Depends, doesn't it? List some of the most iconic fan-favourites of all time. They're almost always guys who looked like they were busting ass out there. And in many cases, they're guys who weren't blessed with the slickest moves and smoothest skating.
What is the knock against Gil Perreault?
- Thread starter VMBM
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
Depends, doesn't it? List some of the most iconic fan-favourites of all time. They're almost always guys who looked like they were busting ass out there. And in many cases, they're guys who weren't blessed with the slickest moves and smoothest skating.
VMBM
Hansel?!
Thank you guys.
I think I'm a little wiser now, as far as his NHL career goes. I can see that even though 1326 pts in 1191 regular season & 103 pts in 90 playoff games look fairly impressive, Perreault does quite poorly in a 'closer examination'. Sometimes you feel like saying, "screw the stats, I know what I saw" (like Pappyline sort of commented), but I guess you simply can't...
However, in a 'fantasy' eight-game series between Canada and USSR, I think Perreault would still be my 3rd choice, as far as Centers go (after #99 and #66, of course); such was his ability, and I guess he was at his best in a series like that against the Europeans (unlike Lafleur, Dionne, F. Mahovlich...)
I have to wonder if Perreault was unlucky to not have been Russian (I mean strictly from a hockey point of view!) - would he be (more of) a legend now? (meaning that the type of skills he had would have been more appreciated there)
I think I'm a little wiser now, as far as his NHL career goes. I can see that even though 1326 pts in 1191 regular season & 103 pts in 90 playoff games look fairly impressive, Perreault does quite poorly in a 'closer examination'. Sometimes you feel like saying, "screw the stats, I know what I saw" (like Pappyline sort of commented), but I guess you simply can't...
However, in a 'fantasy' eight-game series between Canada and USSR, I think Perreault would still be my 3rd choice, as far as Centers go (after #99 and #66, of course); such was his ability, and I guess he was at his best in a series like that against the Europeans (unlike Lafleur, Dionne, F. Mahovlich...)
I have to wonder if Perreault was unlucky to not have been Russian (I mean strictly from a hockey point of view!) - would he be (more of) a legend now? (meaning that the type of skills he had would have been more appreciated there)
Last edited:
Nalyd Psycho
Registered User
A GM would take the guy who appears to have more upside while the coach would take the guy that will give 100% every night.
Canadiens1958
Registered User
GM / Coach
For purposes of this analogy is Mike Milbury being considered a coach or a GM?
For purposes of this analogy is Mike Milbury being considered a coach or a GM?
MXD
Partying Hard
- Oct 27, 2005
- 52,186
- 18,157
...What exactly makes this a case closed, and why should he be treated any differently than Alex Kovalev?
MXD
Partying Hard
- Oct 27, 2005
- 52,186
- 18,157
Actually, Perreault is a Top-100 candidate. But to imply that he should rank above Mikhailov and Makarov is either really overrating him, or really underrating Makarov and Mikhailov. (and could give some weird results in regards to other players)
Canadiens1958
Registered User
VMBM
Hansel?!
Is it?
Firstly, to have Mikhailov above Anatoli Firsov on a list is basically a joke, especially from an European perspective. Mikhailov is one of my favourite players, but I don't quite understand the love he gets from North Americans; maybe because stylistically, he was more North American than most other Soviet players? Guys like Firsov, Kharlamov, Makarov and Maltsev had just as - or almost as - impressive careers, but had a big edge over him in terms of talent; the case of Maltsev is debatable, but Firsov, Kharlamov and Makarov at least should be ahead of him (yes, an opinion!).
And I think I have sort of confessed already that I've been overrating Perreault, so you don't need to rub it in anymore.
Last edited:
Canadiens1958
Registered User
Rink Size
Thank you for taking the time to post the data. Later this week as time allows I will post some comparisons involving games of the teams you used in your data.
To have a visual idea of how important even the smallest difference in rink size could be have a look at the following video, Guy Lafleur's tying goal in game seven of the 1979 Canadiens / Bruins series plated at the Montreal Forum where the rink had regulation NHL dimensions as opposed to the Boston Garden that was 9 feet shorter and 2 feet narrower.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12-x70nq0vI
Watch the replays especially one from behind the Canadiens net as the rush unfolds.
