but everyone benefited from Parent's goaltending equally. Clarke's GA numbers are outstanding compared to the rest of the team:

Name	GP	$ESGF	$ESGA	$ESGF/GP	$ESGA/GP	$TGFA/GP	R-ON
Bobby Clarke*	313	283	95	0.90	0.30	1.21	2.98
Ross Lonsberry	310	208	115	0.67	0.37	1.04	1.81
Joe Watson	309	289	166	0.94	0.54	1.47	1.74
Bill Barber*	307	250	103	0.81	0.34	1.15	2.43
Tom Bladon	306	271	149	0.89	0.49	1.37	1.82
Andre Dupont	299	276	139	0.92	0.46	1.39	1.99
Jimmy Watson	296	264	138	0.89	0.47	1.36	1.91
Don Saleski	292	181	114	0.62	0.39	1.01	1.59
Rick MacLeish	288	221	134	0.77	0.47	1.23	1.65
Orest Kindrachuk	285	172	106	0.60	0.37	0.98	1.62
Bob Kelly	284	133	80	0.47	0.28	0.75	1.66
Gary Dornhoefer	279	197	114	0.71	0.41	1.11	1.73
Reggie Leach	237	203	81	0.86	0.34	1.20	2.51
Dave Schultz	220	122	63	0.55	0.29	0.84	1.94

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

we know he was the highest icetime forward on the team, and yet he has the lowest ESGA/GP except for two low-TOI thugs.Only two players are within 13% of his results, and that's because they were his linemates. But he played many shifts without them, continuing to not get scored on at all times - this means a guy like Leach was down at 0.30 while with Clarke, while his rate was doubled in the scattered shifts and games that he didn't play with Clarke.

This could be brushed off as Clarke not having nearly as much icetime as we think, but that's counterintuitive with what we know, and besides, then we couldn't explain his huge offensive results. Yes, defensemen match it because they played as much as Clarke did or more, but only Leach comes close, as he was Clarke's linemate.

Clarke was the team's best offensive and defensive forward, no matter the situation.

 

[Captain Bowie]

Look at this year.

Pettersson 20 (playing great mind you) is getting more attention for his scoring than Dahlin, an 18 year old, is getting for already showing like he's a legit top pairing Dman. I've seen a good amount of Buffalo this year and he's very impressive. As advertised. They're not sheltering him with a bunch of offensive zone starts. He's getting more than token time on special teams.

Playing D from Jr/NCAA/Europe and coming up to the NHL is the hardest transition for young players IMO. That learning curve is a big reason why Dmen generally peak later than F's age wise. And yet we're seeing many "experts" flocking to Pettersson because he's scoring lots of points.

There are too many casual hockey people that look like idiots, who hold the keys to placing value on players, because they don't want to go beyond the box score.

This obviously isn't the place to discuss this, but he is much more than just the points he scores.

 

[seventieslord]

Wasn't Bower clearly better than Sawchuk when both were teammates? By "clearly better", I'm not saying he was miles better.

I know that Bower had a late prime and that Sawchuk had an early prime, but still...

And besides, Sawchuk's problem is that he never had much success when not playing for a team that was leap and bounds better than the other teams (and we have good reasons to believe he wasn't the reason why that team was good in the first place)

Yes, I meant to mention this when rolling out the study last night. Those peak numbers shouldn't make anyone automatically go "well ok, I guess that settles it, Sawchuk actually was just as strong at his peak as Hall and Brodeur!" There are a few problems with that:

- Sawchuk's next-best 7 seasons score a .9100, Brodeur is a .9139, and Hall is a .9147. Those aren't insignificant differences.
(in case anyone is wondering, Roy is .9164, Hasek .9157, and Plante .9183, demonstrating that the three goaltenders we've already inducted were truly special - it's hard to argue Brodeur and Hall make up any ground in the longevity department)

- Sawchuk thrived in a specific five-year period, with one specific team, and although I wouldn't characterize his personal dropoff as stark, he had just five seasons (of 34-58 games) where his performance in any way resembled his peak

Excellent and interesting work.

Regardless, SV% seems to be more indicative of changes in the NHL then descriptive or defining of the talent of goalies.

Also, the bolded Jacques Plante numbers have to be examined. 1960 his SV% is barely his second best despite, allowing the most goals of any 1956 to 1960 season and starting to wear a mask.

Jacques Plante Stats | Hockey-Reference.com

Initial reaction seems that the 1959-60 NHL seasons may have seen new game stat procedures and definitions introduced.

Specifics(season(s)) to the alleged Johnny Bower situation in Toronto appreciated.

Thank you.

- of course the changes in save percentage over the years are indicative of changes in the NHL. That's the whole point of adjusted save percentage. Regardless of the environment, the better goalies still tend to post better numbers than the average ones; we've seen this decade after decade.

- I'm not sure what you mean when you say Jacques Plante's 1960 sv% is his second best. It's actually his 11th highest save percentage, and his lowest of the 1956-1960 period. He allowed the most goals in 1960 because his workload went up a full 3 shots per game more than he was used to in the prior four seasons, and he was stopping about 1% fewer of those shots.

- It's possible there was a change in game stat procedures in 1959-60. League shots per game did skyrocket, relatively speaking, from 30.18 to 31.61. However, it may be just statistical noise, too. This kind of change is not unprecedented. A change of 1.43 per game or greater from the previous season was also observed in 1955-56, 1963-64, 1968-69 and 1997-98.

