What does Draisaitl need to go down as the greatest ever number 2?

[Michael Farkas]

Re: Lafleur....

He just wasn't overly smart or adaptable. He played on instinct, which can be a good thing, but also limiting.

He was very important to the Habs, he could do things nobody else could do. But he was very well insulated on those teams. He sometimes shared the ice with 5 other Hall of Famers (i.e. everybody), and some great defensive players.

For me, he was rarely the Habs' best player, and not great on Team Canada. But, still, his skill was undeniable, and he was a beautiful player to watch.

Yeah, this is a really good look at it and I'm glad someone else that definitely sees what goes down says this. I think we're seeing the same thing and it took me a while to piece it together (a couple reasons, none of which are important to this particular post).

He's technically better than most players of this era. He's also a rare quick-twitch athlete for this time period. He really is a terrific, natural athlete. The league is slower and sloppier as we get through the mid 70's and through the early 80's, so there's a marked advantage here. It's not unlike Maurice Richard in some ways. I don't like how Richard played, I don't like that type of player relatively speaking. But Richard dummied those guys because they weren't equipped technically to deal with it.

Staying in the era, Gilbert Perreault was probably technically better 1v1 and he also went about it in a little different way...he was a "set them up, knock'em down" guy in terms of how he handled 1v1 play, especially in the NZ. Unlike Lafleur, he opted to try to pass more. A lot more. Given the state of goaltending at this time, Perreault would have been better off firing some more. Lafleur (and Lemaire) were blasting them on net from center regularly. Lemaire even beat that loser Esposito from center in game 7 to win the 1971 Stanley Cup.

If you center around Perreault's career (1971-1987) here are the shots per game for the Sabres...

1. R.Martin 3.69
2. D.Gare 3.54
3. R.Robert 3.35
4. J.Van Boxmeer 2.71
5. P.Housley 2.58
6. G.Perreault 2.58
7. E.Shack 2.58
8. D.Andreychuk 2.56
9. M.Robitaille 2.55

##

Lafleur was up at 3.33 per game, Lemaire at 3.65 over the course of Lafleur's Montreal career (1971-1985).

Lafleur prime (75 to 80), he took 500 more shots than any other Montreal Canadien.
Perreault prime (75 to 80), Perreault just narrowly avoided being 4th on his team in shots...350 behind the leader. 12 more goals and he still would have led all players during that time though.

The shooters get a lot of credit, especially in the wake of Ovechkin's achievement. And people that count like to count and they really try to rub it in that they can count. But shots aren't created equally and they aren't created equally in all eras. Not only in terms of the quality (which I think we all know at this point), but in terms of the ease to get shots off. Shot distances have changed over time too.

Anyway, back to the actual players...Perreault had very deceptive tools, he was really effective all over the ice and he maximized that ice, he managed it really well because his mental game was really advanced. Lafleur on the wing, well, he was there by design. His technical game was better than his anticipation. And that's probably why we saw Perreault age more gracefully. After their respective age 32 seasons, Lafleur was a 56 pts/82 player; Perreault was 84 pts/82.

Between playing on a far weaker team and simply prioritizing passing instead of ladling pucks over strewn frenetics like Tony O and Vachon, he chose to try to pass to a guy who scored on a ~20 goal pace without him...it likely hurt his career numbers, which hurts his awards, which hurts his "resume" here. So we have Perreault over 100 spots behind Lafleur...but if we were forced to watch the games in order to participate in the projects, there's 0% chance that gap would be that large. Zero. I'd wager that some would not continue to have Lafleur ahead at all even.

 

[The Panther]

Yeah, this is a really good look at it and I'm glad someone else that definitely sees what goes down says this. I think we're seeing the same thing and it took me a while to piece it together (a couple reasons, none of which are important to this particular post).

He's technically better than most players of this era. He's also a rare quick-twitch athlete for this time period. He really is a terrific, natural athlete. The league is slower and sloppier as we get through the mid 70's and through the early 80's, so there's a marked advantage here. It's not unlike Maurice Richard in some ways. I don't like how Richard played, I don't like that type of player relatively speaking. But Richard dummied those guys because they weren't equipped technically to deal with it.