Notice that the Boston goalie Gilles Gilbert, playing most of his games on the smaller Boston Garden, slightly overplays the rush leaving the far side slightly open. Notice the extra space that the Canadiens have coming thru the neutral zone and the favourable shooting angles that would not be available on the smaller Boston Garden surface.
At the elite NHL level every inch counts. Extra feet make a very big difference.
Thank you for taking the time to post the data. Later this week as time allows I will post some comparisons involving games of the teams you used in your data.
To have a visual idea of how important even the smallest difference in rink size could be have a look at the following video, Guy Lafleur's tying goal in game seven of the 1979 Canadiens / Bruins series plated at the Montreal Forum where the rink had regulation NHL dimensions as opposed to the Boston Garden that was 9 feet shorter and 2 feet narrower.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12-x70nq0vI
Watch the replays especially one from behind the Canadiens net as the rush unfolds.
Notice that the Boston goalie Gilles Gilbert, playing most of his games on the smaller Boston Garden, slightly overplays the rush leaving the far side slightly open. Notice the extra space that the Canadiens have coming thru the neutral zone and the favourable shooting angles that would not be available on the smaller Boston Garden surface.
At the elite NHL level every inch counts. Extra feet make a very big difference.
Fredrik_71
Registered User
1326 pts in 1191 regular season & 103 pts in 90 playoff games says it all. The guy obiously was good but didn't play for a contender. There are a lot of players in the HHOF who rode on the shoulders of giants. Gil obvously wasn't a giant but his carrer is impressive. I think he deserves more, even a HHOF spot.
But he is a canadian and therefore is subject to another benchmark.
/Cheers
But he is a canadian and therefore is subject to another benchmark.
/Cheers
Only a few players can stand up to this type of analysis and actually look as good or better than perceived. I can think of one.
VMBM
Hansel?!
VMBM
Hansel?!
I would just like to add that this doesn't mean Mikhailov shouldn't be in the top 100 or even top 70 of an all-time list. But I'd better shut up already, eh?
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
No. You asked me who a coach would prefer. I said (and arrbez agreed) that they would want the guy with a contagious work ethic. The reason I said that is because the coach's main goal is not to ice a flashy team, but a team that wins. A player who gets the same results, but works his ass off to get them, should in theory, help a team more as we all know work ethics are contagious.
Yeah, thanks, I get all that. But it doesn't prove that Perreault in particular had a rougher time scoring at home. Based on Buffalo's 4.30 GPG at home from 75-80, and 3.53 GPG on the road in the same time frame, the rest of the team didn't seem to have trouble scoring at home.
So it's one of two things:
1. You're wrong, and this didn't affect Perreault.
2. You're right, and it did affect Perreault, and it was clearly something that most, if not all, of his team was able to overcome, which is an indictment of Perreault.
No one's disputing how skilled the guy was. But 35-45 other centers in history have better achievements than him, and should therefore be more highly regarded by historians like us.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Good point. I missed the GM part last night. You're absolutely right.
Is it?
Firstly, to have Mikhailov above Anatoli Firsov on a list is basically a joke, especially from an European perspective. Mikhailov is one of my favourite players, but I don't quite understand the love he gets from North Americans; maybe because stylistically, he was more North American than most other Soviet players? Guys like Firsov, Kharlamov, Makarov and Maltsev had just as - or almost as - impressive careers, but had a big edge over him in terms of talent; the case of Maltsev is debatable, but Firsov, Kharlamov and Makarov at least should be ahead of him (yes, an opinion!).
I'm 3/4 done Tarasov's book, "Road To Olympus" which was written in the late 1960s.... and boy oh boy, does he love Firsov. There's no doubt he was the finest Russian of the 1960s. I know you're European and I will take to heart whatever else you can tell me. But I'll be honest, I have Mikhailov ahead of him, and here's why:
- They appear to have the same skillset - dominant offensive capabilities, skating, shooting, feints and dekes, but also intensity, leadership, and they can't be intimidated.
