Was Marcel Dionne just a stat compiler?

[ConnorMcBackcheck]

At his retirement he finished 2nd all time in goals and 3rd all time in assists. Only had one season offensively where he separated himself from his contemporaries but still tied a rookie Gretzky in points. 15 of 19 seasons above a point per game, six 50+ goal seasons and respectable offensive numbers in the playoffs but not really anything to show for it at the end of the day.

Looking at his stats and season finishing it seems like his quest to win trophies was stopped by guys like Esposito/Orr and LafIeur and then in the back half of his career Gretzky, among several players.

Still Dionne finished with incredible personal numbers but not many trophies to speak of. 731 goals and 1771 points in 1348 career games but was there any point in his career between the Bruins/Habs teams and Oilers/Isles teams where he was widely recognized as the best player in the league? Was his lack of supporting cast considered for not putting him over the top in a lot of these scoring races?

 

[Nathaniel]

Scoring finishes 1,2,2,2,3,4,5,7
That's one hell of a compiler if true

 

[Gurglesons]

No. He was one of the best forwards in the league.

 

[JackSlater]

Hard to argue with Dionne's points when he was almost always the guy driving his line. They weren't empty points, if such things exist, just because he played on teams that never had a chance to win a Stanley Cup.

 

[67 others]

Dionne's fault was he played with a predictable sameness to his game. Offensively he was outstanding. But he was more predictable than, say, Guy Lafleur, who was dynamic and unpredictable. Dionne's line also never featured someone looking to cover defensively as much as they should have.

Which meant you would strategize against one to shut his line down easily or exploit the weaknesses of his line.

This was the era of the odd man rush ALL GAME with great regularity. When he ran into the better transition teams, it handicapped his gambling style.

 

[The Panther]

No.

If a player is League-dominant, wins scoring titles, and remains an elite scorer, driving his team, for a long period of time, he's not a "stat compiler", he's an elite player. If Dionne had been the 2nd center on a bad team, getting easier match-ups, and then hanging on way past his prime for ten years to build up his totals, there might be an argument.

The one season (1980-81) the Kings got a bit of defensive depth and some team defense (8th best), Dionne went +54, being on the ice for 202 Kings' goals and 79 against.

He just played for two crappy teams (Detroit and L.A.), the latter for many years lacking any defensive concept or competent management.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Dionne's fault was he played with a predictable sameness to his game. Offensively he was outstanding. But he was more predictable than, say, Guy Lafleur, who was dynamic and unpredictable. Dionne's line also never featured someone looking to cover defensively as much as they should have.

Which meant you would strategize against one to shut his line down easily or exploit the weaknesses of his line.

This was the era of the odd man rush ALL GAME with great regularity. When he ran into the better transition teams, it handicapped his gambling style.

Simmer-Dionne-Taylor was one of the best lines ever. Only one great player on that line.

In the 1979-80 season, the Kings scored 290 goals and allowed 313. Yet Dionne was +34, Taylor +38 and Simmer +47. The Kings didn't have another forward that was a plus player. In 1980-81 Dionne was +54, Taylor +48, Simmer +32.

That doesn't seem to jive with your description.

 

[Moose Head]

No. For at least a decade he was one of the best offensive players in the game.

 

[67 others]

Simmer-Dionne-Taylor was one of the best lines ever. Only one great player on that line.

In the 1979-80 season, the Kings scored 290 goals and allowed 313. Yet Dionne was +34, Taylor +38 and Simmer +47. The Kings didn't have another forward that was a plus player. In 1980-81 Dionne was +54, Taylor +48, Simmer +32.

That doesn't seem to jive with your description.

What does the regular season have to do with the good playoff teams strategizing to neutralize a player or line during a playoff series?

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

What does the regular season have to do with the good playoff teams strategizing to neutralize a player or line during a playoff series?

Your post, which I replied to, does not contain the word "playoff" at all.

So, what the hell are you talking about?

 

[67 others]

Your post, which I replied to, does not contain the word "playoff" at all.

So, what the hell are you talking about?

My bad.

I felt it was obvious I was talking about his playoff resume but upon second glance, I guess I didn't put it up

 

[GlitchMarner]

A lot of the best centres back then weren't two-way players (Gretzky, Lemieux, Stastny, Savard, Hawerchuk, Dionne etc).

As for his offense: He often finished very high in the scoring race, so no, he wasn't a stats compiler. You don't have to be the absolute best offensive player in the League to not be a compiler. The guys who beat him for scoring Titles in his best seasons are top 30 players all-time.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

My bad.

I felt it was obvious I was talking about his playoff resume but upon second glance, I guess I didn't put it up

No problem.

 

[Yozhik v tumane]

The Little Beaver did pretty well against the ten best teams in terms of point percentage through his career.

Against Montreal (.672):

78

40

52

92

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

1.18

Against Boston (.628):

70

22

43

65

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

0.93

Against Philadelphia (.627):

68

28

44

72

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

1.06

Against Edmonton (.623):

55

26

51

77

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

1.4

Against Buffalo (.567):

65

32

38

70

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

1.08

Against the Islanders (.566):

65

31

44

75

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

1.15

Against the Flames (.542):

83

58

43

101

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

1.22

Against the Rangers (.523):

63

29

52

81

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

1.29

Against Chicago (.514):

67

28

48

76

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

1.13

Against Quebec (.488):

29

16

23

36

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

1.24

Total: 643 310-438-748, 1.16 p/g

Extrapolated over the extent of his career, he gets a statline of 650-918-1568 in 1348 games versus usually good opposition.

