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
Canadiens1958
Registered User
Beautiful
Beautiful post.
As for the stats, especially when they are inaccurate, do not balance and are incomplete, submitted by those who then have the audacity to ask others to do the necessary work and research to improve their efforts.
Beautiful post.
As for the stats, especially when they are inaccurate, do not balance and are incomplete, submitted by those who then have the audacity to ask others to do the necessary work and research to improve their efforts.
Fredrik_71
Registered User
Ahhhh, you mean Gil Perreault! Just kidding. Goofed up big time thinking it was another Pierre Turgeon/Mats Sundin thread. Sorry
/Cheers
Absolutely not. In fact, he scored at a 50-goal clip the season after he tied for the league lead in goals. He had 46 goals in 73 games. The guy was a fantastic goal scorer with a bullet of a shot and great goal scorer's instincts. For what it's worth, I believe he, at one time, held the single-season goals record in the West Coast Junior Hockey League, which is now the WHL.
But his game tailed off in a hurry once he arrived in Detroit, which was an absolute disaster of an organization throughout the 80s. (Even when they won the division title in 88 and 89, it was more a reflection of the competition than the quality of the Wings. Fourth in the other three divisions were better teams than Detroit in 89).
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Classic GBC post, it had everything I expected. The words "statistical smoke" in reference to anything that involves numbers, the implication that not watching a player play enough somehow makes one an inferior analyst, and of course the old disdainful references to "stats nuts" or "those who go ga-ga over numbers", except this time you named names, when you usually don't. Nice curveball.
You talk about being top-5 in points three times like it's a massive accomplishment. Most of the players I profiled have done this. Those that haven't, have a huge edge in two-way game over Perreault. You talk about having one great playoff like it's a massive accomplishment. Most (all?) of the players I profiled have one or more great playoffs. You talk about being a true franchise player like it's a guarantee of making the top-100. All the players I profiled were true franchise players.
You imply that I am someone who doesn't have a clue and hasn't done any proper research, when practically all I do on this board is present my research. So, man up! What is YOUR research? Present something to me besides subjective babble that should convince me Perreault is a top-100 player. Don't hide behind "I saw him, you didn't!" Back it up. And while you're at it, maybe you can answer these questions:
How do you explain that Perreault is one of only seven 1000+ point scorers who didn't really help his team's goal differential?
How do you explain Hawerchuk and Sittler having basically the same offensive record as Perreault (similar career totals, similar top-10, top-20 finishes, how they were regarded in award voting, etc) if he's the one that's way, way better? What did they do to achieve the same results as him? What didn't Perreault do? Should they get extra credit for it? Should Perreault lose credit for it? Why/why not?
Since when does flash and dash equal more greatness, I see no reasons why Gilbert Perrault is better than Adam Oates, I would actually rank Oates above him. Oates elevated his teammate Cam Neely to a whole another level.
I love Oates but Neely scored many more goals with Janney.Neely's injuries began before Oates' arrival.
Canadiens1958
Registered User
Danny Gare
During the 1976-77 season Danny Gare suffered a few injuries including a back injury which over time deteriorated, eventually causing his premature retirement.
http://redwingslegends.blogspot.com/2006/05/danny-gare.html
During the 1976-77 season Danny Gare suffered a few injuries including a back injury which over time deteriorated, eventually causing his premature retirement.
http://redwingslegends.blogspot.com/2006/05/danny-gare.html
Actually, being top five in scoring three times is a massive accomplishment. If you're top five in scoring three times in the greatest hockey league in the world, then you've accomplished something pretty remarkable.
Classic GBC post, it had everything I expected. The words "statistical smoke" in reference to anything that involves numbers, the implication that not watching a player play enough somehow makes one an inferior analyst, and of course the old disdainful references to "stats nuts" or "those who go ga-ga over numbers", except this time you named names, when you usually don't. Nice curveball.
You talk about being top-5 in points three times like it's a massive accomplishment. Most of the players I profiled have done this. Those that haven't, have a huge edge in two-way game over Perreault. You talk about having one great playoff like it's a massive accomplishment. Most (all?) of the players I profiled have one or more great playoffs. You talk about being a true franchise player like it's a guarantee of making the top-100. All the players I profiled were true franchise players.
