tarheelhockey
Offside Review Specialist
No I didn't say that.
I have been at pains to say, repeatedly, that the gap is not as large as the numbers make it seem. Please don't re-frame that as me saying the gap is reversed.
Top-200 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 3
- Thread starter quoipourquoi
- Start date
-
Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
- Status
No I didn't say that.
I have been at pains to say, repeatedly, that the gap is not as large as the numbers make it seem. Please don't re-frame that as me saying the gap is reversed.
tarheelhockey
Offside Review Specialist
When Gorman took over, he had the Americans play an Ottawa-style defensive system which was aimed at winning games 1-0. They would line up 4, sometimes 5 men to prevent anybody getting through with the puck on their stick. The comparison to a Julien or Hitchcock (or Lemaire for that matter) is accurate.
Much like Lemaire and his Devils, there is good reason to believe that the offensive reform of 1929-30 was very closely tied to the Amerks' surprising level of success running that system. The hockey establishment was worried that if a mediocre team could turn itself around that quickly by using an offense-choking system, then the shutout numbers were only going to keep rising from their already record high. They were at a crossroads of either opening up the game by force, or allowing the NYAs of the world to make hockey a one-point sport. And unlike today's GMs, they were not overly bound by convention when it came to solutions.
That being said, Worters was still very good that year. His preseason was full of contract and trade drama, forcing him to come into the season cold-turkey with extremely high pressure, and he delivered. It's fair to say the Americans' game plan hinged heavily on strong performances from Worters to make good on their offensive sacrifices. Maybe the best modern comparables would be Tim Thomas and Jonathan Quick -- small goalies who played a gritty showmanlike style, who definitely did have their best success within a specific defensive system, and who most observers didn't penalize too heavily for having existed within that system because their performance within it was still special.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Why cherrypick individual games instead of whole seasons? Why cherrypick individual seasons instead of the full 8 years of data?
Yes, in those two seasons, Quebec was 9% and 10% above average in total goals for and against. Whether 9-10% makes a team officially "run and gun" is a matter of semantics. Sure, since they were 2nd in the league both times - well behind Edmonton - let's say they were a run and gun team. But the fact remains that in 8 seasons those two were - by far - the two in which they score highest by this metric. Even with those two seasons included, over 8 seasons they were only about 1% higher volume than an average team. That is not, on the whole, a run and gun team.
You're exaggerating. Connor McDavid has 1.38 PPG over the last 4 full seasons. he has scored 35% more than a 1.02 PPG player over the past 4 seasons. McDavid is ~35% ahead of the likes of Eichel, Scheifele, Matthews and Barkov, and 72.5% ahead of Mike Hoffman.
Yes, Stastny sucked defensively, but Francis was not that special in Hartford either. Scouting reports of the time call him "fairly good" defensively, updating to "a fairly complete" player by the turn of the decade. He grew into that role in Pittsburgh.
There's no right or wrong way, but it seems really unlikely that without playing on a scoring champion's line for four straight seasons that he posts his best four years at age 31-34. Who else has?
Just thinking out loud here, but what is the baseline expectation for a center playing with a scoring champion winger? Something I should look into - I'm not sure exactly where Francis' 95-98 seasons rank among post-expansion centers but in any case, it might be helpful.
Last edited:
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Centers who played with scoring champion wingers (plus 95-96 because come on):
[TBODY]
[/TBODY]Francis appears to show very strongly here, though unsurprisingly the top-2 seasons are both lockout-shortened so we should expect regression to the pack for both he and Stamkos if those full seasons were played out.
Basically, unless the center is out of his league (Anisimov, Conroy), a great player who hasn't reached his prime (Point, Backstrom), or, strangely, Lemaire that one time, you can expect the center of a scoring champion winger to have 90+ adjusted points and be comfortably inside the top-10. We won't be talking about Mahovlich, Seguin, Richards or Backstrom in this project. Probably not Sedin, and of course not the 23-year old Point. I suspect we will talk about Lemaire, but not because of his regular season offense in these seasons. What I'm saying is any decent #1 center with a scoring champion on his wing will do something pretty similar to what Francis did - it's hard not to! However, Francis did outperform the baseline expectation, AND, he did it four times. So I don't mean to downplay that too much.