- They both appear to have been roughly as dominant in the Russian league and internationally.
- Mikhailov's prime was at a time that it was known to be a true that Russia's best were truly as good as Canada's best - In other words, if you're the top RW in Russia, you're definitely one of the top three RWs on earth. Firsov peaked a decade earlier, which leaves us in a bit of a gray area. The Russians were beating up on everyone, and beating good Canadian amateurs, but we don't know how they were against top pros. A jnuior team backed by Jacques Plante beat them. So the way I see it, being the top RW in Russia wasn't a gurarantee of being a top-3 RW in the world at that point. We also know that Russian hockey was in a sharp upward trajectory from its humble beginnings in 1946 until some point when it became equal to ours. Was it 1972? Was it somewhat before? Was it not until even later? (some say later considering we still beat the Russians in 1972 without Hull and Orr, and they had the element of surprise)
From a totally Russian perspective, I can see Firsov being ranked ahead of Mikhailov. Globally speaking, I'm not sure of that. In the same way, I can see how Bobrov is the most dominant Russian player of all-time, but strictly globally, I don't think he was ever one of the game's top-10 LWs.
He's already in the HHOF. And no one doubts that he should be. This is more about his status as a top-100 player.
VMBM
Hansel?!
Sorry, I don't have much time now... just a couple of points about their individual skills.
Actually, as far as shooting and skating go, I think Firsov was miles ahead of Mikhailov. Firsov had one of the biggest (as well as the most accurate) slap shots of any European forward ever - well, that's how the story goes. On the other hand, Mikhailov didn't really have any kind of slapshot; he was by far at his most dangerous in the slot; yes, he was very accurate too, but there were no big shots in his arsenal. And whereas Firsov is recognized as one of best Soviet skaters ever (I have him in the top 4 with Balderis, Kapustin and Maltsev), Mikhailov had fairly mediocre skating skills - for a Soviet forward, that is. Yes, ok speed, but definitely behind Firsov in that department.
Stick-handling? Also, definitely the edge to Firsov.
Firsov was also considered the best Soviet forward for about 5-6 years, whereas Mikhailov - was he ever even considered that? Well, if he was, it was probably only for a couple of years (in the late seventies). Then again, Mikhailov obviously had more competition in that department.
One thing that Mikhailov has over Firsov is that he faced the best Canada had to offer and he proved (to me at least) that he could shine against them. To me, however, this isn't as big a deal as to maybe North Americans.
Gotta go now, maybe somebody else can take over... I would be especially interested to see someone making a case for Mikhailov.
Canadiens1958
Registered User
Reading
Trust one day you will learn to read with understanding. My quote from my initial post on this matter.
What was impressive about Gilbert Perreault coming out of junior was his speed and execution but his biggest asset was his lateral movement. The Europeans who played or watched hockey on an Olympic ice surface could appreciate this.The smaller Buffalo rink limited Perreault's offensive potential so comparing him with adjusted stats to others who were not limited in such a fashion is rather silly to say the least.
At no time did I state scoring. A smaller rink limits speed,movement, execution because available space is reduced. So the highly skilled player has to selectively reduce his skill set or has it reduced for him by having to play in tighter quarters.
That you clearly wish to focus only on scoring goes to your understanding of the game.
As for your 35-45 centers with better achievements you fail over and over to ask the key question. Would their achievements be the same if they had to play half their games on a smaller ice surface?
Your data is after all adjusted for variables that you deem relevant BUT you obviously did not think of the smaller ice surface variable.
So its is up to you to do the corrections. Then we might talk.
Example the old Chicago Stadium had an ice surface that was 188 x 85 as opposed to the the NHL regulation size of 200 x 85. So 15980 sq.ft as opposed to the league norm of 17000 square feet. Identical width but shorter. Net advantage to Bobby Hull because he would be onto the goalie quicker with a shorter rush but a disadvantage to a player who relies on movement and space for offense. The Aud in Buffalo had 788 fewer square feet of ice surface, so a player like Perreault was easier to contain.
Do the necessary research and adjustments to your study. Other than pointing out a blatant flaw I have no obligation to do the actual research or work for YOU who made the omission.