You imply that I am someone who doesn't have a clue and hasn't done any proper research, when practically all I do on this board is present my research. So, man up! What is YOUR research? Present something to me besides subjective babble that should convince me Perreault is a top-100 player. Don't hide behind "I saw him, you didn't!" Back it up. And while you're at it, maybe you can answer these questions:
How do you explain that Perreault is one of only seven 1000+ point scorers who didn't really help his team's goal differential?
How do you explain Hawerchuk and Sittler having basically the same offensive record as Perreault (similar career totals, similar top-10, top-20 finishes, how they were regarded in award voting, etc) if he's the one that's way, way better? What did they do to achieve the same results as him? What didn't Perreault do? Should they get extra credit for it? Should Perreault lose credit for it? Why/why not?
Perreault finished as a plus player for his career, so he obviously helped his team's goal differential in some way. And, keep in mind, that his "goal differential" is hindered by the fact that he played his first two years in the league on an expansion team. He was his team's best player the moment he, and his team, entered the show. That's really going to skewer a "goal differential." I don't know if there's another player among those with 1,000 points who had to be the best player on a true expansion team (note: WHA teams that joined the NHL in 79 don't count) at age 20.
He had more than one big playoff. Yeah, he was unbelievable in 80. But there was the performance in 75. (Keep in mind Buffalo had to play two tremendous defensive teams). There was 10 points in six games against Montreal in 73 in his playoff debut.
Yeah, I base my research on those who actually played against the players, watched the players, coached the players. That's my method. It sure beats allowing myself to be jerked around by statistics. They are a tool, but they are very, very far from the be-all and end-all of hockey. I prefer to know how a guy played the game above all else. I prefer to know what he was great at, what his strengths and weaknesses were, how he fared when he was asked to be The Guy, how he played in the playoffs, his overall impact on the game, . I don't just go for formulas and stats. Every formula for hockey is an abject failure the moment it's conceived, because
How can I tell you that Perreault was better than Ratelle, Sittler and Hawerchuk? Watch them play. We're not talking about Howie Morenz or Joliat or Conacher here. Lots of footage out there on Perreault. (And I don't think the gap from Perreault to the other three is that huge. Perreault's the only one in my top 100. Ratelle and Sittler are in the 100-120 range. And if we're talking offensive ability from NHL players, Hawerchuk's certainly in the top 100).
The bottom line is that the greatest panel ever assembled in hockey put Perreault at No. 49 for the best players in NHL history. These are people who have made their living watching, playing, coaching, officiating or managing at the game's highest level, and in a lot of cases, they were watching the game before pappy was born. As I said before, I thought Perreault came in a little high at 49, but if we're looking at the best players in the NHL from 1917 to 1996, based on how good they actually were - and not just what the numbers tell us - Perreault should be around No. 60 at worst.
MXD
Partying Hard
- Oct 27, 2005
- 52,186
- 18,157
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!).
Sorry. I was just quoting your example.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Well, no kidding. But compared to the players he is being compared to, it is certainly not a golden ticket into the top-40 centers club.
The above is an example of not fully understanding what you're arguing.
No, he didn't help Buffalo's goal differential get any better. Buffalo was an above average team, his +/- is supposed to be positive or he's doing something wrong! The problem is, his career rating is only just as good as it should be considering the circumstances, hence the career adjusted -6. If you remove his first two seasons as an expansion player (both adjusted -12) then he's still just a +18 on his career, in the same class of players I described above. Buffalo, on average, did just as well when he was on the ice as they did when he was off, from a GF/GA standpoint. But I bet they weren't as dazzling!
...And this separates him from those 40 names (save Dionne) how?
.... just because?
It's all fine and dandy to know how a player plays the game, but results matter. Period.
If I sat there fpr a week and watched each of them play 10 games in their prime, I might say the exact same thing. But in the end, the results they produced and the contribution they made to winning games, was really just as good as that of Perreault. Or better. It doesn't matter how you look doing it.