Still, he was clearly elevated from what he otherwise would have been at that age - a good two-way 2nd line center maybe hovering around 15th-25th in points - something like Toews is right now - to a slam dunk for top-10 in points. Anyone who counts those 95-98 point totals at face value is doing a disservice to anyone who approached those totals without the help of Jagr (and in one year, Lemieux). There has to be a mental adjustment, and a pretty big one - will we ever agree on how to do that? No, probably not.
Edit: surely someone has some data based on other similar centers who aged gracefully and played till 38-41 - comparing what they did in their physical prime of 24-28 to ages 31-35 and then applying that to Francis could be useful.
| Name | AdjP | Rank |
| Francis | 115 | 4 |
| Stamkos | 108 | 2 |
| Francis | 102 | 5 |
| Sedin | 101 | 4 |
| Francis | 100 | 5 |
| Francis | 94 | 8 |
| Point | 92 | 12 |
| Mahovlich | 91 | 6 |
| Richards | 91 | 9 |
| Lemaire | 87 | 4 |
| Conroy | 86 | 12 |
| Seguin | 86 | 7 |
| Backstrom | 74 | 40 |
| Lemaire | 67 | 23 |
| Anisimov | 48 | 142 |
Basically, unless the center is out of his league (Anisimov, Conroy), a great player who hasn't reached his prime (Point, Backstrom), or, strangely, Lemaire that one time, you can expect the center of a scoring champion winger to have 90+ adjusted points and be comfortably inside the top-10. We won't be talking about Mahovlich, Seguin, Richards or Backstrom in this project. Probably not Sedin, and of course not the 23-year old Point. I suspect we will talk about Lemaire, but not because of his regular season offense in these seasons. What I'm saying is any decent #1 center with a scoring champion on his wing will do something pretty similar to what Francis did - it's hard not to! However, Francis did outperform the baseline expectation, AND, he did it four times. So I don't mean to downplay that too much.
Still, he was clearly elevated from what he otherwise would have been at that age - a good two-way 2nd line center maybe hovering around 15th-25th in points - something like Toews is right now - to a slam dunk for top-10 in points. Anyone who counts those 95-98 point totals at face value is doing a disservice to anyone who approached those totals without the help of Jagr (and in one year, Lemieux). There has to be a mental adjustment, and a pretty big one - will we ever agree on how to do that? No, probably not.
Edit: surely someone has some data based on other similar centers who aged gracefully and played till 38-41 - comparing what they did in their physical prime of 24-28 to ages 31-35 and then applying that to Francis could be useful.
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
Stastny was bigger, stronger, faster and had a better shot.
Francis was the better hockey player.
Francis was the better hockey player.
Last edited:
Black Gold Extractor
Registered User
- May 4, 2010
- 3,092
- 4,967
Well, one way is to look at individual point percentage (IPP). The expectation for a forward is ~67% and the expectation for a defenseman is ~33% (post-Bobby Orr, anyway).
Ron Francis
[TBODY]
[/TBODY]
Despite putting up better numbers in Pittsburgh, Francis on average produced less than expected relative to his total on-ice goals for, which indicates that his fairly good* linemates were the ones carrying the mail offensively, so to speak.
* Top-20 all-time is pretty good, right?
Peter Stastny
[TBODY]
[/TBODY]
Stastny was carrying the weight in Quebec, but geez did he ever start declining rapidly in New Jersey. (Like, those were his age 34-36 seasons, but still.)
I'll leave the judgment to everyone else.