I will not provide you with the Aud's exact dimensions. Use Google.
Trust one day you will learn to read with understanding. My quote from my initial post on this matter.
What was impressive about Gilbert Perreault coming out of junior was his speed and execution but his biggest asset was his lateral movement. The Europeans who played or watched hockey on an Olympic ice surface could appreciate this.The smaller Buffalo rink limited Perreault's offensive potential so comparing him with adjusted stats to others who were not limited in such a fashion is rather silly to say the least.
At no time did I state scoring. A smaller rink limits speed,movement, execution because available space is reduced. So the highly skilled player has to selectively reduce his skill set or has it reduced for him by having to play in tighter quarters.
That you clearly wish to focus only on scoring goes to your understanding of the game.
As for your 35-45 centers with better achievements you fail over and over to ask the key question. Would their achievements be the same if they had to play half their games on a smaller ice surface?
Your data is after all adjusted for variables that you deem relevant BUT you obviously did not think of the smaller ice surface variable.
So its is up to you to do the corrections. Then we might talk.
Example the old Chicago Stadium had an ice surface that was 188 x 85 as opposed to the the NHL regulation size of 200 x 85. So 15980 sq.ft as opposed to the league norm of 17000 square feet. Identical width but shorter. Net advantage to Bobby Hull because he would be onto the goalie quicker with a shorter rush but a disadvantage to a player who relies on movement and space for offense. The Aud in Buffalo had 788 fewer square feet of ice surface, so a player like Perreault was easier to contain.
Do the necessary research and adjustments to your study. Other than pointing out a blatant flaw I have no obligation to do the actual research or work for YOU who made the omission.
I will not provide you with the Aud's exact dimensions. Use Google.
Canadiens1958
Registered User
Additional Data
Your presentation of the Jacques Plante game against the the Soviets is somewhat incomplete. The junior Canadiens at that time were coached by............. Scotty Bowman. For the game they had 5 minor pro call-ups from the Canadiens farm system, 3 forwards and 2 defensemen all who were NHL caliber. The junior Canadiens that season featured amongst others future NHL players Jacques Lemaire(HHOF), Serge Savard(HHOF), Carol Vadnais, Christian Bordeleau.
http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/leagues/seasons/teams/0010531966
Your presentation of the Jacques Plante game against the the Soviets is somewhat incomplete. The junior Canadiens at that time were coached by............. Scotty Bowman. For the game they had 5 minor pro call-ups from the Canadiens farm system, 3 forwards and 2 defensemen all who were NHL caliber. The junior Canadiens that season featured amongst others future NHL players Jacques Lemaire(HHOF), Serge Savard(HHOF), Carol Vadnais, Christian Bordeleau.
http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/leagues/seasons/teams/0010531966
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Sorry, I don't have much time now... just a couple of points about their individual skills.
Actually, as far as shooting and skating go, I think Firsov was miles ahead of Mikhailov. Firsov had one of the biggest (as well as the most accurate) slap shots of any European forward ever - well, that's how the story goes. On the other hand, Mikhailov didn't really have any kind of slapshot; he was by far at his most dangerous in the slot; yes, he was very accurate too, but there were no big shots in his arsenal. And whereas Firsov is recognized as one of best Soviet skaters ever (I have him in the top 4 with Balderis, Kapustin and Maltsev), Mikhailov had fairly mediocre skating skills - for a Soviet forward, that is. Yes, ok speed, but definitely behind Firsov in that department.
Stick-handling? Also, definitely the edge to Firsov.
Firsov was also considered the best Soviet forward for about 5-6 years, whereas Mikhailov - was he ever even considered that? Well, if he was, it was probably only for a couple of years (in the late seventies). Then again, Mikhailov obviously had more competition in that department.
One thing that Mikhailov has over Firsov is that he faced the best Canada had to offer and he proved (to me at least) that he could shine against them. To me, however, this isn't as big a deal as to maybe North Americans.
Gotta go now, maybe somebody else can take over... I would be especially interested to see someone making a case for Mikhailov.