Don't be so quick to fall in love with that list. Perreault wasn't the only modern player they badly overrated. Look at Sittler and Gartner. How about Fuhr? Messier had not goine into decline yet, but that is no reason for him to be ranked that high.
The best list that has ever been put together is the hfboards list. And it's even better this year. It is superior to the THN list in many ways. The THN list was put together through a number of 1-100 ranked lists put together with a 100-1 point system used for the rankings. (Think about that, a guy who one rogue voter placed 20th, would get 81 points, more than a guy who 20 voters placed 98th for three points each). Secondly, the list was not justified or reconciled at all. No one had to explain why they rated someone so highly, or over someone else. They simply added up the points and that was it. Nobody worked together; it was all done individually. Here, we started with a master list compiled as above, and then tweaked it, player by player, over the course of five months, through intensive subjective and objective discussion and a variety of viewpoints. Third, the players were judged based on their own merits, without any cup-counting or agendas. The THN list highly overrated cup hogs like henri Richard and boosted the status of guys like Johnny Bucyk (a great player who belongs on the list, just nowhere near #45), hinting of an old boys club at work. In addition, this part is not the THN list's fault but we gave it a much-needed update, properly elevating the status of guys like Sakic, Yzerman, Jagr, Brodeur, Hasek, Fedorov, Stevens, and Lidstrom, and including the greats whose resumes weren't based on NHL play, like Fetisov, Tretiak, Kharlamov, Taylor, Mikhailov, Makarov, and Firsov.
Can we at hfboards claim to be as knowledgeable as that star-studded cast? Not a chance. But don't sell us short, either. But we also have access to a lot of things they didn't - things like detailed all-star and award voting, raw +/- data that wasn't released for decades, a variety of statstical analyses done from many different angles. We read a ton and we research a ton and we all learn from eachothers' research. I doubt that any of those experts put Henri Richard and Syl Apps side by side and noted "Hmm, Richard was 4th in hart voting twice, Apps was a 3-time runner up, plus third twice, how could Richard be more significant in his era than Apps was in his?" In all likelihood, some lists were done off the tops of their heads. Not to belittle the process at all. But how do you think someone like Don Cherry made his list? He grabbed a pencil and started listing players.
Basically, what I'm saying is the methodology at hfboards trumps the experts the THN consulted because the methodology there was just that bad. We aren't even sure that they were all on the same page - some may have been biased towards the past because that's what they grew up with, some the present because hockey has evolved very much for the better, and some (like most of us in the top-100 project) might have even tried to consider all eras equal and objectively determine dominance within era.
You want to see the ultimate list? Put all the great work the hfboards crew has done in front of these experts, lock the THN panel in a room for a week and get them to hammer out a list, while seriously considering eachother's viewpoints and being willing to flexible, like we were. Then we'd have an ultimate list. But, sadly, something like this would never happen. For precedent, I refer you to the case of Old Dog vs. New Tricks. These experts saw what they saw and they think what they think. It's the mentality of most of the older hockey types, unfortunately.
Last edited:
overpass
Registered User
I ran the home-road scoring splits for Buffalo from the 1975-76 season to the 1978-79 season - a four season sample. The data is compiled from the Hockey Summary Project.
My findings agree with Canadiens1958's hypothesis that Perreault's home scoring was depressed as a result of playing on a smaller ice surface at home.
Here are the home/road scoring splits for the forwards on Perreault's line and on the Ramsay/Luce/Gare line, separately and also as a line.
Player | Pts | HomePts | RoadPts | HomeIncrease
Perreault | 383 | 195 | 188 | 4%
Robert | 285 | 148 | 137 | 8%
Martin | 267 | 137 | 130 | 5%
Luce | 256 | 149 | 107 | 39%
Ramsay | 256 | 141 | 115 | 23%
Gare | 237 | 127 | 110 | 15%
Perreault line | 935 | 480 | 455 | 5%
Luce line | 749 | 417 | 332 | 26%
Perreault scored 4% more at home than on the road, and his line as a whole scored 5% more. The Ramsay/Luce/Gare line was quite a bit better at home, scoring 26% more.
The difference was more pronounced at even-strength.