Ron Francis
| Season | Team | PTS | TGF | IPP |
| 1981-82 | HAR | 68 | 89 | 76.40% |
| 1982-83 | HAR | 90 | 113 | 79.65% |
| 1983-84 | HAR | 83 | 118 | 70.34% |
| 1984-85 | HAR | 81 | 128 | 63.28% |
| 1985-86 | HAR | 77 | 113 | 68.14% |
| 1986-87 | HAR | 93 | 140 | 66.43% |
| 1987-88 | HAR | 75 | 104 | 72.12% |
| 1988-89 | HAR | 77 | 116 | 66.38% |
| 1989-90 | HAR | 101 | 137 | 73.72% |
| 1990-91 | TOT | 87 | 119 | 73.11% |
| 1990-91 | HAR | 76 | 97 | 78.35% |
| 1990-91 | PIT | 11 | 22 | 50.00% |
| 1991-92 | PIT | 54 | 107 | 50.47% |
| 1992-93 | PIT | 100 | 156 | 64.10% |
| 1993-94 | PIT | 93 | 134 | 69.40% |
| 1994-95 | PIT | 59 | 77 | 76.62% |
| 1995-96 | PIT | 119 | 189 | 62.96% |
| 1996-97 | PIT | 90 | 141 | 63.83% |
| 1997-98 | PIT | 87 | 126 | 69.05% |
| 1998-99 | CAR | 52 | 78 | 66.67% |
| 1999-00 | CAR | 73 | 104 | 70.19% |
| 2000-01 | CAR | 65 | 93 | 69.89% |
| 2001-02 | CAR | 77 | 107 | 71.96% |
| 2002-03 | CAR | 57 | 83 | 68.67% |
| 2003-04 | TOT | 40 | 58 | 68.97% |
| 2003-04 | CAR | 30 | 44 | 68.18% |
| 2003-04 | TOR | 10 | 14 | 71.43% |
| 16 yrs | CAR/HAR | 1175 | 1664 | 70.61% |
| 8 yrs | PIT | 613 | 952 | 64.39% |
| 1 yr | TOR | 10 | 14 | 71.43% |
| Career | 23 yrs | 1798 | 2630 | 68.37% |
Despite putting up better numbers in Pittsburgh, Francis on average produced less than expected relative to his total on-ice goals for, which indicates that his fairly good* linemates were the ones carrying the mail offensively, so to speak.
* Top-20 all-time is pretty good, right?
Peter Stastny
| Season | Team | PTS | TGF | IPP |
| 1980-81 | QUE | 109 | 147 | 74.15% |
| 1981-82 | QUE | 139 | 174 | 79.89% |
| 1982-83 | QUE | 124 | 154 | 80.52% |
| 1983-84 | QUE | 119 | 156 | 76.28% |
| 1984-85 | QUE | 100 | 136 | 73.53% |
| 1985-86 | QUE | 122 | 167 | 73.05% |
| 1986-87 | QUE | 77 | 112 | 68.75% |
| 1987-88 | QUE | 111 | 146 | 76.03% |
| 1988-89 | QUE | 85 | 114 | 74.56% |
| 1989-90 | TOT | 73 | 98 | 74.49% |
| 1989-90 | QUE | 62 | 83 | 74.70% |
| 1989-90 | NJD | 11 | 15 | 73.33% |
| 1990-91 | NJD | 60 | 92 | 65.22% |
| 1991-92 | NJD | 62 | 102 | 60.78% |
| 1992-93 | NJD | 40 | 70 | 57.14% |
| 1993-94 | STL | 16 | 20 | 80.00% |
| 1994-95 | STL | 2 | 3 | 66.67% |
| 10 yrs | QUE | 1048 | 1389 | 75.45% |
| 4 yrs | NJD | 173 | 279 | 62.01% |
| 2 yrs | STL | 18 | 23 | 78.26% |
| Career | 15 yrs | 1239 | 1691 | 73.27% |
Stastny was carrying the weight in Quebec, but geez did he ever start declining rapidly in New Jersey. (Like, those were his age 34-36 seasons, but still.)
I'll leave the judgment to everyone else.
tarheelhockey
Offside Review Specialist
I was talking about his clearly defined peak, ‘83 and ‘84. I literally said “in his peak seasons” to start the sentence. That’s not cherry-picking anything.
And that is exactly my point. As I said in the first place — the years when Stastny’s numbers got really wild, he was playing on a firewagon team during THE highest scoring seasons in NHL history with very solid offensive support.
That’s why I’m a bit confused about the pushback. The statement is very obviously true. The numbers you’re citing back it up. What’s the issue?
With a wider lens, is “Stastny was in an obviously more favorable circumstance to put up gaudy numbers” really even a controversial statement? Like, are we quibbling about fringe issues or do you really disagree with the thesis?
Professor What
Registered User
Two things that I don't think are getting enough consideration in the Francis/Stastny discussion -- one for each man.
Francis: I really feel like discussing the offensive aspect of his game is pulling away from the big picture. This man was elite defensively, and when you talk about forwards who were strong at both ends of the ice, his has to be one of the first names that comes up. Perhaps he's not someone that you'd argue is at the tip top of the talent pile, but boy, did he ever pour his heart into the game, and not just in select circumstances.