Staying in the era, Gilbert Perreault was probably technically better 1v1 and he also went about it in a little different way...he was a "set them up, knock'em down" guy in terms of how he handled 1v1 play, especially in the NZ. Unlike Lafleur, he opted to try to pass more. A lot more. Given the state of goaltending at this time, Perreault would have been better off firing some more. Lafleur (and Lemaire) were blasting them on net from center regularly. Lemaire even beat that loser Esposito from center in game 7 to win the 1971 Stanley Cup.

If you center around Perreault's career (1971-1987) here are the shots per game for the Sabres...

1. R.Martin 3.69
2. D.Gare 3.54
3. R.Robert 3.35
4. J.Van Boxmeer 2.71
5. P.Housley 2.58
6. G.Perreault 2.58
7. E.Shack 2.58
8. D.Andreychuk 2.56
9. M.Robitaille 2.55

##

Lafleur was up at 3.33 per game, Lemaire at 3.65 over the course of Lafleur's Montreal career (1971-1985).

Lafleur prime (75 to 80), he took 500 more shots than any other Montreal Canadien.
Perreault prime (75 to 80), Perreault just narrowly avoided being 4th on his team in shots...350 behind the leader. 12 more goals and he still would have led all players during that time though.

The shooters get a lot of credit, especially in the wake of Ovechkin's achievement. And people that count like to count and they really try to rub it in that they can count. But shots aren't created equally and they aren't created equally in all eras. Not only in terms of the quality (which I think we all know at this point), but in terms of the ease to get shots off. Shot distances have changed over time too.

Anyway, back to the actual players...Perreault had very deceptive tools, he was really effective all over the ice and he maximized that ice, he managed it really well because his mental game was really advanced. Lafleur on the wing, well, he was there by design. His technical game was better than his anticipation. And that's probably why we saw Perreault age more gracefully. After their respective age 32 seasons, Lafleur was a 56 pts/82 player; Perreault was 84 pts/82.

Between playing on a far weaker team and simply prioritizing passing instead of ladling pucks over strewn frenetics like Tony O and Vachon, he chose to try to pass to a guy who scored on a ~20 goal pace without him...it likely hurt his career numbers, which hurts his awards, which hurts his "resume" here. So we have Perreault over 100 spots behind Lafleur...but if we were forced to watch the games in order to participate in the projects, there's 0% chance that gap would be that large. Zero. I'd wager that some would not continue to have Lafleur ahead at all even.

I dunno, I don't really buy what you're selling. I don't have a dog in the Lafleur-vs.-whoever fight, but you're going through a lot of mental barriers of logic here to try to make Perreault look better.

First of all, the League got "slower" in the mid-1970s to early 1980s...?? How is that possible? Certainly, the level of competition (particularly towards the bottom teams) probably reached near all-time low levels around 1975 (when there were 32 pro teams). But by autumn 1979, there were 21 pro teams, and with younger players and more Europeans. Obviously, things could not possibly have been getting slower.

As to Lafleur and Perreault's "mature" seasons, you've really cooked the books to come up with those stats (above). Both players had their last "superstar"-type full season in 1979-80 (Lafleur's clearly better than Perreault's), and then from 1980-81 through 1983-84 in terms of points-per-game:
21st -- Lafleur 1.13
24th -- Perreault 1.11
It's basically a dead-heat between them, offensively.

Perreault did go on to have one more solid offensive season in 1984-85, while Lafleur, as we know, barely saw any ice-time as he was being pushed out the door. He retired after 19 games of basically riding the bench.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I dunno, I don't really buy what you're selling. I don't have a dog in the Lafleur-vs.-whoever fight, but you're going through a lot of mental barriers of logic here to try to make Perreault look better.

What is a "mental barrier of logic"? And why would I have any interest in "[making] Perreault look better"?

First of all, the League got "slower" in the mid-1970s to early 1980s...?? How is that possible? Certainly, the level of competition (particularly towards the bottom teams) probably reached near all-time low levels around 1975 (when there were 32 pro teams). But by autumn 1979, there were 21 pro teams, and with younger players and more Europeans. Obviously, things could not possibly have been getting slower.

But they did. Things got slower and sloppier during this time. Whether you want to say 1981 is the bottom or 1978 is the bottom, whatever...it's not really of any great material. It's a bad time in league history no matter how you slice it. Amount of alleged "pro" teams because of a glorified minor league is something to consider, but the situation doesn't improve my absorbing half of a minor league either.

At least in the mid 70's, there were still sponsorship era players that carried over and offered some well-roundedness and balance. But as they faded, the stilts holding things up crumbled.