Player | ESP | HomeESP | RoadESP | HomeIncrease
Perreault | 261 | 126 | 135 | -7%
Robert | 186 | 90 | 96 | -6%
Martin | 188 | 94 | 94 | 0%
Luce | 205 | 122 | 83 | 47%
Ramsay | 204 | 115 | 89 | 29%
Gare | 181 | 102 | 79 | 29%
Perreault line | 635 | 310 | 325 | -5%
Luce line | 590 | 339 | 251 | 35%
Perreault scored seven percent less at even strength while playing at home. The Ramsay/Luce/Gare line increased their even strength scoring by 35% at home.
While we don't have the goals against breakdowns, if the rink affected even strength scoring to this degree this effect alone would have a major effect on plus-minus, and possibly explain much of the major disparity between the Sabres' lines in plus-minus.
I won't post the full tables for power play scoring, but there was little apparent effect of the rink. Perreault scored 33% more on the PP at home, as did his line as a whole. This is within a normal range.
Finally, I'll look at the home/road breakdowns for other top scorers in the NHL over these four years. I've also added a pair of top checking forwards for a Ramsay comparison.
Player | Pts | HomePts | RoadPts | HomeIncrease
Lafleur | 521 | 285 | 236 | 21%
Dionne | 423 | 219 | 204 | 7%
Perreault | 383 | 195 | 188 | 4%
Trottier | 423 | 238 | 185 | 29%
Ratelle | 348 | 179 | 169 | 6%
Clarke | 371 | 207 | 164 | 26%
Sittler | 393 | 230 | 163 | 41%
Ramsay | 256 | 141 | 115 | 23%
Esposito | 320 | 176 | 144 | 22%
Marcotte | 179 | 95 | 84 | 13%
Gainey | 131 | 74 | 57 | 30%
Player | Pts | HomePts | RoadPts | HomeIncrease
Scorers | 2799 | 1534 | 1265 | 21%
Checkers | 310 | 169 | 141 | 20%
Perreault saw his scoring increase the least at home. Ratelle and Dionne also scored less than 10% more at home. On the other end, Sittler scored 41% more at home. Overall, the top scorers scored 21% more at home, and the top checkers scored 20% more at home.
Player | ESP | HomeESP | RoadESP | HomeIncrease
Lafleur | 372 | 203 | 169 | 20%
Perreault | 261 | 126 | 135 | -7%
Dionne | 272 | 144 | 128 | 13%
Ratelle | 254 | 131 | 123 | 7%
Trottier | 277 | 159 | 118 | 35%
Sittler | 273 | 167 | 106 | 58%
Clarke | 236 | 131 | 105 | 25%
Ramsay | 204 | 115 | 89 | 29%
Esposito | 177 | 98 | 79 | 24%
Marcotte | 145 | 73 | 72 | 1%
Gainey | 118 | 64 | 54 | 19%
Player | ESP | HomeESP | RoadESP | HomeIncrease
Scorers | 1861 | 1033 | 828 | 25%
Checkers | 263 | 137 | 126 | 9%
Perreault is the only one who dropped in ES scoring on the road, supporting the theory that the small rink was ill-suited to his game. On average, the top scorers increased their ES scoring by 25% at home.
Ramsay's ES scoring went up 29% at home, compared to 9% for Gainey/Marcotte, supporting the theory that he benefitted from playing on the smaller rink.
What to make of this overall? I don't think it makes Perreault any more valuable, but it does suggest that he was an excellent player who played in a situation that wasn't favourable for him. He may have been much more effective if he had born in Europe and played on the big ice. Even playing for a different NHL team with a full size rink could have made him more valuable.
However, there are a lot of players who played in situations that weren't as favourable for them as they could have been. For example, Alexander Yakushev may have been more effective on North American rinks. Whether you take this sort of thing into account or not depends on how you value players, I suppose.
I should note that rink size is not the only explanation for differing home/road splits. Coaching style and matchups can play a role also. I'm not sure how this would hurt Perreault playing at home, but it's something to keep in mind.
My findings agree with Canadiens1958's hypothesis that Perreault's home scoring was depressed as a result of playing on a smaller ice surface at home.