Stastny: He's done an injustice if his play before his defection isn't considered. He'd been playing at a consistent, high level for four years before arriving in Quebec. Granted, the level of the Czechoslovakian league wasn't NHL standard, but when you look at how level his performance was during those four years, it somehow doesn't seem unfair to suppose that, had he made it to Canada at age 20, he'd have four more seasons of similar caliber to his early NHL campaigns. He still wouldn't stack up to Francis for longevity, but his NHL career doesn't tell that story, and his numbers would be larger.
Earlier in this thread, I said that I wouldn't burn much energy debating one over the other, assuming that a case was logically presented. I'm much more interested in burning energy to state what I think is a proper perspective, however. I think there's been some good discussion of these two in the thread, but it just feels like there have been a few pieces missing from the discussion. I'm not saying that no one knows this stuff. I strongly suspect that everyone involved in the project knows it, and plenty better than I do, but I still want to make those points.
Francis: I really feel like discussing the offensive aspect of his game is pulling away from the big picture. This man was elite defensively, and when you talk about forwards who were strong at both ends of the ice, his has to be one of the first names that comes up. Perhaps he's not someone that you'd argue is at the tip top of the talent pile, but boy, did he ever pour his heart into the game, and not just in select circumstances.
Stastny: He's done an injustice if his play before his defection isn't considered. He'd been playing at a consistent, high level for four years before arriving in Quebec. Granted, the level of the Czechoslovakian league wasn't NHL standard, but when you look at how level his performance was during those four years, it somehow doesn't seem unfair to suppose that, had he made it to Canada at age 20, he'd have four more seasons of similar caliber to his early NHL campaigns. He still wouldn't stack up to Francis for longevity, but his NHL career doesn't tell that story, and his numbers would be larger.
Earlier in this thread, I said that I wouldn't burn much energy debating one over the other, assuming that a case was logically presented. I'm much more interested in burning energy to state what I think is a proper perspective, however. I think there's been some good discussion of these two in the thread, but it just feels like there have been a few pieces missing from the discussion. I'm not saying that no one knows this stuff. I strongly suspect that everyone involved in the project knows it, and plenty better than I do, but I still want to make those points.
ted2019
History of Hockey
Early thoughts.
Top 5: Quackenbush/Gilmour/Worters/Blake/Bower
Next 5: Holecek/Savard/Francis/Vasiliev/Langway
After 5: Busher/Bure/Parent/Datsyuk/Stastny
Top 5: Quackenbush/Gilmour/Worters/Blake/Bower
Next 5: Holecek/Savard/Francis/Vasiliev/Langway
After 5: Busher/Bure/Parent/Datsyuk/Stastny
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
tarheelhockey
Offside Review Specialist
Just realized we have two potentially interesting 3-way comparisons: Gilmour/Francis/Datsyuk and Savard/Vasiliev/Langway.
There’s a lot to unpack there.
There’s a lot to unpack there.
Professor What
Registered User
Meanwhile, he's a lock for my top five. What is it about Bure in particular that is so polarizing? Is he just the perfect storm of career features, or is there something about him personally that pushes people to that?
Professor What
Registered User
The defenseman part hadn't hit me until you said that. Personally, I find it the easier of the two. I like Vasiliev the most because when you look at his domestic accomplishments, he managed what he did despite being a member of Dynamo rather that CSKA. There's no argument of his being a product of the team. Even though Langway might be the top total shutdown guy of the three, there's almost no offensive production, while Savard wasn't too far behind in defensive play and did show some offensive flashes at time. Going with the idea that it's easier to destroy than create, his combo tops Langway.
For the forwards, I'll condense my general thoughts from earlier. Datsyuk, as fabulous of a player as he is, is in third for me. He's probably the best defensively, but I like the combination of defense and offensive production of Francis and Gilmour better, similarly to my Savard/Langway comment above. Untangling Francis and Gilmour is a much tougher task though.
Gilmour/Francis/Datsyuk.
To me Datsyuk is clearly #3. Gilmour/Francis is the much more interesting comparison.
Francis edges out Gilmour in longevity (and - strong longevity, not just compiling, so i think it counts more), but Gilmour has the significantly better peak.
Gilmour has the considerably better playoffs too - though Francis does well here too.
I want to prioritize Gilmour based on the above, but there's a big enough gap in VsX between the 2 (both 7, and even more 10 years) that Francis makes this compelling. Of course - you can also consider why VsX isn't perfect, since in my opinion Gilmour has the best 2 seasons between the 2, but VsX has Francis > Gilmour for top 2.
I'm leaning Gilmour ahead of Francis, but it's close.