That's why when the league added 100% more teams, those new teams didn't get blown clean out of the water when it mattered. 1968 and 1969 Final were sweeps, sure, but they were all tight games. I think 1968 was all one goal games, and a couple went to OT I believe. Boston had a different style of play because of Orr, so they did some work on that '70 Blues team. The '71 North Stars took Montreal a long way. The pathetic .400 '72 Pens were right there with the Black Hawks, etc.

When the NHL absorbed the minor league and a bunch of minor league caliber players on top of the abundance of incomplete, rushed, and fringe/sub NHL players it was already holding because of rapid expansion, things got really goofy and really sloppy. Watching non-Gretzky, non-Islanders stuff in 1982 feels like watching a game from 1948 sometimes.

I think we've all been down the road of how pathetic the WHA teams were when they came into the league, and the myth that the WHA teams lost all but like two of their players is hogwash. Those teams kept plenty of guys...they just weren't that good against real NHLers.

Some aspects of the game did improve in the early 80's, like offensive d-men started to become more prevalent and that added an element. Added mobility to the back end, some bolstered puck moving. But a lot of fly by night forwards came in the place of O6 era/sponsorship era players, which didn't help the quality of the league...

As to Lafleur and Perreault's "mature" seasons, you've really cooked the books to come up with those stats (above). Both players had their last "superstar"-type full season in 1979-80 (Lafleur's clearly better than Perreault's), and then from 1980-81 through 1983-84 in terms of points-per-game:
21st -- Lafleur 1.13
24th -- Perreault 1.11
It's basically a dead-heat between them, offensively.

Perreault did go on to have one more solid offensive season in 1984-85, while Lafleur, as we know, barely saw any ice-time as he was being pushed out the door. He retired after 19 games of basically riding the bench.

Sure. I cooked the books by taking the generally accepted "past expiry" years in whole. You cut around and took the pieces you wanted and left the pieces you didn't, and that's how you cooked the books.

Was Lafleur benched because he was playing so well and the Habs just couldn't stand the embarrassment of riches any more...? haha

 

[daver]

Lafleur certainly wouldn't be quite as big of a star in the '80s, '90s, or today. That's because the depth of talent increased considerably after Lafleur's prime in the 1970s.

You have no idea how LaFleur would do in the '80s. Nobody does. It's all speculative. You can spend hours throwing out hypothetical scenarios; ones that usually are intended to fit one's own opinion or narrative.

Show me examples of superstar players who you can easily argue unusually regressed due to the increase in the depth of talent.

Bossy started in the '70s and stayed elite throughout the '80s, same with Dionne. Wayne, Mario, Jagr, Crosby and Ovechkin all stayed elite as one would expect as they aged, as the depth talent increased.

 

[WarriorofTime]

With the mid-70s the barrier to entry was probably the lowest it’ll ever be but luckily a lot of the crap was confined together on terrible expansion teams that got dominated or within the WHA. The top teams were all still very good and with original six era talent still around. By late 70s/early 80s a lot of the crap was diffused across the league, with original six players aging out and a decade plus of draft system to pass players around the league. Plus the drafts themselves were largely not very good (end of sponsorship era), players that drank too much and snorted too much cocaine, injuries that are now relatively minor setbacks were career killers. I think there’s a real case that outside of Montreal and then Long Island the entire zeitgeist of the nhl was at its weakest in this era.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Show me examples of superstar players who you can easily argue unusually regressed due to the increase in the depth of talent

I enjoy how you stacked this ask in such a way that you're prepared to dismiss whatever comes at you haha. "Superstar players"..."easily argue"..."unusually regressed"

Depending on what you consider pro and talent depth and super star...

Post in thread 'How inflated were Bobby Hull WHA stats?'

Feb 24, 2024

I don't think anyone would contest that the NHL was superior to the WHA. However you call it a glorified minor league, when it was clearly far superior to the AHL/CHL/IHL at the time. I also don't believe the WHA ever had teams as garbage as the mid 70's capitals, or kansas city scouts.

At the time? Of course. That's the "glorified" part. I don't know if we'll ever be able to figure it out because I'm not aware of much film...but if you're speaking from seeing these leagues back then, are you actually convinced that the WHA in, say, 1976, was better than the AHL or WHL in, say...

• Michael Farkas

• 

There's also guys like Guy Chouinard who didn't play in the WHA, but feasted on weak league conditions and was ousted by the increase pace and talent depth as the 80s progress in his prime...