Here are the home/road scoring splits for the forwards on Perreault's line and on the Ramsay/Luce/Gare line, separately and also as a line.
Perreault | 383 | 195 | 188 | 4%
Robert | 285 | 148 | 137 | 8%
Martin | 267 | 137 | 130 | 5%
Luce | 256 | 149 | 107 | 39%
Ramsay | 256 | 141 | 115 | 23%
Gare | 237 | 127 | 110 | 15%
Perreault line | 935 | 480 | 455 | 5%
Luce line | 749 | 417 | 332 | 26%
Perreault scored 4% more at home than on the road, and his line as a whole scored 5% more. The Ramsay/Luce/Gare line was quite a bit better at home, scoring 26% more.
The difference was more pronounced at even-strength.
Perreault | 261 | 126 | 135 | -7%
Robert | 186 | 90 | 96 | -6%
Martin | 188 | 94 | 94 | 0%
Luce | 205 | 122 | 83 | 47%
Ramsay | 204 | 115 | 89 | 29%
Gare | 181 | 102 | 79 | 29%
Perreault line | 635 | 310 | 325 | -5%
Luce line | 590 | 339 | 251 | 35%
Perreault scored seven percent less at even strength while playing at home. The Ramsay/Luce/Gare line increased their even strength scoring by 35% at home.
While we don't have the goals against breakdowns, if the rink affected even strength scoring to this degree this effect alone would have a major effect on plus-minus, and possibly explain much of the major disparity between the Sabres' lines in plus-minus.
I won't post the full tables for power play scoring, but there was little apparent effect of the rink. Perreault scored 33% more on the PP at home, as did his line as a whole. This is within a normal range.
Finally, I'll look at the home/road breakdowns for other top scorers in the NHL over these four years. I've also added a pair of top checking forwards for a Ramsay comparison.
Lafleur | 521 | 285 | 236 | 21%
Dionne | 423 | 219 | 204 | 7%
Perreault | 383 | 195 | 188 | 4%
Trottier | 423 | 238 | 185 | 29%
Ratelle | 348 | 179 | 169 | 6%
Clarke | 371 | 207 | 164 | 26%
Sittler | 393 | 230 | 163 | 41%
Ramsay | 256 | 141 | 115 | 23%
Esposito | 320 | 176 | 144 | 22%
Marcotte | 179 | 95 | 84 | 13%
Gainey | 131 | 74 | 57 | 30%
Scorers | 2799 | 1534 | 1265 | 21%
Checkers | 310 | 169 | 141 | 20%
Perreault saw his scoring increase the least at home. Ratelle and Dionne also scored less than 10% more at home. On the other end, Sittler scored 41% more at home. Overall, the top scorers scored 21% more at home, and the top checkers scored 20% more at home.
Lafleur | 372 | 203 | 169 | 20%
Perreault | 261 | 126 | 135 | -7%
Dionne | 272 | 144 | 128 | 13%
Ratelle | 254 | 131 | 123 | 7%
Trottier | 277 | 159 | 118 | 35%
Sittler | 273 | 167 | 106 | 58%
Clarke | 236 | 131 | 105 | 25%
Ramsay | 204 | 115 | 89 | 29%
Esposito | 177 | 98 | 79 | 24%
Marcotte | 145 | 73 | 72 | 1%
Gainey | 118 | 64 | 54 | 19%
Scorers | 1861 | 1033 | 828 | 25%
Checkers | 263 | 137 | 126 | 9%
Perreault is the only one who dropped in ES scoring on the road, supporting the theory that the small rink was ill-suited to his game. On average, the top scorers increased their ES scoring by 25% at home.
Ramsay's ES scoring went up 29% at home, compared to 9% for Gainey/Marcotte, supporting the theory that he benefitted from playing on the smaller rink.
What to make of this overall? I don't think it makes Perreault any more valuable, but it does suggest that he was an excellent player who played in a situation that wasn't favourable for him. He may have been much more effective if he had born in Europe and played on the big ice. Even playing for a different NHL team with a full size rink could have made him more valuable.
However, there are a lot of players who played in situations that weren't as favourable for them as they could have been. For example, Alexander Yakushev may have been more effective on North American rinks. Whether you take this sort of thing into account or not depends on how you value players, I suppose.