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
He waited 20 years for the HOF, so what’s another round?
Blake and Bower were voted top-4 in their position the same number of times (or more) as Quackenbush’s All-Star selections, but also have retroactive Conn Smythe Trophies and top-2 placements in Hart voting.
Worters doesn’t have much in terms of playoffs (just like Quackenbush), but the stronger regular season resume with the coaches polls and Hart voting.
Seems like a given that those three would be higher, since they match Quackenbush’s accomplishments and then add to them.
Gilmour was the highest-ranked player on the playoff performers list to not make the top-100, and he has three years of top-5 Hart voting in a 21+ team league.
Bure has the same number of top-4s in All-Star voting at a deeper position (1, 2, 2, 3, 3 - of the 6 players who finished ahead of him in those years, two are Selanne and three are Jagr), and at least one playoff run and best-on-best tournament of note.
Stastny has one fewer top-4 (3, 3, 3, 4, 5) while playing at the worst time for anyone in any position to try to get votes. He also had a not negligible amount of pre-NHL success which shouldn’t be discounted considering how he hit the ground running in his 1st NHL season.
Those three are probably more in line with Quackenbush’s accomplishments while perhaps giving cause to hold theirs in greater esteem.
Parent and Francis are players that essentially ask how we measure unmatched peak levels or relentless goodness. I expect them to be the most polarizing retired players we discuss all project (more so than Bowie).
But Holecek on the other hand? He and Quackenbush finished within 2 voting points of each other last round. Named Best/All-Star goaltender at six World Championship tournaments (top save percentage at six as well, by my count).
Those three are going to be more dependent on how we value certain things.
Then there is Savard who is 4th/5th in Norris/All-Star voting for 5-straight years. So a little more concentrated and no years on top (Orr, Potvin, Robinson, and Park fill up much of the spots, but we also can’t say that Guy Lapointe didn’t overcome this), but with a Conn Smythe.
I can see under an optimistic lens how Quackenbush could fall in that 4th through 7th range (under Blake, Bower, and Worters - who he simply does not compare well against) but more appropriately 7th through being unranked.
What I don’t see is the urgency.
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
Both Savard (5 games, 2 assists -1) and Vasiliev (6 games, 1 goal 2 assists +1) played in the Summit series.
Both also played in the 1976 Canada Cup, Savard had 3 assists in 7 games. Vasiliev 3 assists in 5 games.
Vasiliev also captained the 1981 Canada Cup champions.
Langway played in the 1981, 1984 and 1987 Canada Cups for the U.S. In 1984, he was the first American player to be named to a Canada Cup post-tourney first All-Star team.
sr edler
gold is not reality
- Mar 20, 2010
- 12,211
- 6,698
I've liked Quick a lot when I've seen him, most of the time, and I'm not a big goalie guy. He was really good & impressing in that Vegas series in 2018 when the Kings got swept, and kept every game a one-goal game. So even when his team wasn't very good (2018 LA Kings) he was still very good himself. I certainly liked him more than Fleury. Thomas I've never been high on, but it doesn't mean I think he was garbage. None of Quick or Thomas are up for vote so far though.
But it's interesting what you say about Gorman there, I didn't know that in detail, although it kinda looked like that while just skimming on it, with the Americans pancaking to 160 goals against in 1929–30.
I don't think anything good will come from any attempts to try to unwrap this on a more detailed level, at least not here in this thread, let's just say some of it goes back to previous projects. But the short diplomatic answer is just that some people like Bure and some people doesn't. It's not a big deal. It it what it is.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
You word in in such a way to make their records look similar. They don't really:
This is Quackenbush's All-Star record: 1, 1, 2, 3, 3, 5, 7, 10
This is Bower's All-Star record: 1, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 5
I'm not going to do this for every player, but your entire post is based off "top 4s"
Last edited:
overpass
Registered User
When looking at IPP, you have to consider what role the player played to know what the IPP expectation is. It's not as simple as 67% for every forward. Francis often played the point on the power play so his IPP expectation for those seasons would be lower than a primary playmaker like Stastny. On the power play, the best defencemen are around 60% IPP. (MacInnis was 60.8%, Bourque was 60.0%, Leetch was 57.3%, Coffey was 57.4%, Lidstrom was 56.4%) and I would expect a forward playing the point to be similar.