- As far as Bower is concerned, you know, now that I take a closer look, I can't make a compelling case that the leafs were overcounting shots. I guess one would expect the 60s Leafs to surrender fewer shots than average, but my impression looking at Bower's totals some years, was that they surrendered more. Aside from 1967, that doesn't really appear to be the case:

League average shots, leafs shots against, difference

1960	31.61	33.14	1.53
1961	32.19	32.24	0.05
1962	31.63	30.95	(0.68)
1963	31.79	29.50	(2.29)
1964	32.80	31.06	(1.74)
1965	31.12	31.40	0.28
1966	31.50	32.24	0.74
1967	31.79	35.28	3.48

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Bower's most impressive seasons by adjusted sv% are 65-66, when the Leafs surrendered just 0.74 more than the league average, 1964, when they allowed 1.74 fewer than average, and 1967, which looks like a massive smoking gun at 3.48, but the 1967 Leafs weren't what they once were. It's quite possible they were an old, slow, tired team with a lot of mileage that allowed a lot of shots and counted on a stellar tandem to bail them out.

1961 is Bower's next best season and they allowed exactly league average. 1968 is his next best, and this time they were 3.9 shots above average, which is the fifth straight season their team shots against relative to league average increased. It seems this was less a case of overcounting, and more a case of the Leafs just becoming more and more porous defensively.

I would not look at this data as evidence of overcounting. Rather, I'd say it is evidence that Bower was underrated. However, his most dominant seasons, statistically, saw him top out at 59 games, so it's not surprising or inappropriate he was passed over for all-star teams repeatedly in favour of goalies who handled more full workloads.

the only way to prove overcounting would be to check the Leafs' home games against their away games. I'm not saying for sure it didn't happen, but I am saying these numbers don't prove it.

 

[ted2019]

Oh, in the name of the Holy Trinity of Geno's, Pat's, and D'Alessandro's... do we have to go over this again!?!

In 1973-74... the best player on the Flyers, AND the most valuable to his team, was Bernie Parent. True during the regular season. True in the Playoffs. Just full-on, unadulterated true.

For 1974-75, it was close (in the regular season). Could go either way, maybe one could give the benefit-of-the-doubt to Clarke. In the Playoffs, though, it was NOT close. It's Bernie- no two ways about it.
And that's the thing. Clarke is, by type, a High-Skill SuperPest. And (style-judgements aside), the 'Pest' nature of his play is part of what made him effective. I'd say it's something of a challenge to construct a dynasty around that typology. I'd argue the Flyers did a pretty good job gathering supplemental parts- and taking that thing about as far as it could be expected to go. Yeah... they would have been aided by that Alpha-Type #1-level puck-moving Defenseman... but the other parts dovetailed quite nicely. I'll post more about this later. [That's my teaser.]

The bolded aren't even in the top 20 of cheesesteak places to go to in the city area.

 

[ted2019]

- First, it's funny that you posted this, because the first thing I thought as I sat up in bed this morning was, "oh right, we have playoff save percentage numbers back to 1951! I can use them to verify my work!"

- I can see that my estimates were quite strong. I had Sawchuk at 14, 14, 16 points above the league average in 53, 54 and 55, and these numbers have him 13, 14, and 11 ahead.

- I guess the reason these aren't included in the stats rollout by the NHL is because they were not complete?



Of course Parent helped, but everyone benefited from Parent's goaltending equally. Clarke's GA numbers are outstanding compared to the rest of the team:

Name	GP	$ESGF	$ESGA	$ESGF/GP	$ESGA/GP	$TGFA/GP	R-ON
Bobby Clarke*	313	283	95	0.90	0.30	1.21	2.98
Ross Lonsberry	310	208	115	0.67	0.37	1.04	1.81
Joe Watson	309	289	166	0.94	0.54	1.47	1.74
Bill Barber*	307	250	103	0.81	0.34	1.15	2.43
Tom Bladon	306	271	149	0.89	0.49	1.37	1.82
Andre Dupont	299	276	139	0.92	0.46	1.39	1.99
Jimmy Watson	296	264	138	0.89	0.47	1.36	1.91
Don Saleski	292	181	114	0.62	0.39	1.01	1.59
Rick MacLeish	288	221	134	0.77	0.47	1.23	1.65
Orest Kindrachuk	285	172	106	0.60	0.37	0.98	1.62
Bob Kelly	284	133	80	0.47	0.28	0.75	1.66
Gary Dornhoefer	279	197	114	0.71	0.41	1.11	1.73
Reggie Leach	237	203	81	0.86	0.34	1.20	2.51
Dave Schultz	220	122	63	0.55	0.29	0.84	1.94

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

we know he was the highest icetime forward on the team, and yet he has the lowest ESGA/GP except for two low-TOI thugs.Only two players are within 13% of his results, and that's because they were his linemates. But he played many shifts without them, continuing to not get scored on at all times - this means a guy like Leach was down at 0.30 while with Clarke, while his rate was doubled in the scattered shifts and games that he didn't play with Clarke.

This could be brushed off as Clarke not having nearly as much icetime as we think, but that's counterintuitive with what we know, and besides, then we couldn't explain his huge offensive results. Yes, defensemen match it because they played as much as Clarke did or more, but only Leach comes close, as he was Clarke's lineup.

Clarke was the team's best offensive and defensive forward, no matter the situation.

Bob Kelly & Dave Schultz are 2 fine and upstanding Gentlemen.

 

[seventieslord]

Bob Kelly & Dave Schultz are 2 fine and upstanding Gentlemen.

I'm sure they are. I stand by what I called them though.

 

[The Macho King]

This week has been murder. Just want to say that if Espo doesn't go this round I will be sad. And you don't want to make the Macho Man sad.