I should note that rink size is not the only explanation for differing home/road splits. Coaching style and matchups can play a role also. I'm not sure how this would hurt Perreault playing at home, but it's something to keep in mind.
Canadiens1958
Registered User
Having Class
Very interesting and revealing post.
Totally classless. For the unaware seventieslord and GBC are both involved in the project. Yet before the end of the project seventieslord in typical fashion calls out GBC in another thread airing all his grievences with a cohort in public while exposing that he is unable to work with "old guard" hockey knowledge to round out the rather obvious gaps in his very limited knowledge.
Looking at the bolded and applying a bit of rational thought to the comments and the process.Seventieslord refers to the actions of of a rogue voter who ranked someone 20th. Now let's think this thru.
Seventieslord obviously does not agree with the rating of the player at the 20th position but is he willing to openly debate the subject. No he complains about the rating thereby creating the impression that the rating went against some preordained slotting system and skewed all the numbers that others were willing to rubber stamp. Imagine a Soviet style debate that is being portrayed as a democracy.
Unless seventieslord watched Don Cherry actually prepare his list or was privy to how the THN panel discussed the merits of players like Syl Apps and/or Henri Richard the his comments in this regard are simply malicious speculation. They are definitely not fact based nor are they in any way remotely accurate.
Now if the methodology of the other participants in the list project is anywhere similar to that of seventieslord who has shown some rather questionable skills, tactics, and attributes then the final result willy be subject to much speculation.
Very interesting and revealing post.
Totally classless. For the unaware seventieslord and GBC are both involved in the project. Yet before the end of the project seventieslord in typical fashion calls out GBC in another thread airing all his grievences with a cohort in public while exposing that he is unable to work with "old guard" hockey knowledge to round out the rather obvious gaps in his very limited knowledge.
Looking at the bolded and applying a bit of rational thought to the comments and the process.Seventieslord refers to the actions of of a rogue voter who ranked someone 20th. Now let's think this thru.
Seventieslord obviously does not agree with the rating of the player at the 20th position but is he willing to openly debate the subject. No he complains about the rating thereby creating the impression that the rating went against some preordained slotting system and skewed all the numbers that others were willing to rubber stamp. Imagine a Soviet style debate that is being portrayed as a democracy.
Unless seventieslord watched Don Cherry actually prepare his list or was privy to how the THN panel discussed the merits of players like Syl Apps and/or Henri Richard the his comments in this regard are simply malicious speculation. They are definitely not fact based nor are they in any way remotely accurate.
Now if the methodology of the other participants in the list project is anywhere similar to that of seventieslord who has shown some rather questionable skills, tactics, and attributes then the final result willy be subject to much speculation.
Canadiens1958
Registered User
Thank You
Thank you overpass. You definitely are a class act. We may not always agree but we share a common passion and a curiosity that leads us to look at situations from different perspectives.
Hopefully in time with a bit of work and a growing data bank a "Rink Size" metric may evolve.
Thank you overpass. You definitely are a class act. We may not always agree but we share a common passion and a curiosity that leads us to look at situations from different perspectives.
Hopefully in time with a bit of work and a growing data bank a "Rink Size" metric may evolve.
Ice time comes immediately to mind as a variable that could have hurt Perreault playing at home. The evidence for the rink size having at least some impact on Perreault is persuasive, but I think it is likely that Luce and Ramsay would have played more often at home because the team spent more time in the lead, and possibly also because the team was better able to match them against the opposing team's top lines. The Sabres had a .700 winning percentage at home and a .556 winning percentage on the road during this period.
To try to minimize possible ice time issue, I think it would make more sense to compare results for forwards that are more like Perreault and Dionne than Clarke or Trottier, i.e. not necessarily the coach's first choice when defending a third period lead. But overall, very interesting stuff.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Our clashing over the importance is a small part of our complicated relationship, and is none of your business.
OK, whatever that all meant.
From what I gather, you don't understand why it'e inherently wrong for a player with the support of one panel member to be ahead of a player with multiple members supporting him.
Does this sound right to you?