I don't have a scouting report on which seasons Francis played the point, but I can get a good idea by looking at his teams and the percentage of their PPGF came from defencemen. A team that always played 2 defencemen on the point would have 40% of their PPGF from defencemen. A team that always played 1 defenceman and 1 forward on the point would have 20% of their PPGF from defencemen. Francis's teams were always in the range between 20% and 40% of PPGF from D over his career, but some years tended strongly one way and some years strongly the other way. For example, his team was clearly running a forward on the point most of the time in 1983-84, 1984-85, 1986-87, 1989-90, 1992-93, 1995-96. And in 1990-91,1996-97, 1997-98, 1999-00, 2000-01 they were clearly running 2 defencemen out there most of the time. (In Pittsburgh, you can see they run more forwards when Mario Lemieux is playing and more defencemen when he's not playing, because Francis played the point on the PP when Mario was in the lineup and played centre on the PP when Mario was out. With the exception of 1996-97, when Lemieux-Francis-Jagr was a regular line at EV and on the PP) The numbers are below.
| Team | Season | PPGF % from D | Francis PPG | Francis PPA | Francis PPP | Francis PPGF | Francis PP IPP% |
| Hartford | 1982 | 34.3% | 12 | 14 | 26 | 38 | 68.4% |
| Hartford | 1983 | 31.5% | 4 | 24 | 28 | 33 | 84.8% |
| Hartford | 1984 | 23.9% | 5 | 31 | 36 | 59 | 61.0% |
| Hartford | 1985 | 24.4% | 4 | 27 | 31 | 63 | 49.2% |
| Hartford | 1986 | 31.3% | 7 | 24 | 31 | 48 | 64.6% |
| Hartford | 1987 | 26.0% | 7 | 24 | 31 | 61 | 50.8% |
| Hartford | 1988 | 29.2% | 11 | 25 | 36 | 51 | 70.6% |
| Hartford | 1989 | 26.3% | 8 | 21 | 29 | 49 | 59.2% |
| Hartford | 1990 | 24.7% | 15 | 28 | 43 | 61 | 70.5% |
| Hartford | 1991 | 33.9% | 10 | 18 | 28 | 40 | 70.0% |
| Pittsburgh | 1992 | 29.1% | 5 | 9 | 14 | 44 | 31.8% |
| Pittsburgh | 1993 | 24.0% | 9 | 41 | 50 | 84 | 59.5% |
| Pittsburgh | 1994 | 31.0% | 8 | 33 | 41 | 60 | 68.3% |
| Pittsburgh | 1995 | 30.5% | 3 | 18 | 21 | 25 | 84.0% |
| Pittsburgh | 1996 | 24.4% | 12 | 42 | 54 | 92 | 58.7% |
| Pittsburgh | 1997 | 34.4% | 10 | 24 | 34 | 50 | 68.0% |
| Pittsburgh | 1998 | 36.2% | 7 | 25 | 32 | 50 | 64.0% |
| Carolina | 1999 | 22.9% | 8 | 10 | 18 | 29 | 62.1% |
| Carolina | 2000 | 37.0% | 7 | 22 | 29 | 43 | 67.4% |
| Carolina | 2001 | 36.0% | 7 | 26 | 33 | 47 | 70.2% |
| Carolina | 2002 | 23.0% | 14 | 28 | 42 | 51 | 82.4% |
| Carolina | 2003 | 31.8% | 8 | 15 | 23 | 36 | 63.9% |
| Carolina | 2004 | 31.4% | 5 | 11 | 16 | 23 | 69.6% |
| PPGF from D | Francis PPG | Francis PPA | Francis PPP | Francis PPGF | Francis PP IPP% |
| 20-29.9% PPGF | 98 | 286 | 384 | 644 | 59.6% |
| 30-39.9% PPGF | 78 | 230 | 308 | 443 | 69.5% |
The overall effect is that Francis had a career IPP on the power play of 63.6%, compared to Stastny's 70.0%. But when Francis played forward on the power play, his IPP was similar to Stastny's. I'm assuming Stastny did not regularly play on the point.
At even strength, Francis had a career IPP of 72.3%. 76.8% in Hartford, 67.8% in Pittsburgh, 69.7% in Carolina. Stastny had a career EV IPP of 75.5%. 77.8% in Quebec and 62.5% in New Jersey. So Stastny's IPP at even strength during his prime in Quebec was quite high, but Francis in Hartford was only a point behind. Francis's IPP at even strength dropped when he moved to Pittsburgh and took a secondary offensive role to Jagr.