 

[67 others]

Simmer-Dionne-Taylor was one of the best lines ever. Only one great player on that line.

In the 1979-80 season, the Kings scored 290 goals and allowed 313. Yet Dionne was +34, Taylor +38 and Simmer +47. The Kings didn't have another forward that was a plus player. In 1980-81 Dionne was +54, Taylor +48, Simmer +32.

That doesn't seem to jive with your description.

But I will evaluate that year just since you piqued my interest. Let's see how Dionne did against the bottom 5 teams in the league vs the top 5
Washington, Winnipeg, the Colorado Rockies, Quebec and Detroit. Were the worst point finishers that year. He played 20 games against those teams and put up 49 points in 20 games and was +27

Conversely the top 5 teams were Boston, Montreal, Philly, the Isles, and Buffalo. 20 points in 20 games and -8

im sure MOST players would have similar extra points against bad teams, but i wanted to see how big a difference it was between him run and gunning weaker teams vs teams that could gameplan for him.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

But I will evaluate that year just since you piqued my interest. Let's see how Dionne did against the bottom 5 teams in the league vs the top 5
Washington, Winnipeg, the Colorado Rockies, Quebec and Detroit. Were the worst point finishers that year. He played 20 games against those teams and put up 49 points in 20 games and was +27

Conversely the top 5 teams were Boston, Montreal, Philly, the Isles, and Buffalo. 20 points in 20 games and -8

im sure MOST players would have similar extra points against bad teams, but i wanted to see how big a difference it was between him run and gunning weaker teams vs teams that could gameplan for him.

Is that really any different than most players?

 

[scott clam]

That's a hard no.

 

[MadLuke]

Is that really any different than most players?

This is my feeling, that breakdown is a bit empty without what the average stars looked like in the early 80s.

Gretzky against the teams listed
weak group: 43 points +20 in 20 games (2.15 ppg)
good group: 28 points +2 in 20 games (1.4ppg)
Gretzky scored 154% against the weak group vs the good one

Bossy:
weak group: 32 points +16 in 20 games (1.6 ppg)
good group: 18 points -4 in 16 games (1.125 ppg)
Bossy scored 142% against the weak group vs the good one

Dionne was 245% against the weak group vs the good one, for that season versus those 2 it does seem different.

 

[Theokritos]

Dionne's fault was he played with a predictable sameness to his game. Offensively he was outstanding. But he was more predictable than, say, Guy Lafleur, who was dynamic and unpredictable.

Déjà vu. Must be a glitch in the matrix.

Watched Marcel Dionne play since Bantam. While prolific offensively there was a sameness and predictability to his offensive game.

That is an excellent summary of Dionne's career. Too much sameness and predictability in his game at C

No Dionne was a predictable talent while Lafleur was an unpredictable talent.

 

[67 others]

Is that really any different than most players?

No, I did write at the end of the post that it was likely normal for most players.

But in Contrast, Gretzky, who was tied for points to Dionne that year certainly looked better in that regard. 36 points in 20 games and +9 against the bottom 5 and 32 points in 20 games and -5 against the top 5 teams.

Gretzky's pace against the top 5 teams was still a 128 points in 80 games pace. Dionne's was 80 points in 80 games.

 

[jigglysquishy]

Déjà vu. Must be a glitch in the matrix.

I miss Canadiens1958. Rarely agreed, but provided a much needed perspective.

 

[67 others]

Déjà vu. Must be a glitch in the matrix.

Great minds think alike. That and it wasn't a rare opinion. they did go 1st and 2nd overall.

Was way closer than, say, Thornton and Marleau

 

[Moose Head]

No, I did write at the end of the post that it was likely normal for most players.

But in Contrast, Gretzky, who was tied for points to Dionne that year certainly looked better in that regard. 36 points in 20 games and +9 against the bottom 5 and 32 points in 20 games and -5 against the top 5 teams.

Gretzky's pace against the top 5 teams was still a 128 points in 80 games pace. Dionne's was 80 points in 80 games.

No doubt Gretzky was already better at that young age than Dionne. Hell he scored as much at 19 as peak Dionne with Blair McDonald and Dave Lumley as linemates. I think anyone would prefer Simmer and Taylor. That said, Dionne was a hell of an offensive talent, just not Gretzky, but who was?

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

Not his fault he was stuck on a terrible team.

If you swap Dionne and Lafleur, the Canadiens don't miss a beat and the Kings still don't win sh*t.

Compilers get their totals from playing forever without standing out. Dionne was the opposite of that. Don't forget he's 6th all time in PPG, that alone kills any compiler argument.

If you want a real compiler, look at Marleau.

1200 points but only .67 PPG career. Only 2x top 10 in goals and never top 10 in points. He literally played more games than anyone ever to reach that

 

[wetcoast]

But I will evaluate that year just since you piqued my interest. Let's see how Dionne did against the bottom 5 teams in the league vs the top 5
Washington, Winnipeg, the Colorado Rockies, Quebec and Detroit. Were the worst point finishers that year. He played 20 games against those teams and put up 49 points in 20 games and was +27

Conversely the top 5 teams were Boston, Montreal, Philly, the Isles, and Buffalo. 20 points in 20 games and -8

im sure MOST players would have similar extra points against bad teams, but i wanted to see how big a difference it was between him run and gunning weaker teams vs teams that could gameplan for him.

Dionne also had a better road spilt than a home one that year, you know where teams could line match him

Home 40-20-43-63
Road 40-33-41-74

I still contend that Dionne is a better overall hockey player than the guy drafted just before him Guy Lafleur, team circumstances allowed one guy to have team success and for the other guy to not.