 

[MadLuke]

Dionne

To take this very famously contemporary to Lafleur example

Top 10 finish:
Points
1974-75 NHL 121 (3rd)
1976-77 NHL 122 (2nd)
1978-79 NHL 130 (2nd)
1979-80 NHL 137 (1st)
1980-81 NHL 135 (2nd)
1981-82 NHL 117 (7th)
1982-83 NHL 107 (5th)
1984-85 NHL 126 (4th)

Health and linemate help, but even ppg:
Points Per Game
1974-75 NHL 1.51 (4th)
1976-77 NHL 1.53 (2nd)
1978-79 NHL 1.63 (2nd)
1979-80 NHL 1.71 (2nd)
1980-81 NHL 1.69 (2nd)
1981-82 NHL 1.50 (6th)
1982-83 NHL 1.34 (8th)
1983-84 NHL 1.39 (9th)
1984-85 NHL 1.58 (4th)

More top 10 finish (and arguably his best seasons relative to his peers) in the 80s than 70s, for someone drafted in 1971 like Lafleur.

 

[Mohar Ikram]

Draisaitl has 46 points in his last 22 playoff games and currently has the 2nd highest playoff PPG ever over Mario. He is also extremally durable unlike Malkin and Forsberg and has more top 5 scoring finishes than either of them. He also has more top 5 finishes than Trottier. Trottier has huge playoffs but Draisaitl is really strong there too. This has got me thinking about Draisaitl's chances of going down as the best number 2 ever.

I think the greatest ever number 2 would be Esposito. Esposito has cups, Harts and Scoring titles while being the clear number 2 to Orr in our eyes. What would it take for Draisaitl to pass him? Esposito has an advantage in that his generational talent was a defenseman which gave Esposito more of a chance for Harts and scoring titles. Draisaitl always being the second best forward on his own team makes it more or less impossible to win individual trophies since he won't lead his team in points. Draisaitl would probably need a dominant goalscoring year while being close in points to win another Hart unless McDavid misses time, but I can see Draisaitl win Conn Smyths if the team wins a cup.

If we would not consider Esposito because he is number 2 to a defenseman I think the best number 2 might be Mikita to Hull. Mikita won 4 Art Rosses, 1 Cup and 2 Harts in the 60s while leading the decade in points yet no one thought he was the best player of the decade, the consensus was that his teammate Hull was the man. Mikita did outperform Hull in regular season more than Draisaitl will outperform McDavid, but Mikita is not as strong in the playoffs as Draisaitl.

Do you think Draisaitl can go down as the best ever number 2?

Did we certainly forgot about Henri Richard or what? I think that guy was solid best number 2 in the history ever. 11 cups (most as players), 1000/1000 player, 1 Masterton, 1 first all star team, 3 second all star team, 2 SC CWG that actually MEANINGFUL - 66 OT against Red Wings and straight up RAW DOGGED in 1971 final with full fury in his mind still burning until now.

You think Drai can be that? I don't think he is even half of that

 

[wetcoast]

Did we certainly forgot about Henri Richard or what? I think that guy was solid best number 2 in the history ever. 11 cups (most as players), 1000/1000 player, 1 Masterton, 1 first all star team, 3 second all star team, 2 SC CWG that actually MEANINGFUL - 66 OT against Red Wings and straight up RAW DOGGED in 1971 final with full fury in his mind still burning until now.

You think Drai can be that? I don't think he is even half of that

I think that it's a pretty good bet that Draisaitl, assuming any reasonable health, is going to end up higher than Henri in an all time sense.

I really can't see a good argument for Richard here.

Top 10 goals,

Henri 5,7

Draisaitl 1,2,2,4,4,4

Assists

Henri 1,1,4,7,8,8,10

Draisaitl 1,2,3,8,9

Points

Henri 2,4,5,9,9,9,10 (corrected had the assist totals here by mistake before)

Draisaitl 1,2,3,4,4,7,8

 

[jigglysquishy]

Raw point totals will always underrate Richard. He never got the PP time for it. Draisaitl plays with the second best PP player ever in a PP dominant era.

EVP only

Richard
1, 1, 3, 3, 6, 7, 7, 7

Draisaitl
2, 3, 4, 4, 8, 9

There's still a pretty viable path to overtaking Richard. Playoff runs like 2025 are it.