Conclusions:
- Francis's even strength IPP in Hartford was very similar to Stastny's even strength IPP in Quebec (Stastny had the edge by 1 percentage point).
- Francis had a lower even strength IPP when playing in Pittsburgh as the secondary offensive player on his line to Jaromir Jagr. But almost any NHL forward in history would be a secondary offensive player on a line with Jagr, including Stastny.
- Francis had a lower even strength IPP late in his career in Carolina (69.7%) -- but Stastny also had a low even strength IPP in his late 30s, he just played far fewer games than Francis at this age.
- Francis's lower power play IPP may be fully explained by playing the point in some seasons rather than playing down low as a playmaker every year as Stastny did. When we estimate which seasons Francis played on the point and which he played up front, we get his power play IPP as about 70% for the seasons he played up front. Which is basically identical to Stastny's career power play IPP of 70%.
- Stastny's edge in IPP may be entirely explained by their different team situations as listed above.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
We actually have pretty good records now from CSSR - Hockey in Czechoslovakia and Europe from 1968 to 1990 (some awards and stats).
Here's how Stastny faired in "best player in Czechoslovakia" among forwards:
76-77: not ranked
77-78: not ranked
78-79: 4th behind Marian Stastny, Vladimir Martinec, and Anton Stastny
79-80: 1st
I see ONE elite season for Stastny in Czechoslovakia, and MAYBE a 2nd notable one.
Theokritos
Global Moderator
- Apr 6, 2010
- 12,674
- 5,102
BTW the newer, streamlined thread (which is still incomplete & will remain incomplete for some time) has Czechoslovak overviews on page 2: International & European Award & All-Star Voting
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
How is Langway's competition much softer? Bourque, Coffey and Howe? Potvin was still around.
Professor What
Registered User
I'm a bit surprised he didn't fare better in earlier voting records, but I had more of his offensive output in mind in relation to the earlier discussion.
76-77: 25-27-52 in 44
77-78: 29-24-53 in 42
78-79: 32-23-55 in 39
79-80: 26-26-52 in 41
Of course, there's a lot more to playing hockey than pure offensive numbers, and it's very easy for me to accept that his overall game improved over that time span. I'd hope it did, actually since most younger players tend to have weaknesses to develop. What's interesting to me though, based on the awards voting you mentioned is that, offensively, 78-79 was his best season, though it obviously wasn't seen as such for his overall game. Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that, if we look at Stastny as a purely offensive threat, which has been done, and which he largely was, his Czechoslovakian stats can't be ignored.
This does bring another question to my mind though. If he was consistent offensively, what aspects of his game led to the improvement in his voting record? Examining those aspects of his game after the NHL move would give a better view of him than seeing him as a pure numbers machine, which is a real temptation in his case.
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
A 5, 7, and 10 in a 6-team league with small numbers of ballots isn’t all that notable.
Let’s look at that #5 (1946):
DEFENSE: Jack Crawford, Bos (6-3-3-3); Butch Bouchard, Mtl (5-6-0-1); Ken Reardon, Mtl (2-0-4-1); Jack Stewart Det (3-8-3-3); Bill Quackenbush, Det (0-0-2-4)
Twice as many Defensemen (4) were named on All-Star ballots that year than any other position (2). And Quackenbush’s support came from the bottom-half of the ballot. Had Quackenbush been a C, LW, RW, or G where only two players were named on All-Star ballots, that 5th place finish becomes a year where he’s completely unranked.
And a #7 and a #10? Since when do we care about stray votes?
Johnny Bower had a #5 in 1963 and I didn’t mention it because why should I? All-Star ballots are designed to capture specific data (All-Stars) not comprehensive rankings of players.
Using Defensive All-Star selections which capture double the players to look at fringe ranking support is always going to steer a comparison towards the Defenseman.
You know this.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
I fail to grasp the relevance of the bolded. There are twice as many defensemen in a starting hockey lineup as any other position (assuming you split wings into LW and RW) - why wouldn't there be twice as many spots for them on an All-Star team?
I mean, is our disagreement that you think there should be roughly equal numbers of goaltenders and defensemen on our list, while I think it makes sense to have roughly double the number of defensemen?
How often have All-Star ballots had only 2 names on them? Certainly not in modern times, not before WW2, either.
I listed every year when a player received more than 1 vote. Yes, the 7th and 10th place finishes are borderline "who cares" finishes
Last edited:
- Status