I think the bolded part is the key. To me, this is a big deal. To be a top-100 player, you have to have played against the best at some point. Firsov making our top-100 is the lone exception, because he was so good and so dominant domestically and internationally (and very close to the time where we know Russian hockey parelleled ours) that he appropriately gets the benefit of the doubt.
Thank you for the detailed breakdown of their skills. I will definitely take that to heart when building lines in the All-time draft. That said, I am results-driven, and I think Mikhailov, despite his lesser shot and skating, still "got it done" in the 70s as well as Firsov did in the 60s.
are you actually sticking up for the Russians???
I'm aware of who was on the team. But they were still juniors and minor pro call-ups. They were nowhere near as good as they were going to be.
One game doesn't prove anything. It's just an indicator of where they were at, at the time. The argument could also be made that the Russians were much better than those juniors and that Plante simply stole the game. Plante's biography tends to give that impression.
You say "So its is up to you to do the corrections. Then we might talk." But you still talk.
There is no need for any correction. The numbers show that it didn't make it any harder on anyone else to score in that building. Great players should adjust. Either he didn't, which is not good, or he did, and you're using the small building as a crutch to prop his resume on when he wasn't as dominant as 35-45 other centers.
------------------------------------
One other thing in response to those who said Perreault didn't backcheck because it wasn't his job or it wouldn't be the best use of his skills - you are right, and this doesn't make him a bad player. It does, however, make other players (The Ullman, Keon, Abel, Delvecchio, Gilmour, Forsberg, Fedorov, Howe, Francis, Lach crowd) better than him if they are able to be just as dominant offensively while playing a good to excellent two-way game. Those are the types of players who should make a top-100 list. Or, one-dimensional players such as Bill Cowley, Joe Malone, Marcel Dionne, Frank Mahovlich, or Wayne Gretzky, whose one dimension is too strong to ignore. Perreault is not in that league.
Do they? The numbers suggest that they really don't. How did those extra feet or lack thereof directly affect goals for or goals against for the Buffalo Sabres?
I'm not arguing with your assessments of Perreault's skating ability or the fact that some rinks were smaller than others. However, just because differences exist does not mean they are important. If they didn't affect Buffalo's scoring or outscoring, and the criticisms of Perreault are based on his ability to score and outscore, then what are we arguing about again? Whether Perreault wasn't able to be as flashy at home as he was on the road? Skills don't win games on their own unless they translate into goals.
You seem to love debating the minutiae, but I don't think the big picture effects are as big as you make them out to be. Just because a variable exists does not make it important. I'm not convinced there is much there at all, or that if there was some rink effect that it could easily have been outweighed by other factors, such as possibly the advantage of having the last change, which would likely represent a significant advantage to a team with both an outstanding checking line and a strong first line.
The Gilbert Perreault debate reminds me of the Peter Forsberg debate, in that it doesn't seem to be a debate about the player at all but rather a debate about how players are evaluated. Voters who rate players based on their individual skills or on their memories from watching them play seem to rate Perreault much more highly than voters who rate players based on accomplishments or statistical measurements. I subscribe to the "overall picture" outlook, and to me the numbers are pretty convincing that Perreault is a marginal Top-100 guy.
Canadiens1958
Registered User
Adjusted Metrics
When introducing adjusted metrics into a discussion the onus is on the person making the introduction that the adjusted metric is necessary,accurate and complete. I won't question the necessary since that is a pointless debate from my perspective. Simply they exist and people will use or misuse them as they will. However I will not give anyone a free pass when it comes to accurate and complete. So far the accurate and complete aspect is far from satisfactory.
Drawing a baseball analogy. The last line change is similar to the last at bat. Regardless baseball metrics when including adjustments include adjustments for the STADIUM regardless of how insignificant the variance in dimensions may appear to some people or which team had the last at bat. Now for some debates there may be an agreement to waive such considerations in a discussion BUT I am not willing to do so in this discussion.
When introducing adjusted metrics into a discussion the onus is on the person making the introduction that the adjusted metric is necessary,accurate and complete. I won't question the necessary since that is a pointless debate from my perspective. Simply they exist and people will use or misuse them as they will. However I will not give anyone a free pass when it comes to accurate and complete. So far the accurate and complete aspect is far from satisfactory.