 

[Staniowski]

You have no idea how LaFleur would do in the '80s. Nobody does. It's all speculative. You can spend hours throwing out hypothetical scenarios; ones that usually are intended to fit one's own opinion or narrative.

Show me examples of superstar players who you can easily argue unusually regressed due to the increase in the depth of talent.

Bossy started in the '70s and stayed elite throughout the '80s, same with Dionne. Wayne, Mario, Jagr, Crosby and Ovechkin all stayed elite as one would expect as they aged, as the depth talent increased.

It's not speculation that there was more talent in the NHL, and in the hockey world as a whole, after the 1970s. That's why he wouldn't be quite as big of a star. He's still a star, but there would be more players as good as him, and more players better than him.

 

[seventieslord]

I think that it's a pretty good bet that Draisaitl, assuming any reasonable health, is going to end up higher than Henri in an all time sense.

I really can't see a good argument for Richard here.

Top 10 goals,

Henri 5,7

Draisaitl 1,2,2,4,4,4

Assists

Henri 1,1,4,7,8,8,10

Draisaitl 1,2,3,8,9

Points

Henri 1,1,4,7,8,8,10

Draisaitl 1,2,3,4,4,7,8

Henri doesn't have two scoring titles.

 

[wetcoast]

Henri doesn't have two scoring titles.

Thanks, my bad, I'm on some medication and my brain is having problems concentrating on numbers and I should have done the pencil and paper thing instead of looking back and forth.

Will go back and fix it.

 

[daver]

It's not speculation that there was more talent in the NHL, and in the hockey world as a whole, after the 1970s. That's why he wouldn't be quite as big of a star. He's still a star, but there would be more players as good as him, and more players better than him.

You are imagining Guy playing in a another era, that is the textbook definiation of "speculation".

Who drafts him?

Does he get more icetime at a younger age?

Does he still smoke on the bench?

Who does he play with?


Star players from the '70s like Bossy and Dionne still held their star status into the '80s. They still stood out despite the increase in players and more players are were supposed to be better than them.

It's not reasonable to think that LaFleur still isn't as good, relative to the league, if he played five years later.

The most reasonable speculation is that he likely gets more icetime and placed into a leading role earlier in his career than he did with the Habs but likely doesn't have the team success. But in terms of establishing his status in the league as one of, if the best, offensive forward in the league, should not be reasonably doubted.

The ability for generational talent to keep up in the league as it grew is the standard, not the exception.

Richard
Howe
Hull
Wayne
Mario
Jagr
Crosby
Ovechkin

There is zero reason to think they are not as dominant, on a relative basis, if they played earlier or later.

They only thing that really is relevant is league size. There were only so many elite forwards you could fit into a six team league.

 

[WarriorofTime]

You are imagining Guy playing in a another era, that is the textbook definiation of "speculation".

Who drafts him?

Does he get more icetime at a younger age?

Does he still smoke on the bench?

Who does he play with?


Star players from the '70s like Bossy and Dionne still held their star status into the '80s. They still stood out despite the increase in players and more players are were supposed to be better than them.

It's not reasonable to think that LaFleur still isn't as good, relative to the league, if he played five years later.

The most reasonable speculation is that he likely gets more icetime and placed into a leading role earlier in his career than he did with the Habs but likely doesn't have the team success. But in terms of establishing his status in the league as one of, if the best, offensive forward in the league, should not be reasonably doubted.

The ability for generational talent to keep up in the league as it grew is the standard, not the exception.

Richard
Howe
Hull
Wayne
Mario
Jagr
Crosby
Ovechkin

There is zero reason to think they are not as dominant, on a relative basis, if they played earlier or later.

They only thing that really is relevant is league size. There were only so many elite forwards you could fit into a six team league.

1952-1959 are pretty clearly weaker birth years in terms of both level of superstar talent and overall player depth. This would help player like Lafleur in mid to late 1970s as players that should have been coming along and challenging weren't doing so in same numbers.

I'm not just saying things here. The NHL was the youngest it's ever been in terms of weighted average age (average player age weighted by Games Played) in the five seasons between 1981-82 and 1985-86 because a bunch of 196x born players took the NHL jobs from 195x born players.

 

[WarriorofTime]

1952-1959 are pretty clearly weaker birth years in terms of both level of superstar talent and overall player depth.

Which makes it rather remarkable how well the Islanders cleaned up in those corresponding drafts when the NHL as a whole... didn't.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Proper talent evaluation wins again