"a guy who one rogue voter placed 20th, would get 81 points, more than a guy who 20 voters placed 98th for three points each"
Who should finish ahead? Who would, based on their system?
There was no "discussion". Everyone submitted a list. They added up the results. The end.
...But especially because you are not a part of it.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
By the way, overpass did a very good job compiling all that data that C1958 refused to.
The numbers very strongly indicate that the size of the rink hindered not only Perreault, but also his linemates.
Why is this? And how does it affect the perception of Perreault? Should we all say "oh, poor guy, he had 5% less room on the ice, so let's assume he was better than his results indicate"? Or should we expect that to be a top-100 player, he should find a way to adjust?
Go back to that 1975-1980 period. What's Perreault thinking? "Jeez, these things I do on the road just don't seem to work as well at home. I think it's because of the smaller ice surface. But, I'll just keep doing what I do, and hope for the best." Shouldn't he have looked for alternate solutions? Was his game so one-dimensional that he couldn't play with 5% less ice? Why did the numbers Center Shift posted indicate that generally speaking, across the board, offensive numbers weren't affected?
A really interesting study would be to see if the other star forwards also saw their scoring decrease specifically in Buffalo compared to other road arenas. Unfortunately, over this 6-year period we'd be looking at 30-40 game sample sizes and dealing more with the effects of facing a great Buffalo team than playing in a smaller rink. So that probably would not be useful.
The numbers very strongly indicate that the size of the rink hindered not only Perreault, but also his linemates.
Why is this? And how does it affect the perception of Perreault? Should we all say "oh, poor guy, he had 5% less room on the ice, so let's assume he was better than his results indicate"? Or should we expect that to be a top-100 player, he should find a way to adjust?
Go back to that 1975-1980 period. What's Perreault thinking? "Jeez, these things I do on the road just don't seem to work as well at home. I think it's because of the smaller ice surface. But, I'll just keep doing what I do, and hope for the best." Shouldn't he have looked for alternate solutions? Was his game so one-dimensional that he couldn't play with 5% less ice? Why did the numbers Center Shift posted indicate that generally speaking, across the board, offensive numbers weren't affected?
A really interesting study would be to see if the other star forwards also saw their scoring decrease specifically in Buffalo compared to other road arenas. Unfortunately, over this 6-year period we'd be looking at 30-40 game sample sizes and dealing more with the effects of facing a great Buffalo team than playing in a smaller rink. So that probably would not be useful.
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
pappyline
Registered User
A voice of reason.
In fact I did rank Perrault 94 and had 32 centres rated ahead of him.
I went back to 70's post to compare. Of his "for sure better than Perrault" list of 34 centres, I am missing 4. Two I had ranked in the 100-120 range & 2 are not on my list at all. From the "debatables" list , there were 2 centres I had ranked higher than Perrault. Sittler & Hawerchuk did not make my list.
All in all, I have 39 centres on my list of 120 players. Do others have similiar numbers of centres in their top 120?
MXD
Partying Hard
- Oct 27, 2005
- 52,186
- 18,157
Reggie Leach, Dennis Maruk, Charlie Simmer, Rick Vaive, Pierre Larouche, Mickey Redmond, Blaine Stoughton, Stéphane Richer (amongst others... which are all IMO way superior to Gare) also had a 2 or more seasons over 50 goals.
Of this group, I'm tempted to rank Vaive, Redmond and Stoughton below Gare.
Richer and Larouche are two special cases.
MXD
Partying Hard
- Oct 27, 2005
- 52,186
- 18,157
Factoring in rovers, I ranked him 36th amongst 37 centers.
Taking out Red Kelly, that gives me 35th out of 36.
The reminder of the guys played either rover or center for the majority of their careers.
However, of that group, one guy played the majority of his career at C, but really shouldn't be counted as a C, cause that's not where he had his best years.
Counting Malone as a C. Not a LW.
Counting every other "split" guy as a C.
Not counting Firsov as a C, cause if he did play C, it was really not his primary position.
So he's either 36th out of 37, or 34th out of 35th.
34th out of the 35th would probably be the most widely accepted definition.
It's not impossible that I missed on somebody.