Drawing a baseball analogy. The last line change is similar to the last at bat. Regardless baseball metrics when including adjustments include adjustments for the STADIUM regardless of how insignificant the variance in dimensions may appear to some people or which team had the last at bat. Now for some debates there may be an agreement to waive such considerations in a discussion BUT I am not willing to do so in this discussion.
I think pappy was bang-on when he rightfully said that there is way too much statistical smoke from a couple of posters in this thread. Frankly, I haven't seen anything from overpass other than stats, which tells me that he doesn't have an actual argument.
Perreault is a top 100 player of all-time, and should be regarded as such by anyone who does proper research. (In other words, digs deeper than just statistics). To even suggest or hint he's on par with Hawerchuk or Sittler is indicative of someone who hasn't done research, and doesn't have a clue.
He was a true franchise player, the guy that Buffalo built around to have those strong teams in the 70s. They had strong teams, but never the best team. They lost in 75 to Philly. Then you had the Habs dynasty (which would have been the Bruins dynasty if not for the Habs). And you had Philly still playing at a high level, and an Islanders team that was on the upswing.
He wasn't very good defensively and he wasn't a physical force. But he was a dazzling offensive player, a game-breaker. He was the guy that opponents established their game plan for. If you stopped Perreault, you stopped the Sabres. He had fine linemates in the goal-scoring Martin and the rugged, all-round Robert, but it was Perreault who teams knew they had to stop.
For those who go ga-ga over numbers, he had three top five finishes in assists and points. And he was still Buffalo's threat, their go-to guy, for the first half of the 80s, even though he had the wear-and-tear of being his team's best player from the moment he entered the league. Buffalo didn't have much for surrounding talent after Martin suffered the knee injury and Robert was dealt, but Perreault, at 30-something, still put up really good numbers.
And his playoff record is very impressive. Tied for the lead on a Cup finalist in scoring. His 21 points in 12 games in 80 is incredible when you consider that he virtually carried that team offensively.
I thought he came in a little high in the THN rankings in 1996. But keep in mind those were people who actually watched the guy played, watched most of those who preceeded him play, and had a good time of reference for him. (He had been retired for 10 years). But to suggest he's out of the top 100 is mind-boggling.
Perreault is a top 100 player of all-time, and should be regarded as such by anyone who does proper research. (In other words, digs deeper than just statistics). To even suggest or hint he's on par with Hawerchuk or Sittler is indicative of someone who hasn't done research, and doesn't have a clue.
He was a true franchise player, the guy that Buffalo built around to have those strong teams in the 70s. They had strong teams, but never the best team. They lost in 75 to Philly. Then you had the Habs dynasty (which would have been the Bruins dynasty if not for the Habs). And you had Philly still playing at a high level, and an Islanders team that was on the upswing.
He wasn't very good defensively and he wasn't a physical force. But he was a dazzling offensive player, a game-breaker. He was the guy that opponents established their game plan for. If you stopped Perreault, you stopped the Sabres. He had fine linemates in the goal-scoring Martin and the rugged, all-round Robert, but it was Perreault who teams knew they had to stop.
For those who go ga-ga over numbers, he had three top five finishes in assists and points. And he was still Buffalo's threat, their go-to guy, for the first half of the 80s, even though he had the wear-and-tear of being his team's best player from the moment he entered the league. Buffalo didn't have much for surrounding talent after Martin suffered the knee injury and Robert was dealt, but Perreault, at 30-something, still put up really good numbers.
And his playoff record is very impressive. Tied for the lead on a Cup finalist in scoring. His 21 points in 12 games in 80 is incredible when you consider that he virtually carried that team offensively.
I thought he came in a little high in the THN rankings in 1996. But keep in mind those were people who actually watched the guy played, watched most of those who preceeded him play, and had a good time of reference for him. (He had been retired for 10 years). But to suggest he's out of the top 100 is mind-boggling.
Latest posts
-
Player Discussion Patrik Laine: Part 2 - Healthy Living Edition- Latest: Lafleurs Guy
-
